Yeah, you just can’t get pro-lifers to recognize that the critical element is that the life being aborted (as opposed to other forms of life that are legally protected) happens to be inside the uterus of another person. The distinction and why it is significant is simply incomprehensible to them, as their moral calculations rarely if ever include the woman.
I call it “hysterectomal blindness.”
[sub]Well, not really, but I’m starting now.[/sub]
To me, the pro-life position hinges on two silly premises:
Life is sacred. That is patent bullshit from the get-go since we kill tons of living beings every day - cows to eat, bacteria because ewww, mosquitoes because they frankly suck, deer because they’re fun to shoot at and otherwise annoying, and humans because they’re sometimes worthless/not entirely aligned with our own goals/are competing with our resource-mongering.
This idea that there is some grand concept of Life with a capital L (or even Human Life, capitals still mandatory) that is sacred and needs preserving at all costs is ridiculous on its face. Life begins at conception ? Yeah, well, maybe, depending on how one defines “life”. So who gives a rodent’s buttocks ?
That abortion consists in killing babies. That’s utterly wrong. A foetus is not a baby, it’s not a person, and at the point the grand majority of women make their decision to end the pregnancy it’s often not even a foetus yet. A foetus doesn’t have conscience, self-awareness, doesn’t feel pain, cannot support itself or even breathe on its own, it’s not a baby. At all. It might become one someday, but it’s not one at this juncture.
When you eat a hard boiled egg, you don’t say you’ve just had chicken, do you ? Well, there you go. Not the same thing. Hence the different bloody word.
There are many other valid arguments to be made from the pro-choice camp (e.g. unwanted pregnancies are a bummer in general for all involved, women have ownership of their own bodies, etc…) but those two are the seminal, go-to “Hold it. That ain’t right.” ones as far as I’m concerned.
The OP is all the more fallacious that it seems to imply a woman can abort one day before delivery - yeah, um, no. Unless she’s in dire straits and her life is at risk, not legally she can’t.
Well, actually, in Canada legally she can, but as with at-the-polls voter fraud, it occurs so rarely (if at all) that attempts to control it create more problems than they solve.
“ignoring it” is not the same as “getting rid of it”. If she doesn’t want the baby, it is trivially easy to “get rid of it”. All 50 states (in the US) have safe haven laws, where women can give up their baby to responsible individuals, without fear of criminal repercussions.
You Canadians and your sensible, reasonable, thought-through ways. I’m on to your shit.
Yeah, what’s the deal with all these stories we hear of there being a huge demand for adoptable infants in the U.S.? If a woman with a newborn want to end her responsibilities to that newborn, can’t she do so quite readily?
Of course, then we get hit with remote hypotheticals like “mother and child on a desert island” or “mother and child trapped in a mountain cabin after an avalanche.”
My spit contains millions of living cells with everything necessary to create millions of me. If protected life begins at conception is enforced I should be convicted of genocide when I spit on the sidewalk.
It’s those things which show nothing is black and white.
Actually I am still not convinced that I don’t have a point. What I am pretty much thinking is that I am still pro-choice, but with more respect for anti-abortionists now as my side is not as watertight as I thought.
Not really. 5000 gallons of black paint, even with a single drop of white, remains black for all intents and purposes. And the assumes the drop of white actually exists - how often do the hypothetical situations such as I’ve described actually happen? Could it be zero in a given year, or a given decade?
I’m not convinced that you do. Its true the biological/anatomical difference between a newborn and a nine-months-less-a-day fetus is trivial, but its location (not inside someone’s body vs. inside someone’s body) is not. The flaw in your argument, and I’m hardly the first to point this out, is that you overlook this rather important element.
I’m not sure how you arrived at this conclusion, but as you wish.
I agree with your argument in spirit. But let’s do a thought experiment on this. Let’s say technology reaches the point where we can incubate an embryo into a fetus into a viable living healthy baby. Does it then mean that after conception, no abortions? If the baby is unwanted, who pays for the (presumably expensive) procedure? If nobody’s willing to pay, is abortion now allowed, or is it still illegal?
(This is a bit like the old joke where a guy offers a woman $1M to sleep with him and she says yes. Then he offers $5. She says “Just what kind of woman do you think I am?” He says “We’ve established that, now we’re just haggling over the price.”)
