A thought experiment.
You get too drunk and pass out in a bar.
I take you home a f hook you up to a person with failing kidneys so that you filter their blood.
If you unhook yourself they will die.
Should you go to prison for unhooking yourself?
I'm not American, so forgive me for barging in, but it seems to me you have two core issues:
First there is the debate over when a Fetus should be considered a person and receive the rights that come with it.
Secondly there is a debate over states rights and what topics the federal government should get a say in.
Should any random person A be forced to lose their bodily autonomy to keep random person B alive?
I think no. I shouldn't have to give you my kidney. Even if I can have it back in 9 months.
If I'm a parent of a small child, and I decide to completely stop feeding it, and they die, did I do something morally and/or legally wrong? I think most would answer yes on both fronts. So the question is, is there an inherent difference between these two situation?
The majority of Americans do not support elective abortion at 39 weeks, so that means by definition they support some regulations. In other words, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is, where?
I don't think its unreasonable that a fetus, being a clump of cells that cannot survive and is not independently living, has less rights to life than a minor child
The mother is the fully independently living human in this case with full rights, those should not be overridden by a clump of cells with potential
If we judge everything by it's "potential" then we need to start charging men for masturbating and not saving their ejaculate and charging women for having menstrual cycles
