Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
latenter: i read the thread and was aware of your post when i wrote what i did. your position operates under the assumption that there is a tipping point in fetal development past which the problem switches from one of the choice of the mother to some "right to life" on the part of the developing child. i don't think there is any such point, mostly because i reject the premise your argument operates from--that there is such a point that can be determined. but that's my view, and it isn't really germaine in the context of the paragraph you quoted. the point there had to do with the question of legality and by extension safety of the procedure.
|
//note: not necessarily directed at you roachboy; more that the bit I've quoted got my gears turning and somewhat provides a context for what I've written and it helps me to be able to express myself more clearly(to me at least) to write as though I'm directing it at you (not you specifically but someone, you just happen to be the person I quoted).
To pick at your brain some - The 'right to life' appears somewhere. We lock up mothers for say...drowning their toddlers in a lake - as retribution for that violation of the 'right to life'. I suppose the 'right' doesn't have to appear, it could have been there from the get go, the whole 'every sperm is sacred' bit. I don't really think that anyone actually thinks that (except for the whole anti-contraception crowd which is generally labeled as loony) and certainly we don't all believe that or we wouldn't have ever allowed abortion in the first place. So then if it isn't in there the whole time, then it is in there at some point later, it has to go in sometime between there? Whether we can label it or not?
That's what the debate really centers around where that mucky unequivocal 'right to life' pops up. Just because we can't agree or a point where that happens (whether you choose to call that point 100% human or 60% human and then say 60% human sufficient cause) or on criteria on to judge what constitutes 'human life' doesn't mean it isn't there. I mean, if things exist somehow now, that is different than before there had to be a transition right? How can you reject the existence of the transition just because you can't identify where/when/how it was.
Although...If you think the position is arbitrary - that it is entirely relative to the individual, then nobody can really tell anyone else when life begins it only makes sense in an individual context. It appears the problem of 'when life begins' strangely seems to annihilate itself. I mean, if everyone is equally right due to the arbitrary nature of the line, then 'right' doesn't really mean anything at all. The practical upshot is it allows us to ignore the pesky right to life question and move on to other considerations: personal liberty, or social duty, women's rights, etc.
This view results in a degenerative morality though - any time we disagree about morality and don't have a clear point of reference (which is never) - anything goes. The only time morality becomes enforceable on say a group level is when we all agree, or at least enough of us to enforce it. This makes me mentally uncomfortable, the idea of there not being a standard morality which we can reference (however it is I seem to think we reference it), although if I'm honest with myself I think it makes me uncomfortable because it resembles reality so well - I must ponder this more.