Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
1. The government has no obligation to preserve rights of non-citizens.
2. A fetus is not a citizen.
3. The government has no obligation to protect the rights of a fetus.
4. The government has an obligation to control the behavior of its citizens; particularly in the use of violence, which a "state" asserts monopoly over its use.
5. The state has not asserted a compelling reason to prevent women citizens from exercising rights over their bodies.
6. The state can allow women to exercise control over their bodies while simultaneously preventing other citizens from inflicting violence on citizens, non-citizens, and property.
(alternately, if the state found a compelling reason to control women from exercising this right over their bodies, such as it felt that women should not conduct violence on themselves, then it could criminalize abortion without too much (or any) realigning of the logical underpinnings to this standpoint)
I also pointed out that public sentiment does not hold human life to be as important as you believe (along with myself, I might add). You then construct an argument that appears to work: given the objective truth of sanctity of human live, it must be bias that veers our laws off course. I'm pointing out that while bias may occur in the public discourse, the laws are flowing from a different set of assumptions--maintenance of capitalism.)
|
While I think I understand the approach pointed out in the above quotes I also do not think it helps the maintenance of capitalism to have laws that do not take into consideration most citizen's common sense. I believe that most of us consider the abortion and murder laws in regards to the fetus to be inconsistant. When laws are inconsistant people will start to loose respect for them eventually putting the government (maintainers of capitalism) in jeopardy.
I agree that a woman should have the right to abort and also that another party killing the fetus without her consent should be held accountable and charged with a serious offense. But as long as we consider the fetus an entity that can be legally terminated by the mother than the charge probably should not be murder.
You know as I write this I just remembered that my wife and I have an agreement that if either one of us is very ill beyond reasonable hope and hooked up to machines that the other party should unplug them and let them die in peace. Yet I would want anyone who would kill us otherwise to be charged with murder. Maybe I'll rethink this whole thing again, LOL.