We make that judgment to appease our sensibilities though; much of the argument is based on the imaginary concept of a ‘point’ at which a fetus becomes a person, when in fact there is no such point. Arguably, a newborn infant is not a ‘person’ by any meaningful definition; the reason we don’t permit infanticide is that our sensibilities don’t generally allow it.
Given that there is no discrete moment at which a fetus becomes a ‘person’, it is impossible to make hard-and-fast judgments on the basis that such and such actions are permissible or forbidden before or after that (nonexistent) point.
Methinks, I hear an argument along the lines of, “Of course gay people can get married if they want to. Any gay man can marry any women as long as she agrees to it”.
‘Give’ them rights? Don’t I have rights regardless of whether you give them to me? What determines this? Majority vote? Not according to you Dio protesting against morons
We are left then with determining if the fetus is a human to have such rights (I tend to agree that having a mind, or sentience, should probably be the determining factor here).
Actually the original question is about what the argument should be, is it not?
This is why I choose to take the safe option and adopt what has been labeled a pro-life position - my moral beliefs tell me that the taking of another life is wrong, but I do not know when “life” begins, although I am fairly sure that the point exists somewhere between birth and conception, and therefore I choose to draw the line at conception, to be on the safe side.
Having said all that, I cannot criticise those women who choose to have an abortion - my life is no purer than thiers, I have made worse choices, and live with the consequences - these people have made a difficult decision and need support, not condemnation. I therefore do not support campaigns to make abortion illegal, I heard someone express the idea very succinctly thus - “We don’t want to make abortion illegal, we want to make it unthinkable.” Which I guess makes me pro-choice after all 
Grim
Interestingly, I’m debating this very subject with someone on an off-topic thread at a creation/evolution board elsewhere. My slight problem with turning the greys into black and white in order to err on the side of caution is that in doing so, we ignore all the other gradients that are superimposed.
I appreciate that your position on this is not that of an activist and you are not seeking to impose your choice of drawn line as law (pertaining to the availability of abortion), but if we were to do that, then (unless we were spot on about conception being THE point), some of the abortions would be prevented unnecessarily.
There exists a gradual transition into ‘human life’, there also exist (conflicting) gradual scales of inconvenience, suffering, social and financial difficulties etc; we can’t err on the side of caution on the ‘human life’ gradient without doing disservice to the others.
Your point is well made; I suppose that the counter argument would be that the great value of “human life” trumps any disservice to “inconvenience, suffering, social and financial difficulties etc.”
Grim
And I suppose it would be a valid one, however (in my argued scenario, where erring on the side of caution causes us to preserve something that does not yet exist to require preservation) there would be cases where the decision would result in a human individual coming into existence, suffering miserably and dying painfully, as opposed to simply never coming into existence at all.
What he said.
Just to play devil’s advocate here for a moment, would you say that it is reasonable for the mother of a newborn infant to simply decide that she doesn’t want to continue in the role of mother any more and leave the child to die? (let’s suppose this takes place on a desert island, where offering the kid up for adoption is not available).
Drawing any line anywhere creates unpleasant scenarios (try and define the english-welsh border in terms of UK postcodes and see how many friends you make) - I guess that the only way to prevent unpleasant choices in this area would be to outlaw sex itself!!
But think of all the poor babies that won’t get to be born as a result of never being conceived! (didn’t someone try to make an anti-contraception argument like this a while back?)
But I agree; drawing arbitrary rigid lines creates unpleasant scenarios - potentially for cases falling on either side - which is perhaps a reason for not drawing them so rigidly, or in some cases, drawing them at all. I guess that would make my position pro-choice.
I’m not sure I buy that there is one “correct” reason to be pro-choice.
I admit, I’m very uncomfortable being on the same side of the issue as people who believe women shouldn’t be forced to carry a baby to term because it interfere’s with a woman’s convenience, but that doesn’t mean there’s just one reason to be pro-choice, either.
I don’t know thatthere is a problem with the “my body, my choice” argument. If one of two Siamese twins is viable without the other, but the other is not, I don’t know what the right answer is with their respective rights. When an unborn child is dependent on the mother, I’m more comfortable saying the mother’s rights outweigh those of the unborn child.
On the other hand, the practical side of me sees that outlawing abortion is dangerous because it wouldn’t stop it. Lots of morally righteous people would believe they had stopped it, but I think it would go on as frequently as it does now. But if we admit a woman can get an abortion, and do what we can to get her to choose to keep the baby (most notably, giving her economic alternatives), we’ll save a lot more babies.
You’re looking at it from the wrong angle. A woman has the right to control her body regarding reproductive decisions. So does a man, but of course since he’s physically incapable of becoming pregnant, the right to abortion is irrelevant to his personal rights. Gay people are capable of marriage. Men are incapable of having an abortion.
No one has the right to abandon a child. If a woman gives birth, and then decides she doesn’t want to be a parent, then she’s on the hook as much as the father is regarding financial obligations. Parents legal obligations to the child are based on the fact that the child, now born and not physically connected to another person, now has rights to being supported that trump the rights of the parent.
I have changed my views on this and now consider myself very reluctantly pro abortion as the lesser of 2 evils. I get this from:
1 - A fetus is a person
2 - In today’s society a woman should have the right to chose to engage in activities where pregnancy is a possibility - this where the choice comes in - engaging in consensual activities should grant irrevocable permission if a person is created.
3 - Rape (real rape, not later regret ‘rape’) means that the woman did not choose, therefore the fetus/baby has no real right to use her womb unless she grants that right later. So if she chooses she can have her offspring surgically removed from her, which would kill him/her/them.
Now we add in real world problems:
4 - If the only way to get a abortion was to claim rape, there would be way too many unfounded claims of rape, this would diminish the real meaning of rape (which it is so diluted right now you really need to ask what someone means when they say rape), throw many hard working, good, productive members (men) of society in jail for crimes they didn’t commit, and overload the criminal justice system with false rape cases. This I would WAG could throw society into a tailspin as the productive members are removed and jailed.
so, very reluctantly, I support the right to abortion, which is the right to kill one’s offspring, in a don’t ask don’t tell manner.
I’m not. I’ve noticed that what people deem necessary freedom for themselves, they call “convenience” for others. I’m not saying that’s *your * position, bup. Just noting that the word “convenience” gets thrown around when the phrase “overwhelming desire for my life not to suck” might be more appropriate from someone else’s point of view.
kanicbird, yours is the sort of misogyny to which most misogynists can only aspire.
Bold mine.
It’s not going to be a accident. What you are doing is applying superglue to your leg then run blindfolded through a room with a baby in it - you chose that activity. If a baby sticks you should not have the right to beat it till it’s dead.
If in the future it would be possible to remove an unwanted child from a woman’s womb at any point in her pregnancy and raise it in an incubator would you advocate for her to be allowed to give up her rights to the child if the father wanted it to live. Or, how about the guy who owns the incubator? Should he be allowed to dispose of the child because he wants to use it to raise chicken eggs instead?
To raise chicken eggs, or to raise chickens? :dubious:
Since when does the desire for a better life trump another individual’s right to life?
I’m dealing with your last question, not with the OP.
This seemed like a hypothetical side issue to me.
The problem is that whether or not the other ‘individual’ has a ‘life’ is difficult to pin down precisely.