B
Bluegoat
Guest
The language of rights is one that gets used rather strangely sometimes. As far as people who say abortion should be a right, I think they are actually not all coming from the same point of view, so it’s not useful to lump them all together. Although I would certainly not describe myself as pro-choice at all, I also don’t think it serves anyone to say there are no complexities to this issue that need to be addressed.
There are those who don’t think an embryo or fetus is a person, or often, not a person up to a certian point in the pregnancy. The first is rather hard to defend, since an older fetus and a newborn baby are pretty similar and we recognize the rights of the newborn. The second depends on what we mean by person, what does it mean for an embryo, for example, to have rights. From this point of view, there is no conflict of rights between the mother and the child in the womb.
Others seem to think that the rights of the fully developed mother outweigh the right to life of the child, always, because the child is “using” her body. So I guess the principle is, no one has the right to use the body of another if that person is not willing, even if the user had no actual ill intent - or an any intent at all. What is more common, I think, is people who feel the mother has the right to make the decision if she has become pregnant through no choice of her own - by rape. So a mother who has sex on purpose is ultimately agreeing to the possibility of pregnancy, but not if she is assaulted. But again, the principle here is the individual has the right to make a decision about her own body; even if it affects someone else.
And then there those, a large group I suspect, that feel that the mother only has the right to consider termination when her life is in danger - that is, it is a question of one life against the other. (It isn’t the case that doctors can always “fix” such issues by other means.) I think many people feel that in such a case, there is no good way for the state to legislate the appropriate decision, both because the medical facts can vary so much, and just because the state does not have the tools to weigh such delicate moral issues. This raises the question - who gets to decide when the mother’s life is really in danger? Does she need a doctors approval? Does she need to present her case to a board? If, ultimatly, the only way to adjudicate such an issue is to give the final decision to the mother herself, then is it appropriate to make her seek approval from anyone, or should it be only between her and God? So these people sometimes conclude that the only good way to legislate about abortion is to give the decision to the mother. So from that viewpoint a mother who aborted for only her own convenience would be morally wrong, but within her legal rights.
It seems to me the pro-life movement has the best chance of reaching the last group. To do that would probably mean showing a better way to deal with such situations. Honestly, I haven’t seen much in the way of attempts to do that. Either they simply say even the inevitable death of the mother is not grounds for abortion (which, right or not, I think most people will not be willing to make that a legal position) in which case I would say there is no hope in the near future for any change in the current laws; or they don’t seem to address it at all.
There are those who don’t think an embryo or fetus is a person, or often, not a person up to a certian point in the pregnancy. The first is rather hard to defend, since an older fetus and a newborn baby are pretty similar and we recognize the rights of the newborn. The second depends on what we mean by person, what does it mean for an embryo, for example, to have rights. From this point of view, there is no conflict of rights between the mother and the child in the womb.
Others seem to think that the rights of the fully developed mother outweigh the right to life of the child, always, because the child is “using” her body. So I guess the principle is, no one has the right to use the body of another if that person is not willing, even if the user had no actual ill intent - or an any intent at all. What is more common, I think, is people who feel the mother has the right to make the decision if she has become pregnant through no choice of her own - by rape. So a mother who has sex on purpose is ultimately agreeing to the possibility of pregnancy, but not if she is assaulted. But again, the principle here is the individual has the right to make a decision about her own body; even if it affects someone else.
And then there those, a large group I suspect, that feel that the mother only has the right to consider termination when her life is in danger - that is, it is a question of one life against the other. (It isn’t the case that doctors can always “fix” such issues by other means.) I think many people feel that in such a case, there is no good way for the state to legislate the appropriate decision, both because the medical facts can vary so much, and just because the state does not have the tools to weigh such delicate moral issues. This raises the question - who gets to decide when the mother’s life is really in danger? Does she need a doctors approval? Does she need to present her case to a board? If, ultimatly, the only way to adjudicate such an issue is to give the final decision to the mother herself, then is it appropriate to make her seek approval from anyone, or should it be only between her and God? So these people sometimes conclude that the only good way to legislate about abortion is to give the decision to the mother. So from that viewpoint a mother who aborted for only her own convenience would be morally wrong, but within her legal rights.
It seems to me the pro-life movement has the best chance of reaching the last group. To do that would probably mean showing a better way to deal with such situations. Honestly, I haven’t seen much in the way of attempts to do that. Either they simply say even the inevitable death of the mother is not grounds for abortion (which, right or not, I think most people will not be willing to make that a legal position) in which case I would say there is no hope in the near future for any change in the current laws; or they don’t seem to address it at all.
