Everyone should have a right to control what uses their body, why it
uses their body, how long it uses their body, as well as determine how
much medical risk and harm they are willing to take as a result of that
usage. A woman should not be treated differently just because the one
doing the using is less than 0 minutes born. Why a woman wants to end a
pregnancy, ie. end the usage of her body, should always be irrelevant,
just like it is irrelevant in every other similar legal scenario.
There
is a difference between the kind of dependence the fetus has on the
mother (using her body, her organs, her life basically) , and the kind
of social dependence a born infant has, that any other individual could
feasibly care for it. At that point, the mother could wash her hands and
put it up for adoption and be done with it if she should so choose.
Once born, it's no longer an issue. The infant is socially dependent,
not biologically dependent upon the mother alone. She can relinquish her
responsibilites and rights (provided she fulfills her social-contract
derived duty to ensure it can be cared for by another) and move on. So
long as the actions you take are to defend your body, your life, your
autonomy, or your mind, it is not an immoral action. A man raping a
woman is immoral; he is taking away her right to choose for herself what
to do with her body. Forcing a woman to gestate is accomplishing that
same thing..you are taking away her right to choose for herself what to
do with her body.
The
theory of natural rights that was utilized by our forefathers requires that we own our bodies. It is because
we own our bodies, that we have these rights. Once you take away that
ownership of your own body, then the basis of natural rights disappears.
A fetus cannot have any body of its own. It can "claim" the body at
birth, once it becomes an independent biological entity, using its own
whole metabolism and its own homeostasis to regulate its own body. Then,
it can claim natural rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment