One of the Left’s common arguments in the abortion debate is that if we granted “personhood” to fetuses, then we’d have to grant fetuses all the other rights that come along with being a person, and not just the right to live.
It’s a demonstration of thickheadedness and a lack of nuanced thinking, and entirely intentional. It’s a fool’s argument, and they know it, but so desiring are they for more abortions that they make the argument anyway.
Here’s a good example of it (I’m pasting it directly from a message I recently received, but I’m correcting the typos):
It’s moronic to want to grant a fetus all the rights of a born human being. If that was a thing, women could be jailed for child endangerment for doing pretty much anything. If she had a miscarriage, she could be jailed for trying to cause the death of a child if someone reported it. Women in countries where abortion is illegal are behind bars because they had miscarriages, even if they did nothing to cause it.
The person doesn’t even bother arguing on an intellectual level; it is pure emotion. She depicts a nightmare scenario that is so outlandish as to be comedy. These other countries of which she speaks sound ridiculous, don’t they? They may exist, but El Salvador is the only one I can find that has laws like this, and that doesn’t mean it’s not still insane.
If the best argument for abortion is that, without it, America will decide also to make laws that make miscarriages a capital-punishment-worthy crime, then you’ve lost the argument. If your argument is defensible, then you shouldn’t have to reach so far and come up with comical scenarios in order to sway people.
No, anti-abortionists don’t want to grant fetuses “all the rights of a born human being.” We don’t want to grant fetuses the right to an attorney, for example. If you think we do, then I’m sorry you’re such an idiot.
We want to grant fetuses the right to life.
How could anyone seriously believe that America would turn into a Third World country simply by reverting back to the way things were before 1973 with regard to abortion (a time when women had safe abortions regularly and safely, albeit illegally, and the “back-alley abortion” was an urban legend)?
With all the thousands upon thousands of pages of copy paper that each law in America takes up, and with all the hundreds upon hundreds of pages per law of exceptions to that law, isn’t it reasonable to assume that Congress would be able to write a law that said, “Abortion is illegal, but if you trip and fall or whatever and the baby dies, you won’t be held responsible”? How hard is it to write such an exception into an anti-abortion law? Obamacare has tons of exceptions in it, but I never once heard a liberal work himself into a panic that “if a universal-health-care law were passed, there couldn’t be any exceptions written into it!”
The pro-abortionist argues that such an exception can’t exist if we outlaw abortion. Why? “Because they didn’t write that exception in El Salvador, and we always write the exact same laws as El Salvador!”
Give me break.