The ultimate pro-life claim is that abortion is murder. This is opposed to the ultimate pro-choice claim that a woman's body is her responsibility. There is no middle ground that everybody will agree to. The courts staked out a position that life (and therefor, murder) is undeniable at viability.
That makes sense to me. After all, viable is viable. It's at viability that the claim of murder becomes real and tangible. Viability is where the scales are convincingly tipped in the favor of the pro-lifers.
Now, I can imagine scenarios where even this obvious boundary might be violated. Obviously, the mother's life should not be threatened by the pregnancy. But there's also cases involving crimes like incest or rape, where the victim was too afraid or ashamed to come forward until it's too late.
In reality, it would be extremely difficult to justify a reason for NOT deciding to abort within the 19 week period before viability. But with over a hundred million women of child-bearing age in the U.S., valid cases will arise. It's a pity that law can't be flexible enough to judge exceptions on a case-by-case basis. If there were some way to do so, without subverting the law entirely, I would certainly endorse it.
For me looking at RvW it is a good example that judges can do very poor reasoning.
If only persons are the things that have equal moral value or right to life then you need another justification/rationale for things that aren't persons.
Rights are based on having desires for things, we as persons and have a sophisticated desire for continued existence, a rock doesn't. A rock cannot be harmed. But nor does a foetus or a baby.
Harm- if you can kill a thing and not harm because it doesn't care whether it is harmed or not, -or put another way doesn't or cannot care about its future-it in principle we can kill a baby and not harm it, if it is done in a human way because we haven't crossed it's desire not to suffer.
What a baby has has a desire not to suffer which is on par with many animals.
Also we don't stop from killing animals because they are viable or sentient or that other people can care for them.
So if that reason doesn't work for animals it cannot work for babies -they belong to the same class of things non persons- not that is if being ethically consistent is important.
Just belonging to a group isn't ethically releveant you need to look at the underlying nature of their desires.
So if you are going to treat like things alike based on their desires and not be speciest you should in reality treat a baby and a foetus like you treat other animals.
RvW is mess anmd poor reasoning the only reason Liberals can get away with it is that viw your constitution a baby is a legal person fropm birth so even if it it doesn't have a desire for life it is given one via a technicality and this sloppy reasoning need only be addressed in academic circles.
It has been an enlightening discussion, I am now more comfortable with my stance on the abortion issue. I'm leaving the thread. I wasn't expecting a abortion debate, and I'm honestly not really interested at this point.
Continue to have productive discussions like this one, hopefully everyone can learn something from you Simon.
Women should have a right to have a child or not. I dont understand how arbotion becomes a moral issue at all.
A Foetus is not a human being, and a chicken egg is not a chicken.
The only reason women generally feel bad about the issue is people making it a moral issue.
A Foetus has absolutely no human rights.
Well, it's actually a guideline, which means there's some flexibility. I think it would be fairly difficult to wade thru a thousand-page thread, but people will always want to discuss certain topics. Sometimes you just want to hit reset.
And still awaiting your defense of your statement:
Oct 18; Simon Sez: "A baby cannot care for itself and is dependent on caregivers, the only difference that care is internally for one but external for ther other.
You've made this point time and time again and you seem to imply it in the title of this whole thread. The point that you are asserting is that abortion and infanticide are exactly the same on the grounds that an infant is no less dependent on the mother than the fetus.
There is no difference between the two based on state of dependency.
If one is not a person, neither is the other.
If one is a person, so must be the other.
I and many more here have pointed out the glaring flaw in this reasoning: State of dependency of a fetus does not equal state of dependency of an infant.
X) I can give up a 3 month old baby with zero medical risk to myself or the baby.
Y) I can not give up a 3 month old fetus without medical risk to myself and death of the fetus.
Xdoes not equalY.
I have run out of ways to dumb this down any further.
- Changing the topic is not a defense of your point.
- Asserting that some other argument A=B does not defend this particular argument that X=Y.
- Rolling eyes and complaining because we aren't as rote-memory versed in the works of Philosopher Phil as you are does not defend this particular argument.
- Simply restating your argument does not defend your argument. (Think Creationists continually asserting that God made the world without ever providing a hint of empirical evidence to back it up. Saying the same wrong fact over and over again doesn't make that fact true).
- Free Thinker pointed out that with such a hot topic it's unlikely any of us is going to change the others' opinion. However, I'm not talking about moral opinion here, I'm talking about physical, biological, medical fact: X does not equal Y.
Can you or can you not defend this particular statement?
And with all due respect, can you or can you not do so with a modicum of correct grammar and spelling so the rest of us can be clear on what you are trying to communicate?
I wonder if this is something for which two extremes are just pushing around what ultimately is a very complex answer. You cant easily argue for an arbitrary solution either way, that is, the simple "fundamentalists" would claim any abortion, any reason, any time before birth, and on the other side, no way, the pill is evil, sperm is sacred. Both of which, honestly, seem dogmatic and unfounded in reason.
I tend to support abortion rights, but only absolutely so where it is obvious such as:
1. where it endangers the health of the mother
2. a case where adoption is impossible.
3. for any reason in the first trimester (earlier the better-morning after pill is best)
But that is just MY opinion and any number of circumstances or arguments could easily sway me either way. Plus, it seems, the "right thing" becomes complex as the baby's capacity begins to develop exponentially past the first trimester and the question of whether it is capable of independent thought becomes more "up for debate". Should a mother who has been pregnant for 8 months be able to change her mind because she just feels like it, or is bored with the idea? And in the case of Rape, why make 2 victims of one crime? These are not conclusions, they are not rhetorical, they are genuine questions that probably have varying answers with incalculable numbers of mitigating circumstances.
To me the rational thing is to respond to complex questions with thoughtful, complex answers, not simple rhymes and dogma like the religious do. Religion is black/white no gray. Rational thinkers realize everything is gray, don't they?