I say the cutoff point will always be somwhat arbitrary; we can’t avoid it. We can try to make it seem natural, but there’s always an element of arbitrariness involved.
Most people don’t realize that there is no such thing as a “moment of conception”. It’s a process that takes hours. Furthermore, about of 3rd of the time, the resulting embryo is unviable (probably due to incompatibilities between the resulting mix of nuclear genes from both parents and the mother’s mitochondiral genes).
Of course, there is no “moment of birth,” and nobody’s suggesting birth as the cutoff point. It is a cutoff point, legally, but fortunately there usually aren’t legal ramifications to whether something happened before or after the moment of birth. An unusual example would be someone killing a woman during childbirth, also killing the baby. Two murders, or one? If it’s happened, the decision would be legal and somewhat arbitrary. (“Was the head out?”) Of course if Rand Paul gets is way, the same arbitrary point would be earlier in gestation, but it would still be arbitrary.
The problem with this definition is it completely ignores the health risks to the mother in carrying a baby to term and delivering it. In fact, this balancing of health risks was one of the key factors the Supreme Court used to decide Roe vs Wade. There are significant health risks to pregnancy and delivery, and those risks are greater than the health risks related to a medically competent abortion.
There are several concepts at play here that are important to distinguish.
The point at which life begins:
Item 1 is a religious issue. Let’s agree not to discuss it, because we won’t convince anyone of anything.
Ideally, 2 and 3 would be as close as possible. However, religious people would very reasonably say that for them, 1 and 2 are the same. Again, to avoid the religious argument, and try to come up with an ethical one from a humanistic standpoint.
Legally, it is what it is, which varies from state to state. But the OP’s argument was essentially an attempt at a humanistic argument, without recourse to religious beliefs. Which brings us back to item 2.
There’s a good deal of general agreement that human life is of high value. We all tend to agree with that because, well, we’re humans, and what goes around comes around. The argument against child abuse stems from this assumption. No argument there.
So the question becomes, when does human life begin? As mentioned above, this issue is fraught with difficulty. In some cultures, it was acceptible to leave an infant to the elements as a form of family size control – better than having the whole family starve due to another mouth to feed. That seems heinous to the modern mind, but has a pretty simple utilitarian argument.
Birth would be a convenient point, but most of us agree that’s too late.
Before conception doesn’t seem sensible, since at that point everything is hypothetical. (The same people who criticize abortion by pointing to an out-of-wedlock child who is now loved, would not endorse the act that created that child. BTW, that child is me, and also my son, but that’s another story.)
So, we have to pick some point between the two. My point (which echoes similar points above) is that Nature does not dictate this decision. Remember that the sanctity of human life is based on a general agreement. That agreement depends on an agreement of what human life is, which includes where it begins. If we set that point at the mythical “point of conception”, we lose a lot of the crowd of people who originally agreed with us that human life is sacred. They don’t think that the sanctity of human life begins at conception. So we’re back to square one.
Most states currently choose some point between the two extremes of conception and birth. That’s what I would choose, and I don’t want others forcing their religious beliefs on me. They are free to refrain from abortion.
Interesting point, but currently aren’t the cutoffs in most states well before this point? You seem to be arguing that abortion should be allowed arbitrarily late in term.
You’re mixing up rights with public policy. In terms of rights, if this incubation process has no more impact on the woman’s body than an abortion would, prohibiting abortion doesn’t violate her rights. The issues of whether abortion should be prohibited and if so who pays for the procedure are public policy issues much like others that have been decided already. If a parent drops off an infant at a safe haven or abandons a baby at the hospital and the baby needs expensive medical care, who pays for it? The taxpayers. In your hypothetical, the taxpayers of Alabama may decide through their representatives that abortion should be illegal and the state will pay for the incubation process even while New York decides that abortion should still be legal.
Well, I’m sure humans in the 23rd century and beyond will face any number of ethical quandaries made possible by their technology, just as we do now.
I’m okay with it.
I’m not sure why this distinction is important. The larger issue of individual freedom (i.e. the woman’s freedom to decide how her body is used) overrides all of these, or at least it should, as I figure it.