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?”
I’ve always thought the life and person things were like angels dancing on the head of a pin.
To me, it’s – nobody gets a right to live in my womb because it’s my womb. I have no duty to serve as a walking incubator just because I can do so. And it’s even more urgent because I likely wouldn’t survive pregnancy. But even if I could. Nobody has a right to live inside of me.
And I get in trouble all the time for using the wrong words. Like if I say baby instead of fetus somehow I must be a pro-lifer in disguise. Especially if I’m arguing about eugenic or selective abortion of disabled people. Which should still be legal, but doesn’t make it a good thing any more than selective abortion of girls is a good thing. But somehow it’s okay to talk about it in terms of sexism (and people will grasp you’re not being pro-life) but not ableism.
And sometimes I just scratch my head.
Like people say a fetus isn’t human.
What is it, a chicken?
Like, it’s a tiny undeveloped human, but as far as I know species is determined somewhere around or before conception depending on how you count it…
And I think a lot of those arguments – I understand the personhood one has legal consequencs but I’m talking about in the eyes of ordinary people discussing it – are really about making people more comfortable with abortion by distancing humanity, individuality, etc. from the fetus.
(Generally when someone has a miscarriage, people say “She lost the baby,” not “She lost a bundle of cells.”)
I think it’s far more honest to say. This is a living human. Abortion kills this living human. But this living human doesn’t have a right to space inside another living human. So that human being’s preferences about this living arrangement are more important.
I’ve been saying this for years, people don’t like it. But I think it’s a firmer foundation to stand on as well as more accurate to why it’s important. And it doesn’t require doing mental gymnastics and getting all your words right.
So that’s why I’m pro-choice: Because I have the absolute right to control what and who goes on inside my body. And that shouldn’t frigging be controversial.