|
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'm sorry, but I view a fetus as an unborn human (still a human). An embryo or zygote is a different story as it is undeveloped. This seems to be an argument about the "degree" to which development constitutes humanness. I have to agree with Neo on the statement about the hypocrisy--if a pregnant woman is killed (generally regardless of "how" pregnant she is, society views it MUCH differently than if she were not pregnant. However, if she chooses to kill the future baby herself via abortion or throwing herself down the stairs or whatever, then it is OK). |
That's not very relevant, since even if the fetus possessed human rights, rights are different than entitlements, and so it only has a right to live insofar as it can sustain it's own life. It bears mention that this interpretation of rights used to be an important conservative principle back when, you know, principles actually meant something to conservatives.
So even if a fetus did have a right to life, it still wouldn't supersede a woman's rights to privacy and personal sovereignty to such an extent that she could be forced, against her will, to carry the fetus to term while supplying it with the various things it needs to survive. And if we are prepared to attribute the same rights to a fetus, then we must also bestow upon the fetus the same responsibilities, which includes the responsibility to respect and act in accordance with the inherent rights of other human beings. Which means, unfortunately, that if asked to leave a woman's body the fetus is reponsible to comply, and if it is unwilling or unable to comply, then it is the woman's right to have the fetus removed, even at risk the the health and safety of the fetus (in this case, it is actually the fetus' abdication of it's responsibilities which is endangering it.)
I'm sure the absurdity of asking a fetus to leave the womb is quite apparent, but it is only a reflection of the absurdity of attributing rights to a fetus in the first place, since this absurd type of scenario is the logical conclusion of rights being assigned to a fetus which, by it's very nature, cannot comprehend much less shoulder the commensurate responsibilities.
I would also point out that the above scenario demonstrates the compatibility of current abortion laws with laws providing for additional punishment in the case of the murder of a woman carrying a fetus, since in the case of the abortion as a means by which to enforce a woman's rights against an uncooperative fetus, it is the fetus that is ultimately responsible for any ill-fate which befalls it, whereas the sole responsibility for the death of the fetus must fall upon the killer of the woman carrying it in the case of a murder.
This is not to suggest that the aforementioned scenario is the best way to resolve this issue (although it may be the way most compatible with current law.) The best way, in fact, is to assign the fetus no rights and responsibilities in the first place, and to refrain from viewing it as an independent entity (since it is by it's very nature dependent). Hence, abortion only involves one person, and therefore the government has no right to involve itself in the decision. And consequently a murderer should not be able to be tried for the death of a fetus (since the fetus is not an independent entity, it's death cannot be taken independently.) This is the most coherent and logical solution to the questions posed by this issue, and the most compatible with any sound philosophy of rights.
|
