"NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life [sic], or the life of another person… Denying women the right to abortion means they have less bodily autonomy than a corpse"

The argument above constitutes the fallacy of false equivalency. The first sentence presents the unstated assumption of pregnancy threatening the life of a woman inherently. Such a proposition provides an excuse for an abortion since any danger remains unknown until further development of the fetus. The first sentence expresses a statement analogous to, "You cannot force me to give birth to save the life of the baby because it will kill me." The first sentence equates birth to death.

The second sentence perpetuates the fallacy further. Does the fetus have the unalienable human right to life? If no, the mother practices hypocrisy by denying and disparaging the same right of the fetus for expedience. If yes, she can proceed with the birth and give the baby up for adoption. The second sentence states essentially, "A living fetus has equal 'bodily autonomy' to a corpse because of the right to abortion." However, the fetus possesses the same unalienable human right to life as the mother. The second sentence equates the right to life of a fetus with a corpse whose same right ends at death.

You can save the life of a fetus in the womb without compromising the safety of the mother. In contrast, you cannot save the life of a human who dies except to salvage organs with consent prior to death. The donations of blood and marrow originates out of the living, whereas organs have a timeframe for usage if donated after death. The conception of a living human being in the womb has no equivalence to a corpse and the action of donating blood or transplanting marrow, organs, et cetera.

"NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life [sic], or the life of another person… Denying women the right to abortion means they have less bodily autonomy than a corpse"

The argument above constitutes the fallacy of false equivalency. The first sentence presents the unstated assumption of pregnancy threatening the life of a woman inherently. Such a proposition provides an excuse for an abortion since any danger remains unknown until further development of the fetus. The first sentence expresses a statement analogous to, "You cannot force me to give birth to save the life of the baby because it will kill me." The first sentence equates birth to death.

The second sentence perpetuates the fallacy further. Does the fetus have the unalienable human right to life? If no, the mother practices hypocrisy by denying and disparaging the same right of the fetus for expedience. If yes, she can proceed with the birth and give the baby up for adoption. The second sentence states essentially, "A living fetus has equal 'bodily autonomy' to a corpse because of the right to abortion." However, the fetus possesses the same unalienable human right to life as the mother. The second sentence equates the right to life of a fetus to a corpse whose same right ends with death.

You can save the life of a fetus in the womb without compromising the safety of the mother. In contrast, you cannot save the life of a human who dies except to salvage organs with consent prior to death. The donations of blood and marrow originates out of the living, whereas organs have a timeframe for usage if donated after death. The conception of a living human being in the womb has no equivalence to a corpse and the action of donating blood or transplanting marrow, organs, et cetera.

"NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life [sic], or the life of another person… Denying women the right to abortion means they have less bodily autonomy than a corpse"

• The argument above constitutes the fallacy of false equivalency. The first sentence presents the unstated assumption of pregnancy threatening the life of a woman inherently. Such a proposition provides an excuse for an abortion since any danger remains unknown until further development of the fetus. The first sentence expresses a statement analogous to, "You cannot force me to give birth to save the life of the baby because it will kill me." The first sentence equates birth to death.

The second sentence perpetuates the fallacy further. Does the fetus have the unalienable human right to life? If no, the mother practices hypocrisy by denying and disparaging the same right of the fetus for expedience. If yes, she can proceed with the birth and give the baby up for adoption. The second sentence states essentially, "A living fetus has equal 'bodily autonomy' to a corpse because of the right to abortion." However, the fetus possesses the same unalienable human right to life as the mother. The second sentence equates the right to life of a fetus to a corpse whose same right ends with death.

You can save the life of a fetus in the womb without compromising the safety of the mother. In contrast, you cannot save the life of a human who dies except to salvage organs with consent prior to death. The donations of blood and marrow originates out of the living, whereas organs have a timeframe for usage if donated after death. The conception of a living human being in the womb has no equivalence to a corpse and the action of donating blood or transplanting marrow, organs, et cetera.

"NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life [sic], or the life of another person… Denying women the right to abortion means they have less bodily autonomy than a corpse"

• The argument above constitutes the fallacy of false equivalency. The first sentence presents the unstated assumption of pregnancy threatening the life of a woman inherently. Such a proposition provides an excuse for an abortion since any danger remains unknown until further development of the fetus. The first sentence expresses a statement analogous to, "You cannot force me to give birth to save the life of the baby because it will kill me." The first sentence equates birth to death.

The second sentence perpetuates the fallacy further. Does the fetus have the unalienable human right to life? If no, the mother practices hypocrisy by denying and disparaging the same right of the fetus for expedience. If yes, she can proceed with the birth and give the baby up for adoption. The second sentence states essentially, "A living fetus has equal 'bodily autonomy' to a corpse because of the right to abortion." The fetus has the same unalienable human right to life as the mother. The second sentence equates the right to life of a fetus to a corpse whose same right ends with death.

You can save the life of a fetus in the womb without compromising the safety of the mother. In contrast, you cannot save the life of a human who dies except to salvage organs with consent prior to death. The donations of blood and marrow originates out of the living, whereas organs have a timeframe for usage if donated after death. The conception of a living human being in the womb has no equivalence to a corpse and the action of donating blood or transplanting marrow, organs, et cetera.