I do not know what TP's views on this are. But for those late to this thread, let me iterate the beliefs I have repeatedly stated over months and years:
Abortion is an issue of human rights--the rights to life, to safety, and to reasonable choices (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, if you will).
I have always stated that I (and probably most others) find abortion to become increasing offensive after the time of fetal "quickening". On the other hand--the morning after pill and other forms of early termination of unwanted zygotes--is not only sensible BUT compassionate.
I don't believe that dead people have the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Thus, it is not unreasonable to consider that society might have some proxy rights to a fetus which (of course) has none of it's own while still taking life from another being and being bound by the choices and actions of said mother to be. A living mother and a fetus cannot both and equally have a right to make choices as to their "happiness". On the one hand--the fetus HAS no such capacity--so the question of fetal rights is moot. On the other hand--should the mother exercise her rights to life choices such as eating poorly, or taking pills, or commiting suicide--these choices will directly contrast with the choices the fetus "might" have made had it the capacity. Therefore, so long as the mother has the capacity to make choices which express her pursuit of her "rights"...the fetus can in no way be considered a legal person--regardless of having the DNA of a person.
When the mother does NOT have this capacity then society may have an interest in the fetus. However, it is my opinion that if the mother leaves instructions as to what she wishes done with her property in the event of death or irrecoverable brain function, then these instructions should be honored. In particular, if she has willed her prerogatives to the potential father.
It must be remembered that creatures do not require to be legal persons to be entitled to certain protections against cruelty and so forth. So, whereas there is a philosophical right for the mother to request that her fetus be buried inside her rather than have her body desecrated (as she might consider it through religious beliefs or for some other reason)--this does not mean that others may be compelled to carry out her wishes after the point where her rights have been dissolved by death. It is a question for the law to decide. What is critical is that rights are for the living and that anything within the body is personal property. It does not belong to the State; and it does not belong to the Father of some religious sect who is creating "High Priestesses" for his future delight--and having fun at the same time. |
