Onyxmeth said:
At what stage in a pregnancy can the fetus actually try to preserve it's life by moving away from abortion tools? I may be pro-choice, but I am not inhumane. If there is concrete proof that your scenario can happen at 20 weeks or prior, I will move my scale down to the appropriate time. In my scenario I gave you, you decided to say the woman could make the choice. That right there is being pro-choice. That is allowing the mother to make the decision regarding the child's life. A pro-life stance would be let nature take it's course because no one can impede on the right's of the unborn child. By saying the mother can make the decisions of the unborn regarding it's life, you too have taken a stance of pro-choice. Now if you believe a woman can make that choice to spare her own life, then why not for other reasons? You've already made it abundantly clear by giving the woman the choice that her decision making is more precious than the fetus' is. That right there is the copout I hate hearing from pro-lifers. It's the considerations and compromises made based on certain scenarios. "Oh, look. She was raped. Let's allow that woman to have an abortion." Why? That woman's life is not in danger. The fetus is not given a choice. Maybe the fetus doesn't mind growing up knowing it's the product of a rape incident. However the fetus is not given a choice in the matter, and the mother is allowed to terminate a pregnancy to save her mental well being. Most pro-choicers seem fine with that scenario. However, mental health is a grey area, and a woman merely going through with a traditional pregnancy can suffer from it too because of her going through with it. Why can't they get abortions? It's these contradictory areas that I find to be bullshit in the arguments with pro-lifers. It should be all or none. Either defend the rights of the unborn or don't, but making compromises such as these dilutes your stance.
|
I'm not even sure of the relevance of this first point. Pro-choicers generally acknowledge that the rights of the child are somewhat contingent upon the acquirement of conciousness, i.e. this is the reason we attach more significance to late term abortion and the same reason we attach less right of life to animals and relatively more to higher order animals. Movement of the foetus from a noxious stimulus doesn't in any way signify the attainment of conciousness, even the most basic of creatures has the instinct of self preservation, but it doesn't necessarily afford them a right to life in our eyes.
Onyxmeth brings up a good point here and it makes me think that many people would do well to read more about abortion ethics and law and an understanding of how legal systems work before diving into a debate on this issue. The fact that even pro-lifers are/were willing to allow concessions on their pro-life stance is the crux around which abortion legislation has developed. You allow an exception to a law in one situation, e.g. abortion in a rape case, where there is no physical risk to the mothers life, then you open to the door for broader applications of the law.
On the other hand if you afford the unborn foetus full right to life from conception, you are infringing upon the liberty of the mother. By extension you could say that if you are going to give the foetus full right to life then why shouldn't the state control all aspects of the mother's medical care during pregnancy? Afterall any bad decision you make could infringe upon the rights of the unborn child. They could legally stop you from drinking alcohol, smoking, eating fatty foods, taking drugs, determine the time and method of your deliver etc. Clearly a situation like this is ludicrous and the fact that it doesn't exist proves that in the eyes of most people, even if subconciously, the unborn child does not and can not have the same rights as the mother. As i said in a previous post, it is impossible to fully reconcile and recognise the rights of two beings living within one body.
