I use the term "conceptus" because the usual terms are loaded. I notice antichoicers always refer to it as a child, even if it hasn't yet passed the implantation test, one of Nature's toughest waypoints on the road to birth.
I do not consider the woman's right to be sacred in any way. That would be inconsistent of me, since I do not have much use for the idea of sacrosanctity.
One of the big questions for me is where on the seamless progression from fleck o'mucus to fully-formed and little human ... we can or should assign personhood. A one-month fetus isn't a person yet. An eight-month fetus, which could survive ex utero without special support, obviously meets my still-imprecise idea of personhood. That is why I would view "partial-birth" (another term that seems to have found special acceptance with antichoice polemicists) abortions as indistinguishable from murder, with the Chines epractice being protected by a corrupt system of law.
Until the conceptus (do you have a term that I might use that doesn't sound like it's associated with one of the two camps in this controversy?) is a person, I view abortion as permissible even if I still consider it inherently distasteful. This sense of distaste makes me frown on abortion as a casual choice for birth control. However in many situations, I would see an early-term abortion to be preferred to a young woman's ruined life andor a child growing up unwanted or upset by having been adopted.
Once personhood has been established by some means that aren't arbitrary or ideological, then the conceptus has graduated to being a full human. At that point, its rights equal those of the mother. I would say abortion has stopped being a civilized option. |
