@gate_captain Not at all. It simply means I believe it’s the state’s role to protect civil rights, not to enforce morality in every social domain. And that I believe the right to bodily autonomy supersedes any claims a fetus might have on a person for life-giving support
@gate_captain Of course they might. But it just is a fact that miscarriages have led to medical emergencies and even death because of these bills, and there are any number of women who’ve died bc they couldn’t get timely care bc of docs wanting to avoid legal risk
@gate_captain reasoning ability, the ability to have preferences etc. Now, if your view stems from Christianity - fair enough. But from a rationalist PoV, a zygote or embryo lacks everything that’s important about personhood except genetic material & potential for personhood. That’s not
@gate_captain regularly delayed well past the safe point to accord with heartbeat bills.
There are ofc other good reasons oppose abortion bans beyond medical emergencies. I also don’t want the state dictating to anyone that they’re required to sacrifice their bodily autonomy & donate use of
@MadderomMichael Putting aside the fact that “baby” is not a formal medical term, but a lay term—and is almost always defined as a post-birth newborn/infant—the point is that using the word baby could just as easily be a rhetorical, manipulative of the sort OP is describing
@gate_captain Not a moral relativist. I certainly don’t believe abortion is generally moral, and I would never have one, but I also don’t trust the state to dictate when someone should have to risk their life in the case of a high-risk pregnancy