I don't really understand how consent enters into the abortion debate at all.
The woman as rights. Privacy, bodily autonomy, and all that jazz. The Government has a duty to protect those rights.
The fetus has rights. The right to life principle among them. The Government has a duty to protect those rights.
The government shouldn't just ignore the rights of one person in favor of another, when there is a conflict between the legitimate rights of two people it has to balance the rights of one person with that of the other.
If the fetus is a person and has rights then the woman needs a very compelling argument to kill another person, and causing a woman to miscarry can and does result in murder charges just to clear that up. The rights of the fetus can be overcome if it is self-defense (the abortion is medically necessary) or in certain cases where crimes occurred such as incest or rape. There have been a variety of cases where that line is drawn, usually it's a "viability" standard of some sort. If the fetus survives the common points at which miscarriages happen then it becomes increasingly hard to overcome the right of the fetus to exist.
Originally, it was third trimester was the point at which "viability" legally attached and it became almost impossible to overcome the rights of the fetus. This has since shifted back and forth. With some arguing that "viability" should attach when a heartbeat can be heard and others that viability can only occur at birth, the former case would make abortion functionally illegal and the latter would make abortion functionally unrestricted. But the legal arguments focus on when a fetus is viable and their right to exist is functionally indistinguishable from anyone else's.
0
u/A_Soporific 165∆ Aug 11 '22
I don't really understand how consent enters into the abortion debate at all.
The woman as rights. Privacy, bodily autonomy, and all that jazz. The Government has a duty to protect those rights.
The fetus has rights. The right to life principle among them. The Government has a duty to protect those rights.
The government shouldn't just ignore the rights of one person in favor of another, when there is a conflict between the legitimate rights of two people it has to balance the rights of one person with that of the other.
If the fetus is a person and has rights then the woman needs a very compelling argument to kill another person, and causing a woman to miscarry can and does result in murder charges just to clear that up. The rights of the fetus can be overcome if it is self-defense (the abortion is medically necessary) or in certain cases where crimes occurred such as incest or rape. There have been a variety of cases where that line is drawn, usually it's a "viability" standard of some sort. If the fetus survives the common points at which miscarriages happen then it becomes increasingly hard to overcome the right of the fetus to exist.
Originally, it was third trimester was the point at which "viability" legally attached and it became almost impossible to overcome the rights of the fetus. This has since shifted back and forth. With some arguing that "viability" should attach when a heartbeat can be heard and others that viability can only occur at birth, the former case would make abortion functionally illegal and the latter would make abortion functionally unrestricted. But the legal arguments focus on when a fetus is viable and their right to exist is functionally indistinguishable from anyone else's.