"I do not think that use of the word "sanctity" requires a specifically religious context"
No. But common parlance would indicate a religious association unless disclaimer was openly made to the contrary.
"I suppose I should have said "Those who are for a liberal abortion regime", or "those who recognize a right to abort"."
"Those who recognize a right to abort" seems to fairly describe the vast majority of people who believe that a woman is not a chattel to society as was thought in times past, and as is so believed today in so many countries and by so many people.
"No one has complete control over his or her body, regardless of circumstance"
The question of control or ability is not the issue: it is the inviolability of ones body and mind separate from others, and the opportunity for separate people to pursue independent interests without violating the autonomy of one another.
"After birth, a woman can be held liable for abandonment, and if the abandonment results in death, for homicide. She is expected to take care of the baby until reasonable arrangements can be made to provide institutional care, foster care, or adoption. We are merely extending that requirement to a date prior to birth."
These legal obligations have nothing to do with any qualification of the right to ones own body. Indeed, they are predicated upon that very principle. How we are allowed to treat others is predicated upon the recognition that they are separate entities, capable of having distinct and separate interests from our own. So that I may not. for instance, compel you to eat faeces regardless of any "relationship" you may claim to me, nor may you compel anything similar of me.
In your example, society has determined that because all people have separate interests...so we may not mistreat one another beyond certain minimal standards. This upholds the principle of an absolute right to ones body...it does not challenge such a principle.
The child is an independent entity and thus its life is protected by the State. The question is not one of self sufficiency: THAT is not how the distinction of entitlement to the right to life is made. The distinction is made by determining independent and separate existence...NOT how complex a thing is. The vey young, the very old, the underdeveloped, or the sick and the afflicted--these are not self sufficient; but they ARE separate and they ARE independent--and thus they are members of society, and are considered INDIVIDUALS (from the Latin..."indivisible")--and the bearers of fundamental human rights and freedoms.
"We are merely extending that requirement to a date prior to birth"
Again, you are begging the question of the foetus being a legal person by the assumed virtue of being a separate entity, and capable of not interfering in the separate interests of another. In fact it is not. There is a difference between not mistreating a living child because it is not you, and may not legallly be violated by you...and the suggestion that you may not control the resources of your own body. If a fetus TRULY had a RIGHT to a nourishing body, then there is absolutely NOTHING in principle which could prevent society from conscripting the body of ANYONE for the task. Again, there is a difference between right and privilege, between persuasion and force.
"I elsewhere talk about treating the trimesters differently"
This is nothing new. Women have always done so. It is natural to abort as early as possible when unwanted pregnancies occur. Later abortions sometimes result from the discovery of foetuses which are fatally flawed, but women who want to give birth to the life which is in them will sacrifice much for the value.
Women have always aborted when they thought it was for the best. The question is whether or not society should prevent them from aborting in a safe manner, leaving them to devices which may kill them, make them infertile, or have other grave health consequences...or whether we accept the fact that her body is her own, and that putting her in chains and guarding her for nine months is a reversion to the values of beasts. Laws cannot prevent her from her natural right to her own body. Only direct control over her body can remove her personal control.
So society can be a beast and can eschew all ideas of human rights and personal freedoms, or it can direct its energies into education and persuasion, so as to attempt to make the choice of abortion less necessary and less prevalent than it has always been.
The State is created by individuals to represent the interests and the absolute rights of individuals. The State has no business with "morality". That is the job of the church, the family, or any other private/public organizations. Decent people may speak for the fetus and may lobby for a recognition of a general respect for all life and the value for humanity in not treating life in a dismissive manner. But the State must legislate only to protect the freedom and interests of incontestably separate individuals. The State is only concerned with the rights of her members. The fetus is not a member. It is not separate in body or mind and thus has no autonomy. This does NOT mean it has no VALUE. Indeed, the existence of humanity and the actions of parents everywhere to bring new life into the world ATTESTS, in the strongest possible terms, to the value of the foetus overall to most people--regardless of whether or not they believe (what to many of us is fundamental)--that the woman has an absolute right to her own body--as do we all.
"That was what I was arguing about around the time you stumbled on the conversation."
I realize it is a figure of speech, but that is not really what happened. Actually, I strode into the conversation when I saw a fire going and smelled coffee. I would like to forestall any unintended implication of having weak knees. |
