But the brain doesn't have to be what is changing behaviour. Hormonal changes can do the same thing. If you deny hormonal changes as fulfilling that requirement then you need to deny that plants and fungi and microorganisms are life.
That is the case. The fetus adapts to the womb not the external environment. Some adaptations may have later effects associated with the external environment but the fetus likewise doesn't just do what is in the interest of the mother but what is in its own interest so it is responding to the environment as opposed to simply being an extension of the mother.
Who said this? I completely think that women who get illegal abortions should be punished and so do many other pro lifers.
I think that the main reason for this is that prolifers don't use consequentialist ethical arguments against abortion. Even consequentialist arguments might be successful because we would simply be unable to practically eliminate these miscarriages but fundamentally abortion is murder and murder can be wrong even if letting die is legal. It is the difference between not personally shooting someone vs spending days of your life to find and warn someone about an accident that might happen to them. It is good to do the latter but it is not a duty whereas the former is a duty and as a result someone can be held accountable for failing to live up to it. That being said I also think that the abortion debate is an excuse to talk about things that otherwise would be completely suppressed in politics such as gender roles
Whether or not the fetus is "alive" I think is insignificant to the greater question for either side. Likewise, while I think that gender roles and their discussion are a noble and worthwhile pursuit, I doubt I would call them suppressed. They have also just become insignificant to a greater question in their own case. These questions are, respectively, "is the fetus a human being" and "even if society would
benefit from gender roles, shouldn't the person still be free to not care about that?" The answers to these questions are "no" and "yes" respectively. The fetus is not human for reasons many have stated earlier, and while I too mourn the loss of its potential like many pro-lifers, the "ability to one day become a human being" is not the same thing as "human being." Whether or not it is alive is a weird place to draw a line on abortion because that doesn't matter at all, even a little. Lots of shit being alive doesn't matter. Cows are technically alive and we slaughter them by the millions. They haven't complained much, and neither have any fetuses.
Gender roles are likewise pretty irrelevant. Even if traditionally a woman's role has been motherhood, it certainly is not now in most of western society. Where I come from, this actually is still the case, but even in such backwater parts of the west that is changing, fast. And no amount of laws, conservative discourse, or harsh "you are a murderer because I say so" penalties are going to make women bend over and accept that. They are free and will continue to decide these things for themselves, as you will and would want to. As
@Pikimon said in another case: it would be like closing the barn doors after the horses ran out. Even if the left and progressivism were entirely wrong about women getting to make their own choices on this matter (and I get you on a certain level, the left is wrong about most things), they feel they are entitled to it now. Entitlement is all that is propping up anyone's right to anything anywhere, so it is strong a force as freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Just not worthy of attacking or defending in most cases, including abortion.
As far as the "you are a murderer because I say so" penalties I mentioned above, that is what any law punishing women for abortions, especially retroactively, will amount to. You can say that pro-lifers are looking at a larger picture than pro-choicers and taking more of the circumstances into account, but at the end of the day even if that were true, you are punishing someone for murder over something that's most worthwhile characteristic you can think of
is that it is essentially comparable to that a of plant. Kind of. A lot of your argument actually does seem to revolve around the idea of the fetus' potential, men's rights, and the "necessity" of our species to propagate itself (which I find particularly strange since we as individuals are going to die in fifty years, give or take, and who cares if any human beings live after us.
We'll be dead. But that's another story.) These arguments and topics are important and interesting, but the willingness of the woman to take on this role is the most paramount aspect of this discussion, period, and forcing her to live through the obscene and cruel laws you (and others) have proposed is monstrous. I can in no way prove, but I speculate, that if you were a woman, you would be very unlikely to advocate potentially forcing yourself into a position in which you underwent such a physically intensive, potentially lethal thing (even if there
aren't complications) at the behest of your spouse, against your will, and then forced into motherhood also against your will, potentially ruining your life and chance at happiness or fulfillment, forever. "Because you consented to some sex once." Holy shit. The fetus won't complain (no ability to do so or to process its fate anyway), we already spent at least sixteen years raising up the "mother", educating her, feeding her, ect. so potentially wrecking her life is a huge waste of social resources, and for attempting to escape this and the extremely constraining social confines of motherhood, we are going to slap "attempted murderer" on her just to make sure no one else gets the same idea? You know, I hate that feminist "patriarchy" bullshit, but that sounds a lot like what you are advocating.
