CP3S said:
I don't think there is anything wrong with it, until you try to force that unprincipled morality on the rest of the population. I rest easy knowing there are people who care for and love their unborn children. But I also rest easy knowing that someone has a right not to have to allow their body to go through the changes and trauma of pregnancy for the sake of a future child they didn't intent to conceive, especially when they lack the competency, ability, or desire to rise said child.
If everyone would just mind their own business on matters like this, life would be so much more enjoyable.
I still think it's hard to reduce it to minding one's own business when there is that other life at stake.
I also think the assumption that so many abortions are for the best is flawed. That a baby would be undesired doesn't justify ending its life. I was born to a woman (my mother, coincidentally) who a rational observer might have declared unprepared to raise a child due to the situation at the time. It was certainly far from ideal for her. Her sister (my aunt, surprisingly), impressed upon her how undesirable it would be for her to have a baby. Fortunately, my aunt's pleas fell on deaf ears. The glib lesson some will draw is: well good for your mother, she had the choice and she made it for herself. The lesson I see (and she certainly sees) is that tough circumstances and questions about ability don't justify ending the baby-to-be's life. In a case of rape, however, many see a difference, not because the situation is merely undesirable or unintended, but because it was actually forced upon the woman.
I actually really dislike pro-choice people who don't seem willing to admit that it is a human life, or would rather not admit or acknowledge it, despite the reality that medicine and science tells us it is. That whole line of thinking rubs me the wrong way. I really do think a lot of ignorance surrounds this issue, perhaps on both sides, but more pertinent to the pro-choice side. What you hold inside you is a future person, and very much its own entity with 100% unique DNA, snuffing that out should not be something taken lightly.
It is an uncomfortable fact. The way I view my position is that my belief is anchored in recognizing the life and worth of the baby-to-be. That's why I identify as pro-life. From there, I would confront the difficult question of what could justify cutting that life short. Again, you're right from a moral standpoint that cutting a life short based on how it was created isn't morally coherent. Also, Plan B poses a major challenge to those trying to be true to a moral principle. Somehow it seems less bad if it's really early or we don't know.
Ultimately, I don't know that anything truly justifies ending the fetus's life. But there is a point where it is hard to justify making sure the woman carries it to term. Rape is one of those situations. When her life is on the line is another. I think many pro-choice people could see that ending the fetus's life isn't "justified" even in that latter case, but is acceptable or necessary. I think it is more along the lines of those killed as "collateral damage." Deaths of the innocent can't really be justified.
When it comes to assertions that it's difficult and undesirable, I don't see how those interests, however valid, can trump the value of the life. And who am I to say? A member of society who believes human life deserves legal protection. Again, it comes back to that life.
The cop-out, but the reality, is that laws do not need to be entirely consistent with a moral principle, even when they're animated by one.
In the US, polls show an overwhelming majority would outlaw abortion after the first trimester (as is the case in France). That is also the direction I want to go in. Right now an extremist view prevails that abortion shouldn't be a big deal (unless you want it to be) and I don't see how it doesn't effect society's conception of abortion.
ender is right that it's a false dichotomy to say it's murder or nothing. And I also thought he argued his point effectively (and non-boringly).
Just to ensure the record is straight, I never said, "murder or nothing" or anything remotely close to it.
I know.
TV's Frink said:
The use of the word "convenience" regarding abortion, in cases of rape or health of the mother, is very disturbing to me.
There is a good point in that, from the pro-life perspective, to try to undermine C3PS's argument. I think many would say abortion is never convenient, but those abortions even less so. There is a qualitative difference, even if difficult to lay out in a morally coherent way. To defend the CP3S's argument, the term was meant as a philosophical critique of pro-lifers conception of the convenience of permitting the moral choice, not the act itself.