Unthinking Majority wrote:If a woman has right to body autonomy, and a fetus has a right to life, we have a situation where we have conflicting rights and only one party can have their rights upheld and the other party will have their rights violated for the sake of the other's rights. So whose rights supersede the other, and why?
The pregnant person’s right to body autonomy trumps the unborn child’s right to life.
This is because we have decided that body autonomy trumps the right to life in every other situation where we are forced to balance these two rights.
So you believe in the case of Siamese twins where twin #1 is dependent on twin #2's organs to live that it's ok for twin #2 to sever his body via medical procedure from the other twin thus killing twin #1?
Why do doctors virtually never agree to do this in these cases because they don't want to kill the dependent twin, but yet perform abortions?
Because conjoined twins do not have one person using the body of another. Instead, they share certain body parts. The two situations are not comparable.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...