|
From my perspective, this discussion has gotten a bit off topic. Stompy is correct: it's futile to debate when human life begins. And, really, for the sake of this debate, it doesn't matter. I don't care if you're pro-life or pro-choice. What I'm seeking is consistancy - in opinion and in the law. The former must occur before the latter is able. I do not believe what the laws SAYS right now has any bearing on the discussion. I am approaching this from a theoretical viewpoint seeking to create a BETTER concept of law that is not defined by our own emotions and interests, but in logical extrapolations of our worldly assessments. The law once said that blacks were 3/5 of a human as well, however we can all agree (except art I suppose, who doesn't recognize the concept of rights) that it was the LAW that was wrong and inconsistant in that instance.
There are essentially two possible outlooks here:
The pro-life outlook: the clump of cells is a HUMAN life and, thus, has rights of its own. One unalienable human right which all civilized societies recognize is the right to life. If the clump of cells is a HUMAN life, then it is necessary to recognize that the clump of cells has this unalienable right. In a consistant outlook, abortion is illegal except in cases where it can be considered self-defense or accidental.
The pro-choice outlook: the clump of cells is ALIVE (which is what Lebell was getting at) but not a HUMAN life. Since it is not a human life, it does not have an unalienable right to life. Also, since it is not a human life, it is an extension of the mother's biological being. Thus, the mother has every right to terminite the life of the clump of cells. It is then necessary, from a legal standpoint, to decide a point after which the clump of cells becomes a HUMAN life and gains the unalienable rights referred to in the pro-life position. For the sake of this discussion, I don't care when that point is. What I'm interested in is that the point which we consider the clump of cells to become a human life does not conveniently change depending on the circumstances and how it suits us. That is a legal definition not based on science, but our own selfish interests - no different than not recognizing blacks as full persons. Presently, with regards to abortion, the point at which the clump of cells is legally considered to become a HUMAN life and thereby gains the unalienable right to life is no earlier than 24 weeks. I am not interested in debating whether or not this is the proper point in time.
We can all agree - no matter which perspective one looks at the situation from - that it is wrong for a third party, without permission, to forcibly terminate the life - human or not - of the clump of cells in the mother's womb. The question, then, becomes how do we describe the offense. If one looks at the situation from the pro-life perspective, it is simple: the termination of the clump of cells is murder, for it terminates a human life. However, the law is not pro-life (in the popular sense of the term), so this perspective is a moot point. So, we look at the termination from a pro-choice perspective. The next question we must ask is at what stage of existence was the clump of cells? If the clump of cells was older than 24 weeks then it is still simple: the act is, again, murder. The clump of cells is legally considered a human life after 24 weeks, generally speaking. If the clump of cells was YOUNGER than 24 weeks, though, it becomes a different story. We have already determined, in allowing the mother free choice of abortion under any and all circumstances during this time period, that the clump of cells is not a human life and does not have an unalienable right to life. It is an extension of the mother's biological being. So, since the clump of cells is not a HUMAN life, the termination of the life of those cells cannot be considered murder: it is plain and simple. This does not preclude us from identifying the act as being wrong, but it does require us to consider the act, in and of itself, differently than murder.
(P.S. I know the history of the three-fifths compromise. The reasons behind it, being an ingenious power play between the free and slave states, have little bearing on the end result that it did not count blacks as full persons based on convenient interpretations of circumstances.)
__________________
Le temps détruit tout
"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
|