Originally posted by Fizban257
First I want to thank you for your very thoughtful response. As a man, I've been attacked on these boards before for staing my thoughts on this issue, and your measured and reasoned reply is greatly appreciated.
As to your point, I think the fundamental difference between abortion and your liver donation scenario, is that the child's liver problem is not the direct result of my actions, whereas a pregnancy is the direct result of the mother's.(Of course herein lies the exception some make for rape, incest, etc). You're right that the child's sphere of rights does in fact infringe on the mother's. But it does not threaten her life, as her having an abortion threatens the child's. Therein lies the fundamental difference.
Thanks to you as well.
I recognize that objection to my argument. But I think that instead of negating it, it simply pushes to argument back to which abortions we should allow, whether than if it is right or wrong.
The liver analogy is pretty close on for the consequanes to each party. Not giving your liver threatens someones life. They will die if you don't donate. Giving the liver doesn't threaten your life (or, at least, not more than pregnancy does). It involves some pain, time off work, and a reasonablely sized scar. And yet, I still can't ethically make you do it.
That is, if the only difference between the liver analogy and pregnancy is that the mother bears responsibility for the pregnancy, than that would lead to allowing abortions for rape cases. Again making it irrelevent whether the fetus is a human being or not. She did not consent to the fetus making use of her body, she is allowed to remove it. This would be analogous to me going out and kiddnapping someone for the liver transplant. 'Well, I'm sorry you didn't agree, but you are here and prepped for surgery, and the person with liver disease will die unless you complete the procedure, so the law says you have to.'
If one accepts the argument to that point (which I don't see an objection in your post), we are beyond considering the rights of the fetus, and at the point of considering what constitudes acceptabe consent by the mother for carrying the fetus. This is where I often get uncomfortale with the discussion because it so oftern degenerates into judgementalism about women and sex. I think the rape exceptions come because people instictively agree with the above argument. It just seems wrong to force a woman to accept a pregnancy by rape. Yet when we mix in notions of sex and desering the consequances (note the previous posts saying to keep your legs shut)
So when in other situations does my consent to consequances override rights I would generally have. How about a wallet stealing analogy? The woman trying to get pregnant - If walk up to you on the street, hold out my wallet, and say, 'here, take it!,' I think we would allow that you could do so.
The rape anaolgy - If you walk up to me, attack me, and take my wallet, that is stealing.
The middle ground? This can be tough. What if I lock up my wallet in my house with an excellent security system. You break in and take it. Well, I knew that people like to take wallets. And I knew that no security system is perfect. So really, I should live with the consequances. That's my 'using excellent contraception' analogy
Doesn't make sense at all. Why do I have more rights to who takes my wallet than who lives in my uterus?
So my personal view? Elective abortion ok in rape and incest. It's ok for someone who was really not intending to have a kid. It's not ok for someone who was trying to have a kid, and then just changes thier mind. It's not ok for someone who has carried the child to the point of viability. And it's only the separation that's ok, not the killing. So if the fetus could live outside the womb, once we remove it, we do our best for it.
And practically, most of that is impossible to legislate, so I'm pretty much absolutely prochoice.
Rachel
