See, the premise of #2 is a false one. In a case of a pregnancy, it has nothing to do with “all” having the right to use “another’s” body without permission if it prolongs their life. It is a very specific person who is using another very specific person to prolong their life. Do I think the state ought to be able to come in and implant a zygote in me and force me to carry it to term? No. Do I think I have an ethical responsibility to carry to term a baby I became pregnant with due to my own actions? Yes.
stupid coding…:
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.
I thank you for the clarifications. I will not debate that for yourself, you know what is ethical and moral for you. I will honor and respect your personal choice, not debate it. However, your posts lead me to believe that you would condone and accept laws that deny the choice for other’s to terminate their unwanted pregnancy:
- All have right over their own body, except the pregnant. The fetus has rights that trump all others.
This still denies the concept of liberty and justice and equality for all. Once divided, all is no longer all; no matter how specifically it is divided. From the standpoint of justice, it is unethical, immoral and “unconstitutional” to enact and enforce laws that deny liberty and equality; no matter how specifically.
Should abortion be based on morality, technology or something else?
Like all laws, abortion laws should be based on equal rights of liberty and justice for all; with no exceptions; no matter how specific.
r~
If that’s the standard you want to apply, fine. My point wasn’t to rationalize abortion-on-demand as an act of self-defence, it was to challenge the idea that the right-to-live trumps all other concerns. I’ve put up two examples where the killing of another human being can be justified under existing law. Stratocaster tried to move the goalposts on the first one, sliding in the word “innocent” after the fact, so my second scenario was one where even innocence does not convey impunity. Legal systems already make allowances for killing a person under certain circumstances. Abortion (even assuming we grant a fetus the status of a person) can easily be viewed in the same light.
The problem with this debate is that you & I agree on the equal right of liberty and justice. The problem is, your last statement there only applies if you don’t see the fetus as a person. I do. So, IMO, that fetus ALSO has the rights of liberty and justice. So…whose rights reign supreme? I believe the right to life trumps all others. By the same token, if being pregnant and/or delivery will threaten the mother’s life, then I believe abortion is justified.
Oh, BTW, in terms of the original point of the thread…I do not want anyone to get the wrong idea. I believe that abortion laws should be decided by state legislatures, not the Supreme Court. If this was the case, I would vote in a manner to put some restrictions on abortions in my state…probably not to make them completely illegal, but some restrictions. I would probably place it at viability without heroic medical care (this is complicated, due to such amazing advancements in this area.) I don’t think it is a good idea to allow our society to be so callous as to allow terminating a baby who could live **without ** the “life support system” of the mother.
Of courses, legality aside, I still think abortion at any stage is unethical.
I agree with Bryan.
The idea that the state may one day be able to take over my body on behalf of a fetus creeps me out in exactly a “sci-fi dystopia” way. Getting pregnant is a reality for me, as it is with most women, and it really hits close to home to think that the wrong move could lead to the government taking over my body. It’s very real. Very creepy. I honestly don’t think I could continue to live in a society where my body could lead to the loss of my sovereignty.
What, you say? They arn’t going to take over my body? What if I keep thowing myself down the stairs? What if I want to take a legal medication that will harm the fetus? What if pregnancy makes me suicidally depressed? What if I have an alcohol addiction and it becomes clear I will drink a six pack every night unless I detox. Are you really going to continue letting me be free?
These debates often posit pregnancy as not being a big deal. It is. It permantly changes your body in major ways. It wreaks 9 months of havoc with every one of your systems and can lead to serious physical and mental problems. You will never be the same. A certain percentage of the time, you have to have long term bedrest. And it’s expensive as all hell. Birth is one of the most painful thing the average human can expect to feel. And emotionally, it is a big deal even if you hand the kid directly over to soemone else.
If I went over to someone’s house, and they held me prisoner while they beat me, gave me involuntary cosmetic and pysical surgery, and induced life-long health problems, and then promised to emotionally haunt me for the rest of my days, I think it would be within my right to shoot the guy- even if he was being controlled by aliens and was actually totally innocent.
To me, personhood comes at the point that you develop a sense of self- and we do have a good handle on when that is (a few months after birth). A newborn cannot process any sensory input beyond things like “loud noise” and “hungry”, cannot percieve itself as seperate from the world, has no concept of existing or of other people existing, and has no memory or hopes. It does not even exist to itself. My cat, who understand it’s own name, can be taken to the vet and put to sleep at any time for any reason. A fetus/newborn can’t even do that.
But I think it’s bad for society to go out killing newborns (or sleeping people or mentally disabled people or whatever), it fosters a bad precendence and creates disrespect for life. And we can’t calculation sentience for every individual so we have to have a line somewhere anyway. Birth- the point in which another person can take full responsibility for that baby- seems like a good place for that line.
