Seven minutes before birth the fetus is definitely a distinct individual
As individuals are examples of discrete, distinct, and particular members within a group--certainly, a foetus, 7 minutes prior to being born, is a distinct and individual foetus. I have no argument nor desire to counter that. Likewise, an embryo 7 months prior to birth is a distinct and individual embryo. And the millions of sperm that die during intercourse, are distinct and individual sperms. A bag of marbles consists of individual marbles; And a planet full of people consists of individual persons.
At the moment of birth, the foetus becomes an individual person. Later it will become an individual corpse, and later yet--individual blades of grass and so forth. Identity as an individual person begins at birth.
Our species has gone over, through, and around this before: Serfs and lords, slaves and masters--Brahmin or sewer cleaner. We have had the ruling class (in its natural alliance with the warrior/military caste), ASSIGNING INEQUALITY to groups and individuals since time began. Recently, history has taken the huge step of recognizing the EQUALITY of persons from birth. This is the most crucial bar of reason and law which must be protected. If people lose this, they'll lose all the progress that has been made in human existence.
If a RIGHT is not honoured by society, it has no practical meaning other than as an harbinger of hope, and a motivation for defence. If I can make you my slave without opposition from others, then reason has ridden out on the pony, and we might as well fire the barn.
What could be more fundamental than equality of persons? The RIGHT of all people to be free--to be what they are--SEPARATE: The RIGHT to be left alone? If we do not honour this, there is nothing left for us to honour. We might as well return to the jungle law of tooth and claw. If you accept the precedence of force as an ethical standard, then any attempt to sway me by reason will obviously only incite my ridicule. So your use of reason encourages me to make some assumptions.
Now the problem with abortion is not if society ought to declare the foetus a person before birth--but whether persons that are already persons have the RIGHT to their own minds, and their own body. And this is where the problem comes in: If we declare that the woman is the appendage of the embryo, then we turn the concept of individual RIGHTS upon its head. The woman's RIGHT to kill herself (for example) would be met with the agents of society pinning her down and putting her in a straitjacket and feeding her intravenously, because she has been declared to have (abandoned?) her RIGHT to be what she is--separate, free, autonomous--because of an embryo that will suffer spontaneous abortion from 25 to 65 percent of the time??
The problem is, they cannot both have the RIGHT to life. They can each have the indulgence of society, but they cannot both have the RIGHT--because it involves contradiction.
Now, this is not part of my argument, but a thought: Would a wise and sensible God wastefully stitch souls into blood clots, that will be spontaneously aborted from 25 to 65 percent of the time? That is such a baseless supernatural concept. A wise God would infuse a soul at the moment of birth, when a SEPARATE person is born, comes into existence, and has personal identity. A wise God would not sacrifice all those trillions of other souls.
The morality of abortion is an issue that can be discussed forever. It is an important issue. Perhaps we can discuss it sometime. But you know that I am not discussing that issue. I am discussing the morality of the RIGHT of persons to live as persons, and not as slaves. If we don't have a rational structure, then discussing abortion or anything else is laughable and absurd: Why bother discussing the "rights" of a foetus if the starting point requires abandoning the RIGHTS of the human race? Before the morality of abortion can be rationally discussed, people must be clear on just what principles are not for trade or barter. There is a reason why society does not blame the fertilized ova for slipping out of the mother, and thereby interfering with the mother's "right" to give birth: The ova is NOT a person, and it has no obligations nor responsibilities, nor accountabilities--not to anyone, not to anything. It has no existence other than that conferred by the mother. If the mother dies, it dies. If the mother's RIGHTS die, the "rights" of the foetus die.
Well, sorry for the rant. The coffee. I'm rushing out, so I will leave these thoughts incomplete. Just wanted to get a basic framework down. |
