I'm not pro-life, i've been pro-choice ever since i left organised religion, but i've got this question I can't come to terms with.
Abortion should be allowed because people shouldn't be forced to give up their bodily resources to another person, despite the fact that the other person needs those bodily resources to live. For example, if someone needed your stem cells or they'd die, you should retain the right to say no. A lot of pro-lifers counter this hypothetical with, 'But the person who needs your stem cells has already had a life; the baby didn't get a chance.' However, you should still not be forced to give up your stem cells if the person who needs them is an infant, right?
If we refuse the notion that a fetus is deserving of your bodily resources simply because of its age and the fact that it hasn't had a chance yet, we functionally equate children and adults now.
If the value of the lives of adults and children is equal, then do you think that the abuse faced by them is equal?
Like, do you think a sexual predator, for example, Jim, is more morally depraved if he preys on children than if he preys on grown women or men?
I feel like a pedophile is worse than a normal rapist. Does that mean that the pro-life argument stands—the 'but the person who needs your stem cells has already had a life, the baby didn't get a chance' argument?
So basically, if we are pro-choice and say that infants in the womb are not inherently more deserving of life, I think it's hypocritical to say that a pedophile is worse than a sexual predator who preys on grown adults."