If carrying the fetus to term would harm or kill the mother then aborting it even when it’s viable is not murder at all. It would be self defense. I fail to see how it’s contradictory. It just depends on how you define murder.
But how could it be self-defence when fetus doesn’t have ability to act or initiate violence. Why it must die to save the mother? Why can’t mother die to save fetus?
Of course though, Southern, the passing on of genes is not an “objectively” good thing depending on the wants of the mother. It may be something like that in the wild, but the human sphere has different priorities.
I agree with you. I was taking a strictly evolutionary / natural point of veiw. (i assume we are talking about the whole parasite thing)
If carrying the fetus to term would harm or kill the mother then aborting it even when it’s viable is not murder at all. It would be self defense. I fail to see how it’s contradictory. It just depends on how you define murder.
It actually depends on how you define self defense. You say a woman has a right to defend herself, even against her unborn child. Why may she only exercise that right when her life in in danger? Why not when she simply no longer wishes to carry another being inside of her? She is a self owner only when her life is threatened?
But how could it be self-defence when fetus doesn’t have ability to act or initiate violence.
Defending onself does not necessitate another entity purposfully initiating violence.
Don’t be ridiculous, an abortion is never self-defense.
Clayton -
Don’t be ridiculous, an abortion is never self-defense.
It’s always self-defense.
Being totally and completely dependent on someone else for basic day-to-day survival is the very antithesis of all things sovereign. The baby cannot express itself, and cannot assert itself in any way.
It was brought into being and is continually sustained by the mother.
I suppose chemotherapy is also self-defense.
Clayton -
For the sake of arguement, let’s just say that you’re sitting in a park somwehere, and for some magical reasons, another individual who’s extremely radioactive becomes attached to you. Even though he might be too sick to act or initiate violence, his presence is a clear and present danger to your life. It would be ridiculous to say that you can’t use force to detach him from your body.
Self defense does not require the assailant to have the ability to act. If the fetus, by merely existing ,threatened the life of the mother, then the mother is essentially being forced to choose between the life of herself or that of her unborn’s.
Why must the murderer die to save the murdered? Why can’t the murdered die to save the murderer? Yeah well he can, if he was a pacifist. No one is saying that the fetus “must” die to save its mother. The mother should be able to freely choose between sacrificing herself for her child or aborting her child in self denfense. That’s what it’s all about, the freedom to defend yourself should you choose to.
At what point can the fetus be considered human? Is it at birth? At the limit of viability, or when it starts to develop the capacity for consciousness? You can easily answer your own question when you consider what makes the fetus human.
If that’s how you define individual sovereignty then by your definition, people with developmental disabilities whose very existence is dependent on their caregivers are not sovereign at all. Since they’re not sovereign, we should be free to kill them all right?
cancer cells don’t have “rights”.
Ok, MSN live, I can agree with that… but still it looks far fetched justification for “abortion in fetus harming mother” than regular abortion (because accidentaly woman got pregnant, for example)..
cancer cells don’t have “rights”.
But human cells have?
Say it’s at the moment of conception. So what? You’ve aknowledged that a woman has the right to protect her body from the other human living inside of it. I’m asking why she only has the right to evict that other human when her life is in danger, as opposed to whenever she feels like it. The moment she decides that other human is no longer welcome within her body, that other human becomes a tresspasser. Why must her life be threatened by said tresspasser before she may force the trsspasser to leave? Do I have the right to send a guest out of my home for any reason, or just when that guest is threatening my life? If for any reason, how is the woman’s body any different? If it’s only when threatened, what gives the guest the right to remain?
In other words, does she have the exclusive right of control over her body or not?
I tend to believe that abortion is murder, but I don’t think the Federal government should have anything to do with the issue.
A fetus is an innocent life, even if it’s not fully developed.
Also, I believe the fetus is sovereign to him/herself, as it’s not right to say it’s sovereign to the mother exclusively, when the fetus also has a father. Why should the mother be sovereign over it, but not the father?
I’m not trying to be paternalistic anything. I don’t think the father should be sovereign over the fetus either, of course.
One more thing, I believe abortion issue can be easily dealt with in free society thorugh contracs for example. A woman, who is getting medical insurance etc signs also a contract to never do an abortion. If she does - she must pay damages yada yada yada. No need for violence. No need for monopoly on medical care. Everybody’s happy.
One more thing, I believe abortion issue can be easily dealt with in free society thorugh contracs for example. A woman, who is getting medical insurance etc signs also a contract to never do an abortion. If she does - she must pay damages yada yada yada. No need for violence. No need for monopoly on medical care. Everybody’s happy.
What’s to stop insurance companies from offering contracts without this non-abortion clause, or even offering to cover abortions? There obviously is a market for such services.
Just so you know, I didn’t mean it intentionally as a red herring. I realized my mistake in bringing it up with Southern’s reply. All manslaughter/homicide is not murder. For it to be murder, there must be intent (mens rea). Obviously a non-induced miscarriage, being a purely biological process, cannot have intent.
That being said, your analogy is sound. 
I think the reason why abortion is such a contentious issue is because the developing fetus is one of the areas where our conventional moral reasoning breaks down. In other words, it’s a boundary condition on morality. Human life and consciousness (as they’re typically defined, however implicitly) are emergent phenomena.
Very good point. But what about eviction? Although it can (seem to) lead to death, it’s not killing per se.
Of course, it all depends on how “human” is defined, doesn’t it? What’s to prevent someone from defining “human” as “belonging genetically to the species Homo sapiens”?
that’s my point. If some people are concerned about abortions, then they can sign a contract which forbids it and even promote their way of living peacfully. There are other group people, who are concerned with freedom of choice, so they doubtly will sign such a contract.