Nobody knows when a fetus attains the status of personhood.
It's possible that the pro-choice community has drawn the line appropriately, at the end of the first trimester.
It's also possible that they have drawn it too late, and are killing persons.
If fetuses are persons, they have a right to life.
There is no right to choose to kill a person for their burdensome presence.
The right does not materialize, just because someone is willing to risk life and limb to make it happen (as in the case of the "back-alley" abortions.
It's possible that I draw the line too early (conception). I only do this out of ethical and intellectual humility, the admission that I know that I do not know. I can't say when it's okay to kill a fetus because I don't know when it attains personhood.
Those who support abortion laws based on developmental stages as determinants of personhood have assumed an arrogant role as arbiters of inalienable rights. Developmental stages are not proof of personhood, or the lack thereof. If you say that a woman has the inalienable right to choose what she does with her body, why should that be any different after 12 weeks. There's no proof personhood begins then. Either she has the right or she does not. If you draw the line, you are assuming you have enough knowledge of fetal personhood to revoke a woman's right to choose, or sentence a fetus to death, as you see fit. If medical science gave us the ability to fully gestate a baby independent of a woman's body, then what? No longer a burden to women, would it then have the right to life? Who would decide, and how?
You don't have to believe personhood or moral value begins at conception. The fact that you don't know should be enough reason to oppose abortion on demand. But to support abortion on demand, you must be willing to say to yourself,"It's okay to take the chance that persons are being murdered, so that women have the right to choose not to be burdened with them in their bodies".
Once you're willing to take that step, I don't see how you can limit or qualify that right. Why do women have to carry a 20 week pregnancy any further, if they don't want to? There's no proof a 20 week fetus has personhood, and people vary in their opinions. If some think 20 weeks is too late to have an abortion, why do they have the right to dictate that to any one else? For that matter, why should viability matter? Is that proof of personhood? Is it enough to revoke that inalienable right to choose to have an abortion?
I know a lot of people think my position is extreme. That doesn't bother me because I think most people put more careful thought into their cell phone plans than they do ethics. The right to life is for all men. That right does not hang on opinion, though obviously, its protection does.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I like that you are asking questions of your commentators, even if we disagree it is better to understand the opposing position as fully as possible. So bravo for that!
This recent post makes epistemological claims about the certainty of knowledge, which is self-defeating. Either we can know something or we cannot, it does little good to ponder the unknowable, only to evaluate what can be known. Back to the debate...
The reason I object to mingling words the way you did before is that from a philosophical and legal perspective, the "moral status of a person" is the substance of the debate. Both sides agree on that terminology since it is sufficiently neutral to each side. My objection was over your usage of human life, which assumes both human form and life. The inalienable rights you refer to apply only to persons, not to "physical beings with their own DNA." Nowhere in biology does an incomplete group of cells count as a living creature. I am just asking that you not imply personhood at the start of your argument, since that is the issue at stake.
Acceptance is not the same thing as complicity and mass murder is a serious charge, so I am innocent of your rhetorical overkill (excuse my pun). Just because I acknowledge the discretion of a woman to have an abortion does not imply I prefer that option. Nobody in their right mind wants there to be unwanted pregnancies. Since violence and coercion are still used against women, since there is no absolutely safe and effective birth control, and since teaching abstinence has never been a good deterrent, I find it impossible to conclude there should be no valid reasons for birth control after conception.
Since you wrote, "If I were a fetus..." I presumed it was your voice being conferred. Do you agree with environmentalists who use this tactic to anthropomorphize animals? Even though medical technology has made day old embryo destruction routine, most people will grant a three month fetus at least some moral value. One of the best pro-choice philosophers, Judith Jarvis Thompson, concedes that it may be an act of decency to continue the pregnancy. So the pro-choice side of the fence does not exclusively consider a woman's right to choose.
To explain my potentiality argument, I will use a common analogy. The acorn is the seed of an oak tree. Given a fertile area of ground and normal weather and sunlight, it will become a tree. We can say that the acorn is a potential tree, but we do not reference it with actualization towards that end until it sprouts leaves above the surface and can utilize the environment to sustain itself. There is a minimal level of autonomy and functional form that gives it an objective status to a neutral observer.
Likewise, it is reasonable to say that viability is the equivalent reference point for personhood. This is why I feel perfectly justified in demarcating the third trimester as the start of personhood. First, the capacity to breathe starts at that time. Second, the brain has advanced to the point of conscious awareness rather than reflex responses. Before this stage, an embryo is a template for a human life, but afterwards we can use the full meaning of the word person.
I also consider the consequences of banning abortion, forcing a woman to carry the pregnancy harms the maternal bond of affection. Instead of nurturing her baby, she may treat the unwanted offspring like an actual parasite, which is a bad outcome for the child and society. The fetus would be entitled to live, but not to any other obligations.
"I have decided to assume actual personhood because I can't know for sure." Even though I believe it is known when personhood begins, I do not see the merit in declaring the rights of an unknown should have priority over a woman's actual rights.
Happy Holidays,
stephen
Wow, what an incredibly thought-out blog(which was found by googling your name). I don't even know if you ever check it anymore, the last post is from december. Oh well, found you.
Post a Comment