"I don't quite get the last line about "high priestesses"."
Oh, that was just by way of example. It has been a common feature of sects started by egomaniacs, who have intercourse with their converts for the higher purpose of doing God's work--of creating Priestesses as a part of the Church Hierarchy. They are one example of a subculture which claims a "Holy" right to the offspring of another. In a more ugly example, we can turn our minds to the time of Baal when the babies were fed into the fire down the throat of the monster as sacrifice.
"In either case, the one with such authority is legally and ethically obligated to make the choices that they reasonably believe to be in the interests of, or in accordance with the wishes of, the incapacitated person."
Surely, once a person has been granted rights as a LEGAL person, the only way those rights terminate is through death or irrecoverable brain damage. The question of who is responsible for the interests of a merely incapable person is another matter and one which is perhaps better addressed at another time.
"In addition, children are generally deemed (legally) to be incapable or unqualified to make most any choice that might materially affect their life or well-being"
For that reason, there are many philosophers and other people (NOT most--and NOT including myself) whom believe that the parents ought to have the legal right to dispose of their property to a certain age. But let me stick to more mainstream and less repulsive beliefs. The mother BECOMES capable (after separation from the physical dependency of the child upon her actual body) of both exercising ALL her axiomatic rights AND exercising social accountability as established by law and custom. The baby IS now a LEGAL person. It is also the PROPERTY of the parents. They are thus held accountable--and responsible for pursuing the rights of the child through social proxy.
"but you climbed out onto a weak limb with the "no capacity to choose"
I believe it is a strong limb provided the person is able to see the entire tree which supports it. I cannot limn the entire set of branches in one post. Over a period of dialogue we may perhaps find common ground.
"For another, if she IS attempting to induce a miscarriage, then she is either attempting an illegal abortion (without a license, at the least) or she is attempting murder"
The fetus is not a legal person anymore than the speck of a zygote is. I have explained how rights must allow their expression or forego the pretense. As to inducing a miscarriage...the laws on abortion are different over the world. I think it is preposterous to charge a woman with attempting an abortion without a license--although I can appreciate the argument that one assisting someone in a risky procedure may perhaps be accountable to legal sanction.
How much better if (often very young) girls were not led to take such desperate measures to avoid a future which they find terrifying? How much better if they were educated (and permitted) to take a morning after pill if they have been indiscreet in judgement--for whatever reason...or if they have been coerced or forced into intercourse which results in the fertilization of the egg.
This issue will not be appropriately solved by truncating the inalienable rights of the mother. It will solved by society appreciating the normal reality of temptation to love--and expression through intercourse--and by assisting in the termination of all unwanted pregnancies.
The only argument for making a legal difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg is an "ensoulment" one. The biological difference between one and the other is unremarkable unless one makes "potentiality" an argument--as "pro-life" people often do. However, as I proved to greg or e--"potentiality" began with star dust...
So, if you wish to argue unborn "rights" with me, please do so on an "ensoulment" basis--and be prepared to justify that with evidence--or explain it to me on a developmental basis, if you prefer. Nothing in this is intended to limit the scope of your arguments. I would love to hear something new!
And after you have established such a basis...it will be your task to explain how two LEGAL persons--one with ABSOLUTE dependence on the other--can both pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on the same basis and to the same degree as you and I. Because once you take the inalienable or the a priori or the axiomatic or the equality out of human rights...then you are rolling a snowball right down into Hell on earth. And that has already been done for most of human history. |
