# Suppose a fetus is indeed a human being. Why wouldn't abortion still remain legal? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 21, 2016, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464 "2016-07-21T03:00:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/61 "2016-07-21T19:27:24Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > I’ve said elsewhere that the key question to the entire debate is whether the fetus is human enough for rights. Mostly, I think that is true of other people. Personally, I also have another factor I take into account, and that is of self-preservation. > > The reason why murder, assault, rape, discrimination, etc. is illegal is partly because we want to protect ourselves from that in case the political winds ever change to make us vulnerable. Well, none of us, ever, in the past, present, or future, will be capable of crawling back inside our mothers to be reborn. That won’t happen. So if we abort fetuses, its not like it’ll ever happen to us, and it’ll never get to the point where a fetus survives, remembers, and takes revenge on the rest of humanity, so there’s literally no point in protecting it. Its meaningless. > > Another factor I won’t go into is that I don’t think a fetus suffers, or it does so so briefly that its irrelevant. I’m completely unmoved by pictures of disgusting fetal parts. That’s designed to provoke an emotional reaction, I don’t think the fetus’s brain or nerves are developed enough to feel anything, so killing them is fine No one who voted to end slavery were in any danger of being enslaved, yet they voted against it. Nobody who voted to give women the vote were women. I find the argument that it’s ok to kill fetuses because you’re in no danger of being aborted to be lacking in both empathy and humanity. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/62 "2016-07-21T19:54:03Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > Sex is actaully a form of breeding Are there other forms? > [@](#): > > with its primary purpose to make babies. In my experience, most of the time that’s not the purpose. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/63 "2016-07-21T19:58:33Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > No one who voted to end slavery were in any danger of being enslaved, yet they voted against it. Nobody who voted to give women the vote were women. > I find the argument that it’s ok to kill fetuses because you’re in no danger of being aborted to be lacking in both empathy and humanity. No, you’re missing the point between what’s plausible with what’s impossible. It is impossible for a birthed human to turn himself back into a fetus. It is plausible that someone free could be enslaved, or a man to be seen as a woman or vice versa and treated that way. One is self-preservation, one is not And to be fair, in such a charged, emotional issue, one should be lacking in empathy when deciding what is logically the best course of action. I don’t want emotions cluttering up my reasoning. This is why anti-abortion people hold up pictures of dead fetuses on it. Who cares? Why should that make one bit of difference? But it does, and its wrong ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/64 "2016-07-21T20:02:46Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > It is impossible for a birthed human to turn himself back into a fetus. It is plausible that someone free could be enslaved, or a man to be seen as a woman or vice versa and treated that way. One is self-preservation, one is not It is impossible for a non-Down Syndrome person to acquire Down Syndrome. Should we disregard Down Syndrome persons’ rights? We’re in no danger of becoming like them. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/65 "2016-07-21T20:08:48Z")
I’m surprised by these results. I’m pro-choice, but I’ve always thought it seemed a bit “off” to frame abortion as primarily a women’s rights issue. I mean, it _is_, but only in the sense that the oppression of the Kim regime is an Asians’ rights issue — it’s inherent to that group by circumstance rather than intent. Suffrage was a women’s rights issue; women shouldn’t be denied the right to vote because they’re women. Income inequality is a women’s rights issue; women shouldn’t receive unequal pay for equal work because they’re women. But the reason there’s nothing wrong with abortion is that fetuses aren’t people — they’re not sentient, they’re not sapient, and they don’t warrant the status and protections of a human life. It isn’t because women have the right to kill people by virtue of being women. (I know that’s not an argument that anyone is making, and I’m aware that there are many “right to life”-ers who are more interested in oppressing women than saving fetuses. I point it out only because people being disingenuous assholes about an issue doesn’t change the crux of the actual issue, and for abortion to truly center around _women’s_ rights and not _fetus’_ rights, that argument is what you’d need to believe.) If fetuses were found to be sentient, then abortion would be murder by definition, with the only allowable exceptions being in cases of reasonably foreseeable threats to the mother’s life (“self-defense”, if you will). I know it’s just an SDMB straw poll, but if 88% of pro-choice voters would endorse legalizing the homicide of thousands of innocent human beings, it would lend the boilerplate pro-life rhetoric a validity I never in a million years would’ve thought it deserved. If there were only one law in the world, and we all took a vote, I’m pretty sure “you can’t kill people who didn’t do anything wrong” would be it. I’m hoping that the prospect of fetal personhood is just so ridiculous, in a “what if apples could feel pain” kind of way, that many posters didn’t give serious credence to the implications. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/66 "2016-07-21T20:18:14Z")
