Trinopus, the personhood of the fetus is assumed true for this hypothetical, and underlies my entire thought process. So, even if the person didn’t choose pregnancy as the outcome, they chose to commit acts that frequently result in pregnancies. We’re debating whether they can then choose to engineer the death of a ‘person’ who is not them, and did not act to create the scenario, in order to avoid a consequence of the choices they made.
Why?
Do you believe that she has the right to kill an infant just after birth? If not, the location and dependency do matter to you.
But the personhood of an assailant does not deny me the right to self-defense.
If you’re saying, “Society has decided, by law, that the fetus is a person,” then they will still need to come to grips with the next question, of self-defense and bodily sovereignty. Personhood, by itself, doesn’t answer the question in the OP.
It is possible that society agrees that the fetus is a person…but still permits abortion. It’s also possible that society passes mandatory fetal sustenance laws, prohibiting abortion.
Ultimately, it’s a little like asking why we drive on the right and not the left: our system of laws made a decision. They could make a different one later.
I simply don’t believe that the choices made are sufficient, by themselves, to take away my rights of self-determination. If I leave my car unlocked, that is not “permission” for a burglar to take my car stereo. If I walk around with skimpy clothing, that is not “permission” for me to be raped.
I can have sex, and still not consent to a pregnancy. I can ski and not consent to a broken leg. If either of these things happen, I am allowed to do something about it, to fix the problem.
Unless society has passed laws saying no, in which case I don’t.
You can’t argue this from the point of “universal moral laws,” because we don’t all agree on them. The morality is very strongly divided between two large groups of people.
No, there isn’t. If a fully human, breathing, talking, adult human takes a person hostage-takes over her body in some way-we all agree it’s ok for her to kill him/her in self defense.
If a man kidnapped a woman, chained her up for 9 months, caused her physical pain and permanent damage, and threatened her with death, and she managed to kill him and get away she’d be considered a hero.
If an unwanted fetus takes up residence inside a woman and takes over her body, there’s no difference between the above scenario and being forced to grow it.
Self-defense.
No. For one, the fetus did not commit a malicious act. And it only exists because someone committed another act, full well knowing that it could force the fetus to be in that position. You are tainting the whole thing by choosing a criminal.
For another, we do not all agree that it would be okay to kill the adult human in self defense. It would be okay only in as far as that was the only viable method of resolving the problem. If, for example, the woman broke the chain while the guy wasn’t around, and could have run away to civilization, but instead waited around for the guy to come back, she’d be a murderer.
It’s just not that simple. Personhood would probably just mean that you could have a forced delivery, and then the innocent person is entitled to medical care.
Fortunately, personhood makes no sense for something without brain activity.