Abortion Should Be Illegal

People who have lost their grasp on their sentience are not equivalent to a fetus that does not have sentience. The fetus within the 24 to 72 hours after conception has not had rights bestowed upon it by the government, so it is not protected in the same way as the people suffering from physical and mental illnesses. These people have not committed acts to have their rights to life revoked. One might attempt to assert the fetus has done nothing either, but the fetus has no rights to be revoked. Later on, I'll discuss the point of the implications of fetus rights, but allow me to enter my next point first. "Your second point was that the fetus relies on the mother to live and that it should have no right to do so." This is not my argument. Rather, the fetus has no right to force the duty of caring for its existence upon the mother. Let's also discuss the impasse you mentioned. "You said no one has the right/authority to force that [woman] to keep them alive." Immediately after stating this, you mention a group that the government has bestowed rights upon to ensure the proper care of children that have been born. Tom, from Child Services, can't use your body to keep himself alive. He, as a citizen, lacks the right to violate your autonomy. Rather,Tom can have you prosecuted for improperly taking care of your child. Prosecution is not equivalent to violating your bodily autonomy and no individual person has the right to violate your bodily autonomy for their own benefit. By criminalizing abortion, you violate the bodily autonomy of the woman. You restrict the woman's bodily autonomy and give the bodily autonomy to the being that survives at the expense of her body. You mention murder as not being a right of people, but murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Fetuses have not had rights bestowed upon them therefore the termination of a pregnancy would not classify as murder. Furthermore, in the first 72 hours, how similar is the developing fetus to a 3 year old child or a 20 year old adult? The vast difference between the two even calls into question the statement of abortion being the killing of another human being. It seems to be more fair and accurate to say the killing of human cells rather than a being. Nevertheless, without a proper reason to violate a woman's bodily autonomy available, we can not be justified in the criminalization of abortion. Finally, let's discuss the portion on sex. Pregnancy is not something that happens due to our direct will. What I mean by this is that humans don't control pregnancy in the same way you can control your arms, legs, and head. Due to the fact that pregnancy is not controlled by individual humans but rather enabled by pairs of humans, I assert that consent to sex does not equate to consent to pregnancy. In other words, to say "I want to have sex" does not mean that I am saying "I want to be pregnant." If I say " I want to go skydiving" this does not mean that I want to fall to my death even if I know this as a possibility. I'm hoping for the pleasure I would experience from the event rather than the potential, and unlikely, consequence of my acceptance. Even when I go skydiving, I must sign a waiver that explains the danger and removes my ability to sue my hosts in the event of injury. Nothing of this sort exists for pregnancy and even by waiving my right to sue, I am still not hoping for death by simply participating. The use of contraceptives furthers this argument of women not consenting to the pregnancy. If the woman in question wanted to be pregnant, then it would be illogical for her to use contraceptives since they actively work against her goals. A pregnancy that occurs as a result of protected sex is an invasion of the woman's body until she consents to allowing this being to exist inside of her. Ultimately, the decision should be placed in her hands, because she is the autonomous creature who has the right and capability to make her own decisions concerning her body. Utilizing government power to remove a woman's bodily autonomy would imply that women are slaves to their biology and, in this specific circumstance, they have no right to decide what happens to their bodies. This is a massive inhibition on half of the population that has a number of potential consequences that can be expounded upon if necessary. Once more I ask... for what reason should we remove a woman's right to bodily autonomy while giving rights to a being that has invaded her body for its own benefit? If this reason is simply because it is a potential human, then that means you are bestowing and exalting the rights of the fetus that is only a bundle of cells over the rights of the sentient human who must carry and nurture this being without her consent. In what world can we look at that and say "Yes that is the right thing to do"? PS I don't intend on using rape as an argument, so we can leave that entire chain of reason behind us. Rape is an extenuating circumstance that is not necessary for me to appeal to in order to make my case.