You missed this part of my post, which I added at the bottom:
As is of course shown in this thread, abortion is a very thorny issue, because everyone has a different POV. I think abortion is ethically wrong, but I know people who have had them, and certainly understand the desperation women sometimes feel. Personally, I think it is murder IN ALL CASES, but I recognize that the law, and more important, society, cannot necessarily treat all cases the same, either.
I didn’t miss it. I was curious as to how you reconcile it.
Oh, I see…well…I hope I answered your question. It’s a tough one that I have spent a long time thinking about. I completely recognize that situations are not black & white, and that the most important thing is that we have compassion. This is why I feel the effective way to be pro-life is to give emotional & financial support to mothers who choose to have their babies (and contrary to popular belief, this is how many, many, pro-lifers show their devotion to babies…it is not all screaming outside of abortion clinics, believe me.)
So, the short answer is, I have not totally resolved in my head how we should handle it as a society, but I still think it is murder.
Your posts still withhold a woman’s rights to her body AFTER she becomes pregnant; that stance denies the choice to become un-pregnant. That stance may be pro-fetus-life but it is also pro-mothers loose inalienable rights to the fetus and is still anti-choice.
This is Great Debates. Debate whether care givers have just right and responsibility to decide whether and when to remove life-support. Debate whether removal of life support is killing or, more accurately, allowing life or death to take its course. Debate whether even willful killing is automatically murder.
Please explain again how the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the pregnant. Let us have a reasonable debate.
r~
That wasn’t condescension, it was a question. Were you being deliberately obtuse to make a point?
You could, agreed. So it is your contention that there would be abortion laws independent of any religious influence.
You miss my point entirely. I’ll spell it out for you:
Choosing to set the standard as whatever you consider uniquely human is still to focus only on the foetus and its status. I contend that it is irrelevant, only the mother’s choice matters. Sagan dismissed that option out of hand, but so what? He’s hardly the God of Science.
It’s more fundamental than the abortion/murder distinction. I set it at birth because that’s when the baby is no longer in the mother’s body, therefore removing her right to choose from the equation. I don’t believe that whether it’s killing a human being (not murder if it’s declared legal) is as important as the woman’s right to choose what happens with her body. It’s not like the State doesn’t sanction non-murder killings in other circumstances.
Funny, I read everything you write. But I’m the condescending one, I guess.
Ask me if I care that I’m in the minority? Ad populum much?
I don’t agree that it’s a baby, until it’s born. There is a fundamental disconnect there, and I don’t think we’re ever going to agree. That’s fine, I can respect that. But I disagree that your decision is any less arbitrary than mine, appealing to cold Science in a social situation is .not the way
A question: Which is the more fundamental right, the right to bodily autonomy or the right to live? Can any right really exist if the right to live is not as inviolable a right as any right can be? I would posit that the right to life is the most fundamental right. No other right is meaningful if you haven’t the right to live.
Or, to turn your question around, explain how the rights of the mother trump the rights of her child.
I think my answer was sufficient. It’s not enough to draw some arbitrary line where my sense of morality reaches its comfort limit - I choose to recognize the repercussions and difficulties of trying to define that line in terms of law. Did you want to know my personal feelings on abortion, specifically late-term abortion, or politically motivated child abuse for that matter? Too bad; they’re not relevant in a discussion about abortion law.
As soon as the fetus is born (transforming, as it were, to a baby) it is automatically endowed with a wide variety of rights. Even before reaching adulthood, lawsuits can be filed on behalf of the child (if not by the mother, than by the state) suing the injuring party (which could easily include the mother) for damages. Lawsuits are filed on behalf of children all the time. By way of analogy, say I perform an action which injures a pregnant woman. She eventually delivers her baby, but through my action, the child is handicapped in some fashion. Whether or not a criminal case can be made against me, a civil case is entirely plausible. It won’t matter if the injury occurred before the plaintiff had full legal status.
It’s primarily for this reason (coupled with the conventional medical “do no harm” ethics) that I don’t see the need to outlaw surgical deafening (or other needless injury) of fetuses. To be even more cold-blooded on the issue, it’s safer (in civil law) to kill someone than to leave them with a lifelong handicap.
In any case, the deliberate deafening issue is a red herring. I don’t know of any pro-choice advocates who are also agitating for the right to abuse or cripple children, though I’m sure any bizarre position imaginable is being promoted by somebody, somewhere.
Are you allowed to shoot someone who is hitting you with a baseball bat? Does that assailant’s right to live trump yours to maintain your bodily autonomy against being beaten to a pulp? If were going to involve hypotheticals, why not put aside the murky issue of fetal rights and analyze the conflicting needs and rights of two fully formed adults? The above paragraph suggests no-one’s life can be terminated by another, under any circumstances, or am I reading it incorrectly?
For me? The mother is a person, and therefore has rights. The foetus, unborn, is not a person, and has no fundamental rights. I only ascribe the rights of a person to what I would consider a “societal actor”. Unborn human beings don’t qualify. Or, in other words, you’re taking the foetus’ right to life as read, and I don’t agree.
All your answers? You mean despite the fact that they ultimately didn’t actually answer the question posed?
Why in the world would you think your sense of morality was not relevant in a question asking about, well, your sense of morality?
Too bad, eh? I’ll try to live with it, hard as it might seem. But seriously, if you’re simply not interested in debating certain moral issues, just say so and don’t waste others’ time. Just say something like, “I’m not interested in answering that question,” as opposed to an ongoing series of non-answers disguised as responses, that lead to posts asking for a clarification that will never come.
