Secular Pro-Life has published an article of mine under their paid blogging program.
You may leave a reply, if you wish, without giving your name or email address. If you do give your email address, it will not be published. Back up your work as you type, in case of accidents.
Some future posts:
Life Panels
A Trade-Off of a Sensitive Nature
Unborn Child-Protection Legislation, the Moral Health of Society, and the Role of the American Democratic Party
The Motivations of Aborting Parents
Why Remorse Comes Too Late
The Kitchen-Ingredients Week-After Pill
Unwanted Babies and Overpopulation
The Woman as Slave?
Abortion and the Map of the World
HI
i did read your article on Secular pro-life. I thought your analysis is thoughtful, though i still believe zygotes, embroyos and blastocysts to be potential persons. Not trying to dehumanize them, i don’t do it with any malice. You say it is unfair to deny them their potential in an abortion, i can definitely see how one’s moral intuition to lead them to see it that way. I just find my moral intuition to be more on the woman, and find it unfair that she may have to gestate against her will, so that is where our divide is.
I will add one other thing, i wish their was another way for a woman to end an unwanted pregnancy, i really do wish their would be artificial wombs, where an embroyo could be transplanted, i really really do! Their just is no other way to make a woman unpregnant, their is no other way for a woman to retain he bodily autonomy, termination is the only way at this time.
Thanks for your reply.
“I just find my moral intuition to be more on the woman, and find it unfair that she may have to gestate against her will, so that is where our divide is.”
A few points that “Only a Potential Person?” tries to make are:
a. an embryo’s future is just as valuable as that of a woman
b. therefore in making any decision, it would be unfair to consider the woman’s future more valuable than that of the embryo
c. the morality or immorality of any action must always be related to the future only, not to the past or even the present.
However, this does not mean that we should not give any preference to the woman. Though their futures are equally valuable, their futures are not the only thing to consider. There are other considerations also, especially bodily rights.
In fact I do give preference to the woman. I think that if she is going to be significantly injured by the pregnancy, she should have the legal right to abort. (I might admire her if she doesn’t, but it should be her choice.) So I think the health of the woman (at least a decent level of health) should be given more weight than the life of the baby. I give preference.
But this is because of bodily rights, not because of “a zygote/embryo/ fetus is only a potential person.” I think I have shown in the article that that argument is an argument against a. above, and hence an unfair argument.
“Only a Potential Person?” has a very limited purpose. It doesn’t aim to be a complete treatment of the abortion issue. It only tries to show that one particular pro-choice argument, the “potential person” argument, doesn’t work.
When you say —
“I . . . find it unfair that she may have to gestate against her will, so that is where our divide is”
— that sounds like a bodily-rights argument. I accept bodily rights, but I don’t think they are unlimited. I think they are limited, giving a woman a right to abort only if she gravely needs it. That seems to me to be where our divide is. Some pro-choicers agree with me that the future life of the unborn is as valuable as that of the woman, but say, “I agree its life is as valuable as that of an adult, but an adult wouldn’t be allowed to use a woman’s body without her permission, so neither can the embryo.” They see bodily rights as less limited than I do.
I will reply to your two latest comments under “Secede,” but I may be tied up for a day or more before I can reply.
What do you think of this scenario? possible consequences of giving personhood to zygotes and embroyo:
A woman bleeding from a miscarriage may not want to to go to the hospital because by going to the hospital, by law they would have to investigate her miscarriage if personhood is the law, so actually women may die for not seeking medical attention, can you forsee the potential problem?
It is like illegal aliens don’t want to report crimes to the police because they would be afraid of being deported. I can definitely see that happening with women experiencing a miscarriage or self-enduced abortion, she will be afraid to seek medical attention because of fear of breaking the law, being accused of a crime.
Again if you don’t forsee this happening, I do and many pro-choicers do that is why we are against heart beat bills and personhood laws. Their is no way around it by passing personhood laws, you take away a woman’s rights and reduce her to an incubator for 9 months. This is a very serious violation of our rights as women to our bodies and being able to seek medical attention.
It does not matter that we were all fetus, zygotes before, we DID NOT have any rights then, guess what that is ok with me, my mother’s rights came FIRST!
“A woman bleeding from a miscarriage may not want to to go to the hospital because by going to the hospital, by law they would have to investigate her miscarriage if personhood is the law,”
Do you mean that by law, every death of a person must be investigated by police? I don’t think so. There is a legal doctrine called probable cause — there is investigation only if there is some specific reason for suspicion. Probably all deaths are duly noted by the police, but unless they see something funny in the death certificate, they don’t investigate. Isn’t it like that? Anyway, it should be like that.
“so actually women may die for not seeking medical attention, can you forsee the potential problem?”
So no, I don’t foresee any such problem unless the unborn child-protection laws are written in some overzealous way.
“Again if you don’t forsee this happening, I do and many pro-choicers do”
There is no limit to what may happen in people’s imaginations, therefore imaginations alone are not valid objections to laws.
“that is why we are against heart beat bills and personhood laws. Their is no way around it by passing personhood laws, you take away a woman’s rights and reduce her to an incubator for 9 months. This is a very serious violation of our rights as women to our bodies and being able to seek medical attention.”
There is no way around what, the “potential problem” of investigations that you say unborn child-protection laws entail, or the fact that unborn child-protection laws will require a woman to complete her pregnancy?
I have responded to the former. Regarding the latter, it’s true that a woman will be required to complete her pregnancy, but that is not reducing her to an incubator. Excuse me, but such rhetoric just creates unnecessary side issues. Here is my response (which it should have been unnecessary for me to make) to that side issue:
A woman required to complete her pregnancy may be the director of a beautiful film. She may be a judge passing sentence on an abortionist. She has not been reduced to an incubator.
“It does not matter that we were all fetus, zygotes before, we DID NOT have any rights then, guess what that is ok with me, my mother’s rights came FIRST!”
This seems to be a reply to my “It’s not like she didn’t benefit from unborn child-protection laws” under “Secede.” If you’ll paste it there, I’ll reply there.
And I hope to reply soon to all your existing points under “Secede.”
If abortion is illegal, than yes, I do believe some would be overzealous and investigate miscarriages. Now what about hospitals, they have to report if a crime is commited, just like if someone has bruises and is treated at a hospital the staff can call the police if they suspect domestic violence, what if the staff suspect a self abortion? yes it is not out of the realm of possibility.
Your point about a woman being reduced to an incubator is uncessary rhetoric, no IT IS the POINT. That is the reason why we pro-choicers fight for our right to choose, that is the WHOLE point, that we are fighting for, to not being forced to gestate against our will. Again pro-lifers totally forget the woman and her wishes, dreams, health and situation and again are elevating the rights of embroyo, zyogote, fetus above an autonomous person. If you do not see the inhumanity of this, I don’t know what to say.