The rational moral reason at least in cases that the fetus was not conceived from rape, is that the woman participated in causing the fetus to exist in its dependent state.
Even if that were true, how does THAT make the egg a person or give it RIGHTS??
Tim, I've become convinced that you are simply playing dodgeball, and that you have no intention of challenging or proving your beliefs; Instead, you evade any and all points that threaten the necessity of your stance.
From what I can see, your biggest task seems to be avoiding the logical outcome of arguments. When a poster (Karen) tried to introduce contraception as a policy that could eventually serve to heal some of the divisiveness in this issue, you response (IMO, of course) was contrived to circumvent any such hope.
You have an agenda, don't you? You throw a sop to the reasoning process, but I don't believe reason has anything to do with the beliefs you hold about the fetus. You are not grappling with ideas; You are evading them because you believe you already have the answers--right?
Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't believe any logic or reasoning in the Universe could change your mind. I believe your reasoning pose is an affectation. Am I wrong? Are you fighting for foetal "rights" because it has a likely and logical ring for you? But why then would I see no effort on your part to engage in any intellectual interest on the apparent contradictions that expose themselves to your preformed opinions?
I'm sorry, Twofowler, I simply am unable to get a sense of a genuine effort on your part to test the alternatives. I don't believe there are any alternatives for you; And I surely don't appreciate an insincere offer to negotiate the value of ideas; I hope this is not happening.
Well, perhaps I am wrong. If honesty is an important value for your soul, you will tell me I have made a huge mistake, and that you would be happy to change your mind--regardless of whether or not it contradicts some supernatural opinion that you might hold from somewhere else--and you will have my most humble regrets for misunderstanding you.
In any case, I have not really heard an argument from you. I have only heard evasions or dismissals of mine. It feels like I am working alone here; So be it. I will try to point out the abominable outcomes that would appear to derive from your attempt to call the fetus a "person", with (obviously) the RIGHTS of a "person."
1). As I pointed out previously, IF the fetus is a person, THEN the fetus has the RIGHTS of a person. We know the fetus lives off the blood, bone marrow, and donations of a "PERSON" whose "person" status is not in doubt. You clearly believe this is a RIGHT of the fetus/person. You have said so. It follows that you believe the pregnant woman may be forced to sacrifice "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to this end. You do not say how you would force this contribution to the egg; Nor do you explain how a RIGHT has become an obligation. I find it appalling that a person (such as you) should be able to FORCE a person (such as me) to donate my blood and organs--and my "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to your NEED. But you said that the fetus was a person with the rights of a person. The last time I checked, no people had to sit at the back of the bus because their RIGHTS were unequal to other persons. Presumably, my rights are at least equal to a fetus.
2). Then you implied (by your "at least in cases that the fetus was not conceived from rape" comment) that the RIGHTS of the fetus were conditional upon behaviour of one or more OTHER PEOPLE. This almost made me throw up. You claimed the fetus was a "person" and had the RIGHTS (obviously, again) of a "person"--then you implied that if the pregnant woman was raped, the fetus could (perhaps) be killed. To suggest that a person's RIGHTS are forfeited by the actions of others is perhaps the most disgusting idea that I have ever come across in a half century of disgusting ideas. What on earth does a right mean to you?? Is the fault mine, that I have simply misread you?
You know that I do not believe the fetus has the RIGHT to "life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", because it is basic to my understanding that Beatrice and her egg cannot both have the RIGHT to pursue potentially contradictory goals. A RIGHT includes the freedom to. They cannot both have the moral freedom to do DIFFERENT things, when those DIFFERENT things invade and circumvent the will of one another. The concept is stupid.
You, on the other hand, apparently have no trouble with contradictions. But please--PLEASE tell me that you don't think the Personhood and personrights of the foetus (as you believe them to be) are conditional upon the BEHAVIOUR of any other party. I would much prefer you to believe in contradictions than that a PERSON's RIGHTS could be forfeited by the behaviour of others. I would like to know that your belief in fetal rights at least is consistent enough to FORCE women of any age or any circumstance to bear that egg till it becomes BORN into the world. I would rather have some become slaves by your idea--than that all become so...
Have you ever heard of ridiculous contradictions developing when people toy with words and arguments as if they were simply meaningless impediments to their BELIEF? I have actually seen it happen.
Do you think that you can enjoy the RIGHT to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", if I hound you from morning to night and prevent you from eating, and society does nothing to intervene?
Beatrice and her egg cannot both have the RIGHT to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Chances are that beatrice will cherish her egg, and will try to give it the priviledge of personhood--although the chance of birth is still problematical.
3). Again, you made some remarks about dependency of the foetus, as if dependency was the fault of the pregnant woman; Thus you bring in the idea of punishment. Do you mean that dependency is a prerequisite for having "personhood" and RIGHTS? What does dependency have to do with whether or not an egg is a PERSON? When an accident victim goes into a coma do we all jump up and down and say, "Oh Hell--look--She just became a person. She is dependent. Now she has RIGHTS.
Do you see how chaotic this is become? I know what you believe. You believe the egg has the right to be born. But to give it this right you must deny the rights of the pregnant woman to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Do you care?
How would you force a woman to carry a fetus to full term, anyway?? What techniques could you possibly use that would ensure the development of the egg through all stages of parasitism up until birth? The whole idea is stunning, it is so ridiculous.
Lastly, who do you think you are arguing against? Have you ever met a person that liked abortions? Do you perhaps think that you have a greater maternal drive than the mother? For you abortion is never a personal decision involving your body, so one wonders why an impersonal decision should attract the same amount of concern, compassion, and struggle as a deeply personal one. Is there something else? |