If this is a given for you, why do you ask for a reconciliation of the fetus’s rights to the mother’s? BTW, your position is circular. Only the born have rights. Therefore the fetus has none. Why? He’s not born.
You’re reading it incorrectly (or I should have worded it more clearly). I think the right of an innocent to live is as inviolable a right as there is–and even that isn’t inviolable, not in any conceivable circumstance.
OK, I will try this again. I am talking about the ETHICS of abortion. When Fiveyearlurker suggested that I read Sagan’s article, and ponder what the great scientist had to say about it, I gladly read the article, thought about what Sagan was trying to say, and his justification for it. I then tried to formulate my own argument for my own point of view on this matter, in response to what Sagan said, and hope that others would post THEIR own points of view, and then discuss the pros and cons of each in a reasonable manner. For the most part, that has been done quite successfully, and IMO qualifies as a debate.
Just because you haven’t won me over to your POV doesn’t mean this is not a debate.
I think Stratocaster makes a very good point that perhaps it is a matter for deciding what the ULTIMATE rights are in this circumstance. Is right to my body paramount, or is the right to live paramount? I submit that it is the right to live. I agree that it is problematic when the right of one to live is dependent on another, to the point where the right to one’s own body is compromised, but I do believe that the right to life is paramount. It is the very fact that it is, indeed, problematic that I do not necessarily advocate banning abortion. But, when discussing ethics, I believe that abortion is unethical. We have the right in this country to do many things that are unethical…people do things that others consider unethical all the time. This doesn’t necessarily mean those things should be illegal.
Comparing me to a mindless thing is a rather severe insult.
“Pro-life” people are often pro-death penalty, pro-war and show zero compassion for anyone who is born. “Anti-abortion” is more accurate.
The flaw in your reasoning is that there is no person there to have any rights.
And in the case of, say, a 2 month old fetus, there is no “I”.
Well, I wouldn’t. If you destroy a fetus, the result is nothing; no one has been hurt; there is no one to hurt. If you damage a fetus, the result after birth is a damaged person.
Didn’t you helpfully suggest to me earlier that I read the title of this thread? In it “law” appears before morality.
Okay, let’s run with it. A child finds a gun, starts pointing it at other people, thinking it’s a game (this is not a completely out-of-left-field hypothetical; this page lists school shootings, one with an assailant who was six). The child ignores all adult orders to drop the gun, and in fact shoots it at least once (possibly hitting someone), proving it is real and loaded. Can a police officer shoot the child to prevent further injury to others? “Innocent” may mean lacking criminal intent, which I’ll grant, but the situation is still highly dangerous to the lives of people other than the child. Is that sufficiently “conceivable”?
All I can say to this is that it certainly wasn’t meant as one.
Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t. Can’t speak for all, but I am vehemently anti-death-penalty and although I am not exactly anti-war, I am not what I would call pro-war, either. As I mentioned earlier, there are a whole lot of pro-life people who spend countless hours helping prospective mothers financially and emotionally to get on their feet and climb out of the desperate circumstances that cause them to abort their own babies. Just because you don’t know people like this, it doesn’t mean they do not exist. Do not believe everything you read about what pro-life people are supposedly like. I could call you pro-death and it would be just as accurate a label.
All of this is a matter of opinion. If you read Sagan’s article, you will see that even that great scientist & thinker disagrees with you. When people make statements of opinion as though they were facts, this is what shuts down debate.
I’m not going to go point by point again. I understand your contention, you understand mine. We disagree.
I just wanted to clear this up. I was genuinely interested in seeing if others agree with you. I wasn’t using this to score points that since yours is a minority opinion that it is wrong. I was curious to see if others agree or disagree with it.
Let’s keep going… I respond, “yes, the police officer may shoot the child to prevent further injury [namely death] to others.” This is a sad, but necessary act. If the baby in the mother is endangering the mother in a similar way, I would respond, “yes, abort the baby. It’s a sad, but necessary act.”
I’m not sure this is getting us any closer, though. Not only are we dealing with the question of when the “thing” has rights, but we are dealing with whose rights take precedence.
Of course, the question of abortion law goes out the window if the when question is that it only has rights outside of a woman’s body. If it cannot or does not have rights inside the woman’s body, then of course you can abort it at any time.
My position is that the “thing” has value as a human being (and thereby ascribe human rights to it) at the moment of conception. Thus, we need to struggle with what is, in my opinion, a more difficult question, which is, if the rights are in conflict, who’s rights supercede?
My position is that this is not as easy an answer as some might lead us to believe. I don’t believe that we can make laws to cover all of the relevant variations that would occur… but I think in every case, we can come up with what would be a more ethical choice… and I don’t think that it would always fall in favor of the mother.
The greatest fundamental right is: All are equal in peaceful pursuit. It is not peaceful to deny liberty to an individual or specific group. No one has the right to life at the expense of another.
You must choose one or the other:
or
The right of liberty trumps the right of need.
r~
OK, then, thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding.
I’m asking for a reconciliation of what* others* see as the rights of the foetus with what I think are the mother’s. Just because I don’t think the foetus has any fundamental rights, doesn’t mean I can’t address others’ points that assume it does. That’d be finger-in-the-ears-la-la-la time.
I don’t see the circular nature of the argument, by the way. You seem to be focusing on the born/not born dichotomy, whereas I intend it to be about the “societal actor” aspect. I see it this way:
Rights arise out of societal interaction. (or: They are not intrinsic or abstract.)
Foetuses do not interact with society.
Therefore rights do not apply to them.
Where am I assuming that conclusion in the premises? Please explain. I can understand people disagreeing with the truth value of that first statement, but it hardly begs the question, now does it. I’d say the second was more clear.