…if they support “bodily autonomy” and “liberty” for the infant then wouldn’t that also guarantee such freedoms for everybody? Seems like a win-more win sitch.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (18)
sorted by:
I would like it better if the Supreme Court ruling determined when a person develops "rights", including the right to life.
Usually, the earliest a baby can survive is about 22 weeks gestation. The age of viability is 24 weeks... so isn't that when they should have full rights as an American citizen?
“A 16-month-old Alabama boy who weighed less than a pound when he was born at 21 weeks and one day has set a world record — being named the most premature infant to survive, according to Guinness World Records.”
https://nypost.com/2021/11/11/infant-breaks-world-record-as-most-premature-baby-to-survive/
Then move the line back to that. But still. There needs to be a line. And I can't get behind conception as that line.
Viability is not a defining characteristic of personhood. Someone on dialisis or in the ICU on lifesupport is not "viable" on their own (they rely on someone else or something to be able to live) yet we all agree they are still a person while in this dependent and often helpless state. A child in the womb is fully a person at 22 weeks or 24 weeks or any other time it depends on mother.
According to Roe, that's exactly when the right to the mother's bodily autonomy gets overridden by the child's right to life.
I know it's not popular here but I have to agree.