Originally Posted by Dilettante

Since its Saturday and I REALLY don't feel like doing the research I should be doing right now, I thought I'd try and spark a little new life in this thread.

Specifically, I'd like to address the sentiments so aptly displayed in this quote from Hafke:


It strikes me that this kind of absolute either/or mentality is at least partially responsible for some of the divisiveness surrounding abortion because it makes each side feel that "everything" is somehow on the line.
I would like to suggest that this is a false dichotomy, and one that we've successfully dismissed in several other areas.

In deference to that irritating collection of semantically obsessive individuals who delight in pointing out that "murder" technically means unlawful killing, let us rephrase the essential claim as "either abortion is the intentional, unjustified killing of a person or it isn't."

Now, I think we can safely say that abortion IS intentional and it IS the killing of something, a collection of cells at the very least. So that leaves us asking whether the thing we're killing is a "person" and whether such killing is "unjustified."

And here we come to my dissatisfaction with this line of reasoning: it assumes that "personhood" (or, more specifically, its associated rights) is something that is either completely present or completely absent in a given human form. I submit that the attributes of personhood arrive piecemeal and thus the rights associated with those attributes should as well.

As it happens, we already acknowledge this with regard to both children and the senile elders. We may refer to children as "persons," but we recognize that they are not entitled to a full set of rights. Children may not be slain on a whim, but they may be, in some circumstances, confined against their will, denied goods and services, and even subjected to a restrained sort of physical assault (spankings). As a child develops toward adulthood, they take on more rights. They become entitled more goods and services and are less subject to involuntary confinement.
The process works in reverse for certain elders (and some others) who lose their physical and mental abilities. They lose certain rights, becoming subject to confinement against their will and, if their situation deteriorates far enough (e.g. vegetative state) the can be intentionally left to die.

The final point brings us to the question of what constitutes "unjustified" killing. Obviously not all killing is considered murder (or even unjustified). As described above, there are times at which a living human body can be intentionally and justifiably left to die. And naturally, most of us recognize that there are other cases (such as war and in self-defense) when the killing of another human is justifiable.

Taking this all back to abortion, I submit that it is sensible to propose that the basic "right to life" (which we all generally acknowledge should be present by birth) should be arrived at in stages, prior to birth. I.E. the killing becomes less and less justifiable as the human develops within the womb.
Pragmatically speaking, this would look something like this:
Abortion for any reason is acceptable up to developmental stage A.
Abortion for (...slightly more restrictive set of reasons...) is acceptable up to developmental stage B.
...etc...
Abortion is only acceptable for the life/health of the mother (i.e. "in self defense") after developmental stage X.

In short, I submit that rather than having to choose whether the full right to life should be granted at conception or at birth, it would be more sensible to recognize that the rights of the unborn child develop as the child does, and thus the killing of the unborn becomes less and less justifiable as they develop.

Originally Posted by SMadsen

It may not seem to make any difference but it's actually an important distinction because abortion is about conflicts between rights. If you say that the unborn gain rights gradually, it means that another individual looses rights gradually. You can't base abortion on rights granted to the unborn alone. It necessarily involves a person that is already granted a set of formal rights. In full.

Originally Posted by Dilettante

Actually, I think the essential rights of the other person (the mother/woman) would be largely unaltered, though the context in which she operates would be evolving as the unborn advanced toward "personhood."

For example, let's say I have the right to freely swing my fists about so long as I don't punch anyone in the face. If I'm in an empty room, then I can swing my fists about as much as I please. However, if someone comes into the room and stands in front of me, I don't have the right to swing my fists in his direction. My essential rights have not changed, but the context in which I operate has.

Originally Posted by Dilettante

The pro-choice argument is that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants to with her own body. But we all already acknowledge that this right is restricted; she may not, for example, decide to hit some person in the face with her fists,even though her fists are unquestionably part of her body. The same restrictions apply to men; you may not use your body to damage the body of some other person.

Originally Posted by Dilettante

In recognizing that personhood develops overtime, rather than spontaneously appears in complete form as the head emerges from the birth canal, we are not altering the essential rights of the women, we are merely recognizing that the context in which she operates changes as the unborn child develops. A recognition that strikes me as fairly straight forward and as more sensible than either the notion that a zygote is just as fully a person as an infant, or that a change in physical location (those final few inches) is the determining factor in assigning personhood.

Originally Posted by SMadsen

I disagree. Let's say that you do indeed have the right to freely swing your fists about. The problem is not that you can't swing them at anyone. You actually can but not without certain consequences (that aren't due to your rights but to criminal code). The problem will only arise if your fists are given rights of their own so that the mere exercise of your right to swing them around will be a violation of the rights of your fists.


The pro-choice argument is based on the fact that the state has granted the woman certain rights and therefore has no say in what she is to do with her own body. Those rights are not really restricted. A right to freedom is a right to freedom. No more, no less. However, rights are only in effect as long as the person holding them doesn't violate law. But that's not a restriction. It's a condition....

Originally Posted by soot

I voted Abortion should be banned, but subject to exceptions.

The exceptions would be in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

Life, such as it is, begins at the moment of conception. If you've got 46 cromosomes you're a biologically unique individual.

Killing a biologically unique individual is murder. Therefore, abortion is murder.

I can accept some forms of murder, such as capital punishment, killing during war, or abortion in a case when a woman is subjected against her will to sexual abuse that results in pregnancy (along with the other examples I mentioned).

Other than that I'm opposed to abortion and will continue to fund the pro-life movement as long as necessary.

Originally Posted by SMadsen

I have no problem with that, provided that definitions are made at which stage(s) the unborn is to be granted certain rights. When you grant a part of the persons body certain rights, you are immobilizing rights of that person, i.e. restricting the persons exercise of own rights.

Originally Posted by Si modo

It's legal, so it's not murder.

[edit] BTW, I voted for the same option in the posted poll. [/edit]

Originally Posted by soot

Just like the work of the Einsatzgruppen wasn't murder because the legally constituted NSDAP government legalized the work of roaming around conquered territories murdering Slavs.

It's murder, and those who practice it are murderers.

And as far as I'm concerned that's putting both the act, its practitioners, and its supporters in the absolute best possible light.

What Bush has done in Iraq is nothing compared to what liberal Americans have done back home.

But I'm going to get off this topic before I start saying things about the murderers who support this damnable practice that are going to get me more "warning points".

Originally Posted by soot

But I'm going to get off this topic before I start saying things about the murderers who support this damnable practice that are going to get me more "warning points".

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

That's where I am. I don't care much for restrictions of abortion, but I don't think a fetus/baby that could survive out of the womb ought to be 'aborted'.