Wow…talk about being creeped out! Are you actually saying that the only reason we can’t kill newborns is because it fosters a bad precedence? I don’t even know what to say to that. You are certainly right that is creates a disrespect for life. I would say that the casual attitude people have towards abortion has already created a disrespect for life, and frankly, I think your post demonstrates that this has happened in our society.
Seriously. Some of these pro-choice arguments are making me think about joining your side…
True, but that doesn’t mean a question regarding your opinion on an ethical point is irrelevant. Surely you wouldn’t suggest that the law and ethics are mutually exclusive provinces.
Yes. This situation could justify shooting the child, though if possible the officer should try to only wound the child. But that’s what I meant when I said no right is absolutely inviolable, including the right of an innocent to live.
See how easy it is to answer a question of ethics? 
Well, the one thing that does keep me going through life is knowing that most people are not fanatics on one side or the other…that’s how we can arrive at reasonable compromises (and this, of course, applies to all kinds of issues, not just this one.)
This is a false dilemma. How about a third option: As a general rule, no completely innocent individual loses his right to live, even if that infringes on the right of another to complete bodily autonomy. This eliminates all those pesky violinists using others as life support.
You keep begging the question. What is the more fundamental liberty, the right to live or the right to bodily autonomy? The right to bodily autonomy doesn’t exist without the right to live.
Well put, Stratocaster, better than my attempt. 
Okay, then, here goes. The right to live is a more fundamental right than the right to bodily autonomy. There’s my reconciliation.
This is begging the question. Why does the lack of societal interaction preclude rights? Does a person on a desert island have rights? A person in a coma? A hermit?
Because you continue to assert as a given that the unborn have no rights, then use that assertion to show why we needn’t assign rights to the unborn. Why does “societal interaction” confer rights on a being, except that it permits abortion? You might just as well say, “All those under the height of 20 inches have no rights.” Why? What makes this important other than the fact that it permits most abortions? What makes this anything other than a distinction of convenience?
This is bullshit and a cheap shot, and particularly so from someone who refuses to answer a simple question. I am on record on this board with my position on many, many occasions, and clarifying one’s position does not equate with “moving the goalposts.” I’m debating in good faith, and I’m not assuming poor motives. Why don’t you try it sometime?
Thank you!
Venerating newborns is a fairly recent phenomenon that has become possible with the advent of reliable birth control. Every culture has practiced infanticide and many still do. Even in moralistic Victorian England, the common solution to an unwanted child was to chuck them off a bridge or leave them on an (exposed to the elements) doorstep.
I’m not saying it’s a great thing, or something I would do, or something we should do as a society. I’m simply trying to answer “what makes an unborn fetus different than a newborn” question.
Cite? And what is your definition of “venerating?” Treating them as you would any human being? I care whether my husband lives or dies, but I wouldn’t say that I venerate him.
Well, it’s certainly a relief to hear that you wouldn’t do it. Doesn’t sound, though, as if you would have TOO much of a problem if there was no law prohibiting it.
If were going to talk about where we draw the line that a fetus/baby passes into “personhood”-- I, me, myself, personally, would draw that line a couple of months after birth. I’m not going to argue that infanticide is acceptable, though, because at that point it is simply too easy for an accidental mother to hand the newborn to someone else and be done with it. That last bit, ease of transferrablility, is the reason a newborn is “so different” from a 40wk fetus.
This is still assuming that the foetus has said right to life. Works for you, doesn’t work for me.
It is not begging the quesation. Did you miss the bit (I even repated it in brackets) where I said I believe rights arise out of social interaction. There is no abstract right that you have in the abscence of that right actually having an effect.
“Human Rights” only come into effect through social interaction. No social interaction, no rights. How does the right to, say, shelter, exist when there is no one esle to enforce said right? How does the right to life exist when there is no one to enforce it, and it doesn’t attain any relevance anyway?
PVS, or temporary?
See “Guy on desert island” above, same answer.
I dopn’t assert it as a given, I assert it as the basis for my stance. You are free to argue with the premises, rather than stand there going “circular argument” like that means what you think it means. Once again:
Rights arise out of social interaction, they don’t exist in abstract.
Foetuses do not interact socially.
Show me where you disagree, and then we’ll be debating.
I suspect you don’t agree with premise 1, and believe in abstract (or “inherent”) rights. I don’t, and I’ve yet to be convinced as to the inherent nature of human rights. Convince me…
You realise you’re just being silly here, don’t you? Social interaction is fundamental to the concept of human rights, as the other party to the right is Society. hjeight hardly comes into the idea of human rights, but Society does.
Because I don’t believe in inherent rights. I see “rights” as arbitrary social constructs. You may choose to disbelieve this, but my model of derived human rights, with a “person=social actor” definition, was formulated before my stance on abortion. It wasn’t created to exclude foetuses, the exclusion of foetuses arises as a natural consequence of the premise.