> [@Roland\_Orzabal](#): > > I’m surprised by these results. I’m pro-choice, but I’ve always thought it seemed a bit “off” to frame abortion as primarily a women’s rights issue. I mean, it _is_, but only in the sense that the oppression of the Kim regime is an Asians’ rights issue — it’s inherent to that group by circumstance rather than intent. > > Suffrage was a women’s rights issue; women shouldn’t be denied the right to vote because they’re women. Income inequality is a women’s rights issue; women shouldn’t receive unequal pay for equal work because they’re women. But the reason there’s nothing wrong with abortion is that fetuses aren’t people — they’re not sentient, they’re not sapient, and they don’t warrant the status and protections of a human life. It isn’t because women have the right to kill people by virtue of being women. (I know that’s not an argument that anyone is making, and I’m aware that there are many “right to life”-ers who are more interested in oppressing women than saving fetuses. I point it out only because people being disingenuous assholes about an issue doesn’t change the crux of the actual issue, and for abortion to truly center around _women’s_ rights and not _fetus’_ rights, that argument is what you’d need to believe.) > > If fetuses were found to be sentient, then abortion would be murder by definition, with the only allowable exceptions being in cases of reasonably foreseeable threats to the mother’s life (“self-defense”, if you will). I know it’s just an SDMB straw poll, but if 88% of pro-choice voters would endorse legalizing the homicide of thousands of innocent human beings, it would lend the boilerplate pro-life rhetoric a validity I never in a million years would’ve thought it deserved. > > If there were only one law in the world, and we all took a vote, I’m pretty sure “you can’t kill people who didn’t do anything wrong” would be it. I’m hoping that the prospect of fetal personhood is just so ridiculous, in a “what if apples could feel pain” kind of way, that many posters didn’t give serious credence to the implications. If fetuses were somehow proven to be persons, then I might feel differently about the concept of abortion – it might bother me more, and trouble me. _But I still would trust that women know better what to do about their own bodies than government_. It wouldn’t change my position that it’s abominable to force a woman to bear a child (or force a woman to end her pregnancy) under any circumstances whatsoever, and that women must be allowed to have full and complete control of their bodies, including when pregnant, under any and all circumstances. It might bother me sometimes, but bothering me isn’t enough to take away this right from women, and force them to bear children against their will. That some women may make a “wrong” choice doesn’t mean that we should take away the right to choose for all women (or any women). ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/67 "2016-07-21T20:27:14Z")
> [@Roland\_Orzabal](#): > > If fetuses were found to be sentient, then abortion would be murder by definition, with the only allowable exceptions being in cases of reasonably foreseeable threats to the mother’s life (“self-defense”, if you will). I know it’s just an SDMB straw poll, but if 88% of pro-choice voters would endorse legalizing the homicide of thousands of innocent human beings, it would lend the boilerplate pro-life rhetoric a validity I never in a million years would’ve thought it deserved. > > If there were only one law in the world, and we all took a vote, I’m pretty sure “you can’t kill people who didn’t do anything wrong” would be it. I’m hoping that the prospect of fetal personhood is just so ridiculous, in a “what if apples could feel pain” kind of way, that many posters didn’t give serious credence to the implications. It’s a woman’s issue because you are hand-waving away the pregnancy aspect as trivial or academic and immaterial to the argument. We could save a lot of lives if we forced dead bodies to give up their organs–but even _dead bodies_ have the right to bodily autonomy. We could save a lot of lives if we made people donate bone marrow–a totally low risk procedure. But that’s unthinkably invasive. Pregnancy is a thousand times more invasive than any of those. I thought having a child would make me lean more pro-life, but it made me more pro-choice instead. Pregnancy is a hell of a thing–even when it’s routine. It literally takes over your body. For a lot of us, it demands surgery at the end. If I agree to sleep with a guy, it doesn’t mean he gets to fuck me as much as he wants for the next 40 weeks. Even if it would _save his life_, I don’t think you’d back legislation _requiring_ me to fuck him, even if you thought it was the ethical thing to do. You wouldn’t tell me I’m obligated to donate blood, even. Telling me I have to let an embryo live in me seems like exactly the same thing to me. