I wish i could find this one article written in I believe the 90’s that went under the radar on abortion. The author said that the “life” arguments are basically useless on either side and what actually matters is that humans shouldn’t have a right to use other human bodies as a resource without consent no matter how alive or sentient they are, even if they’re on the brink of death you have the right to deny them access to you. It probably was too radical for pro-choice activists back in those days but like…that’s the most robust arguement lol so we need 2 being that back and dead the pontifications and splitting hairs about “life” in my honest onion
I found it. Actually, it was written in the 70’s. She was way ahead of the curve.
The article is ‘A Defense of Abortion’ by Judith Jarvis Thomson. Essential reading!
If you cannot demand that a person donate their organs to keep you alive, you have no right to legislate that an embryo gets to use a woman’s body to keep itself alive without the woman’s consent.
Thought you might like this- similar to stuff I’ve seen you say
Just explained this to my mom yesterday
Maybe I’m weird, but this is SO much more convincing to me than “a fetus is not a person.” Bitch I have no fucking clue what a person is.
Especially: no idea how to define one in ways that exclude fetuses without also excluding severely disabled born humans.
But “whatever persons are, my uterus is mine and I get to be a dick about it?”