You'll always keep me busy. :) I suppose your plan is better than that of those who think the time will come when the woman herself might be prosecuted for abortion.
Besides, I've got a soft spot for anyone who actually understands the original meaning of the phrase "to beg the question."
This argument is roughly analogous to the following. Suppose there is a person in your house, and you don't want him there. Perhaps he's an intruder, or perhaps he's an invited guest who's worn out his welcome. Outside is a howling blizzard, and it's certain that if you eject him from your house he will die. Do you have the right to eject him regardless?BullGooseLoony (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-12-08 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. The great thing about a proper pro-choice argument is that it takes personhood into account.
Whether the fetus is a person or not, it doesn't have the right to use someone else's body to sustain itself against that person's will.
The answer is that yes, you do. It may be immoral for you to do so, and you may be a horrible person if you do so, but it's your property and it's your right to decide who occupies it. The fact that the other person needs to make use of your property to survive does not impose any duty on you.
But the analogy fails in the case of abortion, because while you may have the right to eject most people from your house, this right does not apply when the other person is your child. You do have an affirmative duty to shelter, feed, and otherwise care for your children, and this duty is voluntarily assumed when you choose to become a parent. This can be extended to claiming that the duty is assumed when you voluntarily choose to engage in behavior for which pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence, i.e. sex. The law already recognizes this in the case of men, who are obligated to support children they father, even if they use birth control, even if they've been falsely assured that their partner is sterile.
I wonder if people said the same thing about slavery. I know people said the same thing about segregation... and to this day people say the same thing about affirmative action.
What's a good reason? And since when do free people need to have "good reasons" to exercise their rights?but we should seek to put restrictions on it, especially the ones that allow late term abortions for no good reason.
Either the fetus is a person or it isn't. If it is, then abortion is the moral equivalent of homicide. If it isn't, then abortion is the moral equivalent of a haircut. In neither case does restricting it to one per person make any sense at all. We don't give people one legal murder, nor do we limit people to one legal haircut.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|