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/68 "2016-07-21T20:39:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If fetuses were somehow proven to be persons, then I might feel differently about the concept of abortion – it might bother me more, and trouble me. _But I still would trust that women know better what to do about their own bodies than government_. It wouldn’t change my position that it’s abominable to force a woman to bear a child (or force a woman to end her pregnancy) under any circumstances whatsoever, and that women must be allowed to have full and complete control of their bodies, including when pregnant, under any and all circumstances. I’m a civil libertarian who votes primarily on social issues. I don’t trust the government with my autonomy any further than I can throw the Capitol building. I agree 100% that women should have total control of their bodies, and in the real world, where a fetus is a part of a woman’s body, I strongly advocate for their right to do just that by getting an abortion if they so choose. Per this hypothetical, though, the fetus is its own person — its body is its own, not a part of the woman. The two are inextricably linked in a biological relationship, yes, but granting a fetus personhood gives it its the same right of bodily autonomy that the woman has, for the same reason that she has it. (That’s ridiculous, of course, but that’s because so is the premise from which it’s derived.) > [@MandaJo](#): > > If I agree to sleep with a guy, it doesn’t mean he gets to fuck me as much as he wants for the next 40 weeks. Even if it would _save his life_, I don’t think you’d back legislation _requiring_ me to fuck him, even if you thought it was the ethical thing to do. You wouldn’t tell me I’m obligated to donate blood, even. Telling me I have to let an embryo live in me seems like exactly the same thing to me. Choosing not to save a person’s life is wholly different from actively killing somebody, which the hypothetical is stipulating that you’d be doing. If failure to save a life you otherwise could’ve is murder, most of the first world consists of genocidal maniacs. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/69 "2016-07-21T20:40:24Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Because of compromise. The entire discussion about identifying an arbitrary time during gestation before which abortions are ok and after which they are a no-no is a product of trying to find common ground between those who think that abortions are fine and those who think that they are murder. Interesting. What’s the consensus within the pro-choice camp about the 3rd-trimester abortion ban? Is it, “We’ prefer it be legal, but you have to compromise sometimes?” ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/70 "2016-07-21T20:49:31Z")
> [@Roland\_Orzabal](#): > > But the reason there’s nothing wrong with abortion is that fetuses aren’t people — they’re not sentient, they’re not sapient, and they don’t warrant the status and protections of a human life. I disagree. > [@](#): > > If fetuses were found to be sentient, then abortion would be murder by definition, with the only allowable exceptions being in cases of reasonably foreseeable threats to the mother’s life (“self-defense”, if you will). I know it’s just an SDMB straw poll, but if 88% of pro-choice voters would endorse legalizing the homicide of thousands of innocent human beings, it would lend the boilerplate pro-life rhetoric a validity I never in a million years would’ve thought it deserved. The problem with “pro-life rhetoric” is that it is counter to how people live in the real world. The idea that “life is precious” makes a pretty bumper-sticker, but we all commit acts, buy products and support policies that lead directly to the deaths of other humans. Even if you want to define a fetus as a full-fledged human . . . so what? I’m completely fine saying “gestating humans get a tough break maybe, but I’m not going to keep their mothers from killing them.” It’s a cruel, cruel world. Until we start running out of people, I’m not going to worry about it. Also, as an aside, murder is not a crime because human life is ‘sacred’ (whatever that means exactly) . . . murder is a crime because you can’t maintain order in a society where anyone can just murder anyone. The best laws remain in place because they have real, practical benefits, not because they are attached to loosey-goosey moral concepts. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/71 "2016-07-21T20:55:15Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > . . . (you can have him adopted, but not if the other parent opposes it) . . . At the same time, the law won’t compel me to be a “parent” to my unwanted child. Yes, if the other physiological parent wants to be a caregiver and raise the sprat, he/she gets to. I might be compelled to pay bunches of money for child support. But the law does not compel me to change diapers, sing lullabyes, teach them their ABCs, remember their birthdays, and buy them their first car. I can walk away from a child I don’t want. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/72 "2016-07-21T20:58:56Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Interesting. What’s the consensus within the pro-choice camp about the 3rd-trimester abortion ban? Is it, “We’ prefer it be legal, but you have to compromise sometimes?” I mean, I don’t know, because we don’t have meetings (or at least not ones that I’m getting invited to). But my hunch is that if not for an explicit anti-abortion viewpoint, pro-choice people wouldn’t have drawn a date line beyond which abortion is illegal. What would have motivated that discussion? Also, the 3rd trimester ban opens up this whole jumbled question of whether a fetus’ ‘humanness’/sentience matters. And I don’t think, deep down, that pro-choice people do. If you could show that a fetus was a sentient-ish being at 4 weeks, would pro-choice folks say, “oh, ok then, only abortions before 4 weeks?” No. A 3rd-trimester ban is acceptable to pro-choice people because it’s far enough along that most women who want an abortion will be able to get one by that point. