In my opinion, arguably, pretty much from the beginning, just as me refusing to donate a kidney can become “causing the death of a human being.” The death of the embryo/fetus/human being is not the goal of abortion, in my thinking. The end of the pregnancy is the goal. If the one could be done without the other, I’d support that.
I’m not sure I’m following you, but let’s get more specific. I propose that our laws against murder are too broad. We should allow parents to kill their children as long as the children are, say, less than 6 years old. On what basis would you oppose such a law?
I’m aware of that. I’m aware (as I said) that many pro-life posters on this very board are (or appear to me to be) motivated entirely by the honest conviction that abortion is the murdering of human life, and that they have no problems with female emancipation, the sexual revolution, or any of this other “peripheral agenda”.
First, I think the designation “human being” is the wrong one and that the question is really about whether the entity is a PERSON and is entitled to legal rights of personhood rather than if it merely belongs to the species homo sapiens.
In my opinion, the fetus is not entitled to rights of personhood until it is no longer inside another person’s body. I think that even a full grown adult does not hav a right to live inside another person’s body without that person’s consent. My position is that a woman has a right to remove the fetus from her body. This procedure almost always occurs before the fetus can survive outside the womb but if, theoretically, a woman wanted to remove the fetus in the third trimester (something which virtually never occurs electively and elective third trimester abortions are already illegal in most states anyway) then there is no Constututional reason why the state would not have the right to remove the fetus intact, keep it alive and grant it rights of personhood.
Before that (and especially in the cases of first trimester abortions which make up 90% of all abortions), I simply don’t see the entity as a person deserving of any rights – certainly not any rights which should override a woman’s right to privacy, bodily autonomy or reproductive freedom.
Um, I guess it’s nice to know that you’re not actually accusing anyone here of being part of the patriarchal conspiracy or whatever, but if that’s the case, why bring it into the discussion at all?
It would violate the constitutional rights of the victims.
Hey, that makes a lot of sense! 
Really? If there were an amendment permitting this act, it wouldn’t trouble you?
How does one derive the rights embedded in the constitution? Does one do that without reference to philosophical questions? Do we not allow slavery because it would lead to a destablized society, or do we not allow it because it is morally repugnant to allow one human being to own another human being?
Of course it would trouble me, but that would just be tough shit for me.
I asked a couple on their 50th anniversary: “How are you still so happy and in love after 50 years of marriage” and the guy answered: “great sex” It kinda made me a bit uncomfortable to hear 70 year olds mention sex but apparently after viagra, he stopped noticing how much of a bitch she was and she stopped noticing how much of an asshole he was. Apparently sex can overcome a multitude of character flaws.
They derive from a premise that human beings have certain innate rights. Is this premise philosphical? I don’t think it particularly is. I think it’s more of a pragamatic premise designed to facilitate the most stable and productive society.
As much as possible, yes.
We do it because we have decided that all people are entitled to the same rights. Slavery may strike us as aesthically “morally regugnant” but the reason it’s illegal is simply to preserve that first pragmatic principle of equal rights for all people.
Which means you’re serious in thinking that I should give up sex until I’m nearly 60 years old.
That’s an awful lot you expect people to give up. Who’d be able to get married and maintain lifetime abstinence?
Do you mourn tampons then? Because some of those contain fertilized eggs that never implanted.
And I agree with you.
But “person” is defined as:
NOUN:
- A living human
Previously I gave definitions of human (member of genus Homo) and life. The “entity” qualifies as a person by dictionary definitions.
By the way, I love that you keep referring to the “entity” You would make some of the best Hallmark cards for expecting parents.
“Congratulations! I hear you are expecting an entity!” :rolleyes:
Neat trick! Saw that in Being John Malkevich.
So this “entity”, as you call it, has no rights of “personhood” until it is out of the womb. There are no protections for it, anything can be done to it by the mother. We will have to rethink child protection laws. Currently, babies are taken away from mothers if they are born with drugs in their systems. It is considered a form of child abuse in some states. This has to stop since it interferes with her “bodily autonomy”.
Again, I don’t want to seem rude, but I would appreciate clarification. Thanks.
Some folks would say that the abortion is also to end the life of the child, in that they don’t want to see the child raised by anyone else either.
Why is a stable and productive society desirable? What do we call the field of inquiry that would lead us to that determination?
So if there’s an amendment banning abortion, you’ll accept this and move on?
Well, the obvious counter is that you expect the unborn to give up quite a bit in your philosophy (from my perspective).
I witnessed a conversation like this once at a party, between two acquaintances, one of whom recently found out she was pregnant.
“So do you know if the baby is a boy or a girl? What are you going to name it?”
“The FETUS is a boy. We don’t know what we’re going to name the FETUS yet.”
She and her husband were happy and excited about the pregnancy, but they were extremely picky about referring to it only as “the fetus,” never as a “baby” or “their son.” It was honestly pretty unsettling.
I should add that I don’t accept your premise that constitutional rights are derived from a desire to form the most stable and productive society possible. If that were the case, we’d probably design a police state. But even if I accept your premise, for the sake of argument, you are still falling back on a philosophical position.