XogGyux wrote:It is not just that. You are not only assuming that the fetus is a person, you are using this as your prime justification why abortion should not be allowed because it would be equivalent to murder. Then you seem to have a rather relaxed view about murdering the fetus when it comes to certain eventualities such as rape, incest, increased risk of pregnancy, fetal abnormalities, something else.
The idea that you would allow the abortion and "blame it on the rapist" is analogous as a store owner, not being happy with the money he got from the insurance company for a broken door after a robbery, setting the whole store on fire and claiming "it is ok, I only burned it because I got robbed and the insurance did not pay me enough, blame it on the robber, just add arseny to HIS charges and punish HIM for that.
How is this different from a victim of a rape (store owner) commiting a crime (abortion), when she was not happy with the pregnancy (not being happy with what the insurance covered) and then having the rapist take the blame for the crime (abortion)?
Your views are so full of inconsistencies and arbitrary post-hoc rationalizations because you want to rationalize the views you ALREADY HOLD. Rather than allowing the arguments present themselves and shape your ideals.
No, I'm drawing a clear distinction between on-demand abortion and abortions done for other reasons. Clearly, a woman who's have an abortion after being raped is not having one because she wants. Neither is a woman who's having an abortion to save herself from death or serious injury, nor one aborting because the fetus will be born with deformities incompatible with life. Plenty of people who believe on-demand abortion is unethical, even murder, would agree with this idea.
Also, since I don't know if the fetus is a person, I don't know if on-demand abortion is murder. What I don't understand though is why would you be okay with it if you believed a fetus is a person. Bodily autonomy doesn't cut it, just as it wouldn't cut it in the terrorist attack scenario, just as it doesn't cut it for people who don't want to vaccinate, just as it doesn't cut it for people who smoke inside buildings (even if they are open to the public) and in other cases too.
As for your insurance analogy, you can just get insurance for greater amounts, so you did have an option in case something like this fire happened, but a woman can't get insurance coverage against rape so she actually did not have one either. It's a bad analogy.