system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The Abortion Debate has nothing to do with Women’s Rights

Allow me to elaborate. I think people often over complicate this debate. People talk about the rights of the baby vs the right of the mother, what happens after the birth, what if she’s raped, what if it’s incest, what if she can’t afford the child, etc. 

My argument is that it is much simpler if an issue than this. Either it’s a human life, or it’s not, and nothing else matters. This is the only thing we should be debating, and while this particular issue is very important and necessary to discuss, it’s just not as complex an issue as it’s made out to be.

The reason I say that whether or not the unborn fetus is a human life or not is the only thing that matters is the following. Under the premise that it is not a life, you can do what ever you want with it. It’s like a kidney, or a spleen, or an appendix, and no one else can tell you what to do with it. On the other hand, under the premise that the fetus is a human life, then you cannot morally kill it, under any circumstances. You just can’t. There is no situation in which any of one person’s rights supersedes another innocent human being’s right to live. 

To summarize, I’m not arguing whether the baby is a life or not, I’m simply arguing that the scientific debate of whether or not it is a life is the only part of this debate that actually matters.

Change my view.

Edit: this got a lot of replies fairly quickly, I’m responding as quickly as I can, bear with me :)

Edit 2: Going to class for a few hours, I’ll resume reading and responding to the replies after. Also, thanks for all the replies, it’s certainly been an enjoyable and thought-provoking discussion for me, I hope it has been the same for all of you :)

Edit 3: A lot of people have brought up the point that it is not okay to force someone to donate organs against their will even if they could save another life, and thus the right to life does not supersede the right to bodily autonomy. I’d just like to post my thoughts on this up here so as to avoid repeating the same answer. I believe there is a distinction between compelling someone to sacrifice their body to attempt to save a life, and compelling someone not to actively terminate another’s life. The first is not okay, the second is.  Also, under the premise that the fetus is a human life, it has the right to bodily autonomy too, which is certainly violated by crushing ya skull, sucking out its brains, cutting off its limbs, and pulling them out one by one.

Edit 4: It has occurred to me through all these discussions about bodily autonomy vs the right to life that there is another part to the issue beyond just whether it’s a life or not, and that is whether the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy. While I still believe that life is more important, that fact that this is also a debate that needs to be had contradicts my original position. I don’t think that I can award a collective delta, so this is my way of doing that :)

Final edit: Okay, this has been fun. I have to get on with other things now, but it’s been a thought-provoking debate for me. I tried to get to as many of the top level comments as I could, sorry if I missed anyone. I may come back from time to time, but feel free to debate in the comments or roast tf out of me while I’m gone. Thanks for having a discussion with me everyone, it’s been fun!
gpt
>There is no situation in which any of one person’s rights supersedes another innocent human being’s right to live.

Except there is. A persons bodily integrity rights (medically speaking) do in fact supersedes another human being's right to live. This is why we don't force people to donate organs, blood, marrow, even to save someone else's life. This is why we don't harvest organs from dead bodies that did not consent to having it done, even to save someone else's life. This is why killing someone in self-defense is allowed.

In fact, in all cases involving bodily integrity rights (medically speaking) the right of an individual to their bodily integrity supercedes another person's right to life. You cannot force someone to donate their body, blood, organs, or risk their life and health against their will *even if someone else will die if they don't.*

So why does this change just because the person who will die is the unborn fetus?