But you are still completely rejecting the idea that the fetus has any right to exist.
There’s plenty of existing philosophical arguments over this that you can find online, but the idea that a fetus has a right to exist is not mutually exclusive with the idea that a woman has the right to bodily autonomy.
A fetus can have the right to exist, and a woman can have the right to refuse to provide nutrients for an unwanted fetus. If the latter precludes the former, the former precludes the latter—leading to an impasse. As a compromise, most of society has deemed “fetuses” rights do not supersede that of their mothers’ until a certain point where they gain personhood, such as when they have a heartbeat (which is the medical requirement for being alive).
You’re welcome to believe that the rights of a fetus unconditionally supersede that of the mother, but you would need to make a very convincing argument to not come across as being unsupportive of women’s rights.
I would be absolutely fine with allowing for abortion up to the point of hearing a heartbeat if that’s the scientific consensus for the definition of life.
Unfortunately, heartbeat bills have been demonized to no end because (again) “it’s my way or fuck you!!”
I am not unsupportive of women’s rights, I am willing to be supportive of the rights of those who may not be able to speak for themselves.
Heartbeat bills don’t actually cover a heartbeat. They cover electrical signals that are not a heartbeat, but they can be detected much earlier.
An actual heart beat can be detected around 17 to 20 weeks. Heart beat bills kick in at 6 weeks when there is no heart yet. It’s not even a fetus until 8 weeks. You have to deny all the science to pass these laws.
There’s plenty of existing philosophical arguments over this that you can find online, but the idea that a fetus has a right to exist is not mutually exclusive with the idea that a woman has the right to bodily autonomy.
A fetus can have the right to exist, and a woman can have the right to refuse to provide nutrients for an unwanted fetus. If the latter precludes the former, the former precludes the latter—leading to an impasse. As a compromise, most of society has deemed “fetuses” rights do not supersede that of their mothers’ until a certain point where they gain personhood, such as when they have a heartbeat (which is the medical requirement for being alive).
You’re welcome to believe that the rights of a fetus unconditionally supersede that of the mother, but you would need to make a very convincing argument to not come across as being unsupportive of women’s rights.
I would be absolutely fine with allowing for abortion up to the point of hearing a heartbeat if that’s the scientific consensus for the definition of life.
Unfortunately, heartbeat bills have been demonized to no end because (again) “it’s my way or fuck you!!”
I am not unsupportive of women’s rights, I am willing to be supportive of the rights of those who may not be able to speak for themselves.
Heartbeat bills don’t actually cover a heartbeat. They cover electrical signals that are not a heartbeat, but they can be detected much earlier.
An actual heart beat can be detected around 17 to 20 weeks. Heart beat bills kick in at 6 weeks when there is no heart yet. It’s not even a fetus until 8 weeks. You have to deny all the science to pass these laws.
Dude… Hate to break it to you but you are unsupportive of women’s rights.