"Abortion represents a conflict between two values we hold dear: autonomy, and the sanctity of life."
This sounds like a religious "argument":
Websters:
(1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : INVIOLABILITY b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights .)
Do you mean that ALL life is Holy and Sacred, or simply that human life is? Certainly, a fertilized egg is human life, but it is not considered sanctified by any preponderance of either religious or secular belief. So whether you meant "sanctity" to refer to all life or simply human life, it is by no means a consensus in philosophy or sincere argument that either is sacred...and certainly not at all stages of development. Religious belief is not a requirement for either morality or philosophical argument. And it is most certainly NOT an "argument" which carries any philosophical weight overall.
"However, the autonomy argument falters on two counts: except in cases of rape or molestation, the person chose to run the risk of pregnancy"
This has nothing to do with whether or not a person is entitled to continue to enjoy their fundamental right to their own body and life. It is a red herring statement.
"Those who are for abortion question whether the life that is inside the womb is human"
Not that I have heard. I suppose it could occur in shallow company...
And what is this--"Those who are for abortion"??
"Only during the first trimester could the matter even be in play for debate"
Sorry, it is not at all debatable whether or not a fertilized egg is human life. If there is a debate, it is on whether or not the fertilized egg is or ought to be treated as a legal person.
"the reservation about treating humans, or prospective humans, as trash,without any kind of rationale, pertains."
Certainly there ought to be a rationale before we treat anything as trash. I cannot imagine anyone arguing otherwise.
"Thus, it does not surprise me in the least that there should be a shift in favor of affirming the value of human life, in reaction against the liberal abortion regime currently prevailing, permitting abortion on demand, at any time, for any cause........"
Permitting abortion is not synonymous with not valuing human life. It is rather consistent with acknowledging the rights of sentient humanity to their body and to their life as penultimate, and as taking precedence over human life which has no rights--such as a fertilized egg.
You seem to believe that at some point before birth human life ought to be recognized as a human "person". The only indication I can find in your post as to a rationale for that relates to a vague reference you made to a human "resemblance". That does not strike me as much of an argument, and it holds forth a feeble principle of appearance. If we go back day by day from any arbitrary decision of appearance, we find that the appearance of the entity is almost exactly the same the day before as it is the day after...all the way back to the almost invisible fertilized egg.
At about 35 or 40 days the human life resembles the appearance of a combination pig (snout), chicken, fish (gills), monkey (tail), and reptile. This undoubtedly stems from the fact, now well known, that nature uses the same basic nuts and bolts to create all living things, and the difference is simply one of construction.
Nevertheless, the life is human. However, it may not logically be given any individual rights as a person without discriminating against the fundamental rights of pregnant women versus all other people.
For instance, if a pregnant woman atempted to kill herself with a fertilized egg just completed, her failure to die would result in attempted murder charges if society considered that a part of her body was a legally independent person. Such a stance would be ludicrous, which is why sanity has prevailed ever since religious superstition and "argument" was forced to a back row seat in decisions of law and rights.
If a part of the mothers body was considered to be a legal person then it would have the EXACT same rights as every other legal person. In other words it could kill itself even if it took the mother with it. Or an interested party (such as the father) could insist that society favour its life over the mother where there was a conflict between the two (or even if there wasn't). Lobbying and arguing for a compassionate society, and for a humane consideration of ALL life is a different matter than trying to force irrational and contradictory principles into irrational and contradictory laws. |
