Well, after being accused of 'trolling' the abortion thread, I figured I'd open a different one that expounds upon philosophy I was trying to communicate (unsuccessfully).
The United Nations defines Basic Human rights as follows -
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
The fist one being -
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
From an pro-abortion standpoint the key word is born. From a anti-abortion standpoint (notice I'm staying away from the political position labels), the word born is not the defining element in the statement
Many on both side of the issue think 'late-term' abortion is borderline euthanasia since many experts agree a fetus is 'potentially' viable beyond week 26 of gestation.
I don't desire to start a duplicate thread to debate abortion as a right/wrong. Rather explore the implications of the CURRENT state of affairs on our society from our definition of Human Rights, Culture, and Religion.
Society and cultures have rules. Rules that define acceptable and unacceptable behavior. It's been the recent involvement of the government into the family structure that is changing the definition of our culture and society. The passing of Roe v Wade and more importantly the advancement of medicine (i.e. pill, morning after pill, etc) that are changing the fundamentals of our culture. Where choice didn't exist before, it now exist and is argued to be a basic human right.
Let's extrapolate that right a little more. Most would agree that genetic selection (i.e. 'designer babies') is a immoral action. But why? If it is a right of the woman to abort a fetus because it is simply 'unwanted', is it not more acceptable that we do everything to enhance their choice through better medicine?
After all, nobody want a kid with a below average intelligence score or mental disease, or physical deformities. Why not expand the right to choose to include not just if but how a woman reproduces?
Pro Darwinist might even argue that this is a imperative that we SHOULD abort below average fetuses and do everything medicine can to continue the evolution of our species.
Does this scenario seem scary to you? It should, because at its root is moral relativism. Moral relativism only serves the one in control not the other affected. Do you really think you are in control of the major parts of your life?
Morals exist to protect and provide justice.
If you hate the whole abortion thing. What about 'honor killings'? they still happen today across the world and are considered acceptable behavior in the areas where it happens. Why should we care? To them it is a moral behavior. to each their own
