So, most arguments and indeed the very term “pro-choice” are predicated on the woman’s right to choose with regards to her own body. It is often argued that her body is being inhabited.
Yet, many say “yes, to a point.” Why? Why does she have the choice and then lose it, despite her body still being inhabited.
This is not a legal question. We all know what the law says. This is a moral question. Pro-choice or not?
Yes, a woman has the right to choose as long as her body is inhabited.
If she has a right to choose because her body is inhabited in the 1st Trimester, I say she has a right to choose until her body is no longer inhabited.
Advancements in artificial womb technology will soon make this issue moot. If a woman doesn’t want a fetus occupying her womb we’ll just move the fetus someplace else. It’ll be a win for everyone involved.
Except for the people who complain all the time about paying for other people’s thing through their taxes.
The unborn are a great group to advocate for because they make no demands on the people advocating for them.
Once they move out of the unborn to born category then they make actual and real demands and a subset of people do not want to contribute to paying for those demands.
An artificial womb costs money. A real womb doesn’t… so that in itself will not solve the issue.
Irrelevant to this poll. I’m not arguing she doesn’t have the right in the 1st trimester. I’m arguing if she has the right because she is being inhabited, she has the right all the way to the point she is no longer inhabited.
