This story starts out when Richard Dawkins decides he needs to muse via twitter on abortion.
While this is sorta bizarre, since he says "any" fetus, which, to me, is pretty vague. Pig fetuses? Cat fetuses? I am assuming he means HUMAN fetuses, but anyway, he claims they are less human than an adult pig. What? Because pigs share any sort of genes with humans? No, clearly he is getting hyperbolic. Don't worry, he clarifies!
No, actually, this isn't relavent at all. The morality of abortion comes down to: are women and transmen moral agents who can make their own decisions about the morality of terminating a pregnancy? That's it. If the person who is pregnant believes they are making a moral choice in terminating that specific pregnancy, than case closed. But no, he goes on:
Actually, I know plenty of people whom I have worked with in a professional capacity by helping them have an abortion who have funerals, ceremonies, ect, for the "spirit baby" - just because they mourn, does not mean they did not make a moral choice based on their resources and capacity to raise a child.
No, we've been over this already. Only question is does the person who is pregnant see abortion as a moral decision? And, as I go on in tweets, the fact is, a fetus cannot feel pain.
This completely erases the pain that a person who is pregnant goes through during labor and delivery. Not to mention every other ache, pain, cramp, ect that happens during 40 weeks of pregnancy.
Yeah, count me in the "absolutist" category of thinking that persons with uteruses should have complete control over those organs. Cause, according to RD, being an absolutist when it comes to bodily autonomy is so so bad.
YAY FOR CONDESCENSION. JUST LIKE CHURCH FOLK.
Let me spell it out for ya: it doesn't. Ever. And even if it did, pain matters not when it comes to bodily autonomy. I can feel pain when a doctor is doing ______ medical procedure. Should we discard modern medicine?