appolose said:
Torillian said:
appolose said:
Granted, but I would say it's not just her taking on the burden of this life; she also has to actively terminate it. It differs from forced charity in that way: the fetus has no choice in being there either, and can do nothing about it, so the fetus itself is not violating her own rights. Whereas, the abortion is a choice, and, therefore, would be violating the fetus' rights.
|
She doesn't have to actively terminate it, she could just continue her life without consideration for it and it'd probably die naturally. If she was a smoker and/or drinker and didn't quit, or she continue having an active/athletic lifestyle for too long. The reason abortion is chosen is that it's a clinical procedure and is therefore safer for the mother, but the important part is that this isn't something that she can deal with without changing how she previously lived, so it's definitely forced charity. The fetus is not violating her right by choice (it doesn't have any yet) but it is by its existence.
You're right, the fetus is not being given a choice in this matter, but unfortunately I can't ask the fetus to weigh in on the matter, and if I could I'd likely have a different viewpoint on the whole thing. So without that to go on I think the decision should be left to the conscious person most affected by the decision: the rape victim.
|
Any of those actions she takes are known to risk or cause death to the fetus, so it would be effectively the same as actively terminating it, though. And I was referring to charity in terms of participating vs. not participating. That is, if I don't give someone food, for example, my lack of action is not what caused them to starve to death. Whereas, in this case, the lack is exactly what causes it.
And the contention one might raise with that is that, either way, someone has to give up something. And one of them cannot choose in the matter, so it would be a violation of its rights to choose for it.
|
Not sure where we're going with the first bit. Being pregnant is an active process in itself, so the idea that it must be actively terminated seems immaterial because it can be passively terminated in the means I mentioned before.
I'm sorry but the second part doesn't make logical sense, why does it make more sense to violate the rights of the one that could choose over the one that can't? If you know one of the parties can choose while the other can't why would you not try to give someone in this situation a choice?
