When talking to pro-choice people I’ve often heard the sentiment that a mother’s choice trumps the child’s because of property rights. From a question I posted on Quora:
Wes, also incorrect. Society establishes just termination of human life over property as well. It’s about territory/resource more than anything else. And no, as I mentioned to Herbert, acknowledging the fetus as homosapien doesn’t negate the right of a carrier.
And to answer your question: In most all ancient cultures and laws and still today: the fetus has never trumped the carrier. We decide based on the residence. And the female’s rights will trump the fetus not because of biological category, but because of anatomy.
Here’s my response:
If the fetus were to have “infected” its mother then I could see where they would have a point. But it is well evidenced that the rape and incest only end up producing a biologically new human life about 5% of the time.
So to treat the fetus as a foreign invader when the fact is that in the vast majority of fetuses were created as a result of a deliberate choice by the mother to engage in procreative activities.
So the question should really be: Should it be acceptable to kill someone for the sole reason that their continued existence may prove to be an inconvenient result of deliberate choices made beyond their control?
In the end, I think pro-choice is merely a code word for anti-child. I believe children are easily sacrificed by people who feel it is their right to be selfish hedonists who live as they please, have junk food sex, and generally don’t have time to be bothered by repulsive children.