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/73 "2016-07-21T20:59:32Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Also, as an aside, murder is not a crime because human life is ‘sacred’ (whatever that means exactly) . . . murder is a crime because you can’t maintain order in a society where anyone can just murder anyone. The best laws remain in place because they have real, practical benefits, not because they are attached to loosey-goosey moral concepts. I don’t know that that’s an aside; I think it’s pretty close to the core of the issue. I disagree rather strongly — most notably with the notion that morality is necessarily “loosey-goosey” — but I think a debate on pragmatism vs. ideology is outside the scope of the thread, so I’ll keep my response short so as not to hijack. I believe that my personal right to not to be murdered is contingent upon extending that same right to other sentient beings (and that that cuts both ways, which is why I’m fine with [e.g.] self-defense). I agree that under your belief system, your conclusion makes perfect sense. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/74 "2016-07-21T21:02:12Z")
> [@Roland\_Orzabal](#): > > I’m a civil libertarian who votes primarily on social issues. I don’t trust the government with my autonomy any further than I can throw the Capitol building. I agree 100% that women should have total control of their bodies, and in the real world, where a fetus is a part of a woman’s body, I strongly advocate for their right to do just that by getting an abortion if they so choose. Per this hypothetical, though, the fetus is its own person — its body is its own, not a part of the woman. The two are inextricably linked in a biological relationship, yes, but granting a fetus personhood gives it its the same right of bodily autonomy that the woman has, for the same reason that she has it. (That’s ridiculous, of course, but that’s because so is the premise from which it’s derived.) > > Choosing not to save a person’s life is wholly different from actively killing somebody, which the hypothetical is stipulating that you’d be doing. If failure to save a life you otherwise could’ve is murder, most of the first world consists of genocidal maniacs. I don’t have the right to form a parasitic relationship on some other random oerson. Should they establish such a thing, would you defend my right to sever it? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/75 "2016-07-21T21:05:14Z")
Obviously life begins at conception. Just as obviously (to me and virtually all pro-abortion rights folk) an embryo and fetus are not human beings. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/76 "2016-07-21T21:05:17Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > I don’t have the right to form a parasitic relationship on some other random oerson. Should they establish such a thing, would you defend my right to sever it? That’s a really good example, thanks! In that scenario, I would absolutely defend your right to do that. Now, suppose the two of you just woke up one day, and some mad scientist and/or deity had established such a relationship between you, and the other person had no input on the matter. Would you defend your right to kill the other person? ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/77 "2016-07-21T21:12:18Z")
> [@Roland\_Orzabal](#): > > If fetuses were found to be sentient, then abortion would be murder by definition, How in the world? refusing someone else the use of your body is not murder even if it directly leads to their death. If you want to compare it to something then refusing women abortions is basically slavery. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/78 "2016-07-21T21:17:47Z")
> [@Roland\_Orzabal](#): > > That’s a really good example, thanks! In that scenario, I would absolutely defend your right to do that. > > Now, suppose the two of you just woke up one day, and some mad scientist and/or deity had established such a relationship between you, and the other person had no input on the matter. Would you defend your right to kill the other person? Absolutely 100% yes. I still get to decide what happens with my body. No one has the right to my bodily functions and parts but me, under any circumstances whatsoever. No matter what circumstance you can think up. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/79 "2016-07-21T21:18:31Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > How in the world? refusing someone else the use of your body is not murder even if it directly leads to their death. If you want to compare it to something then refusing women abortions is basically slavery. Based on this and **Manda JO** ’s response, I think I might be interpreting the hypo differently from the majority. If the idea is that the fetus is a person because it possesses some kind of soul, and that person/soul decided to inhabit that particular fetus, then this (and **MJ** ’s hypothetical) apply, and I’ve got no problem with abortion. If it’s more akin to my last post, and you’ve just got two sentient people fused together all of a sudden, then no, I don’t think one has the right to kill the other just because she’s in a better position to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464/80 "2016-07-21T21:20:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Absolutely 100% yes. I still get to decide what happens with my body. > > No one has the right to my bodily functions and parts but me, under any circumstances whatsoever. No matter what circumstance you can think up. …and the other person doesn’t have that right (presuming they’d rather you didn’t kill them) because? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-a-fetus-is-indeed-a-human-being-why-wouldnt-abortion-still-remain-legal/760464.md?page=5)