It's not about killing the fetus for the sake of the mother, it's about "when a woman no longer welcomes this foreign entity inside her uterus, it no longer has the right to stay." That's what the goal of abortion is: get the fetus out of the woman's body. But of course the fetus won't be able to survive outside. But that doesn't mean we can force the woman to keep it in just for the benefits of the fetus.
'
That "foreign entity" is her own child, but never mind that. Let's consider your closing, and the assumption that, "But of course the fetus won't be able to survive outside."
Suppose the fetus
could survive outside the womb? And I'm not talking about the "partial birth abortion" scenario. I mean, suppose that through advancements in medical science it becomes possible in the future to "get the fetus out of the woman's body" but keep it alive through to full development?? It's not such a long shot. A few years ago I had a discussion with someone who worked in an neonatal ICU who told me that just during his career the number of weeks at which a 'preemie' could be kept alive had shrunk from around 28 weeks to about 22 weeks. So, when science reaches the point that any fetus can be saved, and a pregnant woman decides she wants that foreign entity out of her body, should she still be held responsible as the parent of that child if it survives? Or is abortion really just about eliminating the consequences of irresponsible behavior?
In a lot of the situations where the woman ends up choosing abortion, abortion is actually the most responsible solution at that moment in time, certainly much more responsible than any of the other alternatives suggested by uninterested, faraway parties who have absolutely no personal stake in the woman's situation. These people are too busy with their own agendas to look after the best interests of the mother, the child, and the family.
Once the child is born, their best interest should be the focal point in all discussions related to parenting. I don't see any particular reason to treat the children "born" under abortion any differently than other newborns? There are already existing processes for parents of newborns, whether they choose to be the legal parents or not.
Re: equality, once a child is born, *both* parents share equal parental responsibilities, regardless of their initial intentions before childbirth. A father who doesn't want the child has to provide financial support, just as a mother who doesn't want the child has to do the same, as well. So there's your "equal rights" for women and men. The only inequality is in the period before the child's born, and the things that happened and the decisions that were made during this period (pregnancy). But this inequality is dictated by the inequality in biology.
@[member='Foxi4']
I didn't call your angle wrong because it's not "my" angle, but because it's not from the angle of anyone in question. So I demonstrated a way to look -- from the perspectives of those individuals whose bodies were actually involved -- at what the right to bodily integrity would mean to "them". That's all.
Why are there so many contradictions in your posts? It's almost as if you'd never QAed your ideas before you uttered them...
If it's truly, TRULY, your conviction that abortion is equivalent to killing a human being, then you can't justify allowing exceptions for ra.pe. Since when can murder ever be justified on grounds of the murder victim's mother being a victim of ra.pe? Can a baby be legally killed because their mother was ra.ped?
If we are to assume that a fetus should have the rights of a person, when should it begin having these rights? "A fetus that is in the process of forming organs which already has a nervous system in place or is in the process of forming one" would be a third-trimester fetus. So first- and second-trimester abortions are ok?
From the perspective of the fetus, as long as it's in one piece with no missing body parts, its bodily integrity could be considered intact. How can this non-violation of the fetus's bodily integrity be used to argue against the mother's right to her own bodily integrity?
If it can't be argued in that way, then can it be argued with the fetus's right to life? If the fetus's right to life can be argued in favour of trespass to the person for the mother, then it would open the door for involuntary organ donations. (whether or not the donor and the recipient are physically attached to each other is a completely irrelevant point, as it was never even used in the argument to support right to life over right to bodily integrity to begin with.)
Another equally irrelevant point is whether or not the pregnancy itself could've, would've, should've been prevented in retrospect. Even if you were to take her past (in)actions as some form of "opt-out"/"implied" consent to being pregnant, she still retains the right to withdraw that consent at a later date. When she does withdraw consent, the only argument left is her right to bodily integrity vs. fetus's right to life.
If someone's right to life > another person's right to bodily integrity, is valid if and only if, during pregnancy, then fetuses would have more rights than any other groups of people. What is the justification for this?
Human reproductive biology gives the mother the choice to place her own priorities before those of the fetus, by the fact that women can terminate their pregnancies if they need to (abortions have been performed ever since ancient times, often unsafely). To justify overriding this "right" that nature has given women (control over their own bodies) through social means, you're going to need some very rational arguments, that can stand the test of scrutiny, to demonstrate the system provided by nature is inferior to the one you propose. I have yet to see anyone do that.
What I have seen so far is nothing more than an irrational desire to punish pregnant women for their alleged "irresponsible behaviours", so as to satisfy someone else's own notion of "justice". Thankfully, this desire isn't nearly as strong when it comes to other groups, otherwise smokers would have to face even more troubles than they already have...
@
The Real Jdbye:
