If you're the kind that enjoys discussions about fetal rights versus abortion rights, here's an interesting discussion going on at Politics n Poetry.
Here's a comment that caught my eye::
Most of your arguments are based on the assumption that the fetus is a separate person deserving of legal protection. However, you must concede that in our society, 1) fetuses are NOT legal persons or socially recognized as persons - they don’t have social insurance numbers, legal names, Certificates of Conception, or bank accounts, and they are incapable of enjoying freedom of speech, assembly, the right to leave Canada, or other constitutional rights - so by definition they cannot be persons. And 2) most people do not share your opinion - some may think a fetus is just a meaningless blob of tissue, some think it’s a potential human being but not fully until birth, some think it becomes a human being at some point in gestation, some just think a fetus has less moral value than a born baby, some think abortion is a “form” of murder but not quite murder, or whatever. The point is, there’s no reason to think your opinion is any more “right” than theirs. It’s just an opinion. Since there is so much disagreement, and since society will NEVER agree on what the fetus is or when it deserves protection, we need to concede that it’s a subjective personal moral issue, and let the individual pregnant woman decide, based on her own beliefs and ethics. After all, why should your opinion be any more valid than hers?
Did you get that? No one will ever agree, so you might as well not try to covince the people, k?
No it does not work that way.
However, you must concede that in our society, 1) fetuses are NOT legal persons or socially recognized as persons
That is a socio-legal fiction. Yes, a fetus is not a legal person, in the sense that the people who wrote the Charter were not thinking of them as persons. So what? The American Constitution did not acknowledge Black People to be persons, either.
And the notion that fetuses are not people is just bunk. They are treated as people. Just listen to any pregnant woman talk about her unborn child. The baby is a somebody. He often has a name. He has a personality. The woman calls herself "the mother", the fetus is a "baby". Sometimes the fetus is even a patient. Surgery on fetuses is not rare. The idea that a fetus is not a person ONLY comes up when abortion is the issue.
they don’t have social insurance numbers, legal names, Certificates of Conception, or bank accounts, and they are incapable of enjoying freedom of speech, assembly, the right to leave Canada, or other constitutional rights - so by definition they cannot be persons.
Newborns who are one hour old don't have any of these things either. Fetuses could have legal names and certificates of conception (in fact, to get EI maternity benefits you have to provide a doctor's note saying how far you are). Newborns don't have freedom of speech, and so one.
They are persons.
So this logic is completely ridiculous.
And 2) most people do not share your opinion -
Most people in Canada believe that at some point, the unborn child deserves legal protection, especially in the third trimester. Poll after poll shows this. Perhaps not to the time of conception, but it just destroys the argument that Canadians do not agree with fetal rights. They do, in some instances.
The point is, there’s no reason to think your opinion is any more “right” than theirs.
And yet feminists skewer Elizabeth May for her opinion. Do they not believe there's no reason to belive their opinions are more correct than Elizabeth May's?
Yes there is a reason to believe the pro-life opinion is more correct.
1) Science. Fetuses are human beings, full stop. That's a scientific fact.
2) The predominant belief of the intrinsic value of human life. The whole Western philosophical, social and political tradition rests on this belief. Without this belief, the very moral foundation of our society falls.
3) Anecdotal evidence. Pregnant women treat their unborns like babies. I don't have social research to back this up, but it's so universal, practically no one will question me on this.
Since there is so much disagreement, and since society will NEVER agree on what the fetus is or when it deserves protection,
What a load of crap. What-- we could NEVER convince people about the personhood of the unborn child? There used to be a diversity of opinion on women's and the rights of non-whites, but we gained a consensus, now, haven't we?
She has no proof consensus cannot be gained. It's simply a rhetorical ploy to try to get fetal rights people to give up.
we need to concede that it’s a subjective personal moral issue,
We must define who is a person who deserves rights. That cannot be a "subjective personal moral issue". We have to know who merits legal protection and who does not. If a fetus is a human being, endowed with the same human nature as every one else, he has the moral right to legal protection. That's not a "personal" issue. It's a social issue--- we need to know who must be protected. If the answer is "the fetus does not deserve protection"-- then go ahead and say it. Don't hide behind "it's a personal issue". Society must know who needs protecting.
If you think a fetus should have a right-to-life, then you’re saying in effect, that a woman should have LESS right-to-life than a fetus. That’s an indefensible position. Only one of them can have rights. So my question to you is, why do you think fetuses are more valuable than women?
Btw, to clarify, “right-to-life” must mean more than just mere physical existence. It implies the right to lead a reasonably decent and free life. E.g, a slave chained in a dungeon is not enjoying any meaningful “right to life” and neither is a woman forced into a lifelong baby-making/rearing role against her will.
Ah, semantic swticheroo to make her position seem valid.
"Life" is physical existence. "Quality of life" is a different issue. And yes, physical existence is more important than "quality of life". Nobody's quality of life is so valuable that it justifies the death of an innocent.
Do you see how feminists can't even get rudimentary morality right? They have to put QUALITY OF LIFE ahead of SOMEONE ELSE'S EXISTENCE.
Practically no woman in this society is forced into a baby-making/rearing role. If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, she can take all kinds of measures to make sure she does not have that role. She can give up a child for adoption. She can decide not to have sex.
But-- that would be emotionally difficult. Giving up a child for adoption? Not having sex?
Just because sex is pleasurable, and giving up a child is hard does not entitle a woman to any old behaviour. If you do not want the consequences, do not choose the actions. Simple.
But see, since the fetus to THEM is not a person, all that is secondary. They cannot argue with the idea that the unborn child is a person.
The reason that they've been successful in making abortion legal is that they've essentially argued that acknowledging the unborn child as an equal would be so incredibly inconvenient to women (especially liberal women) that we'd better not go there. Not even suggest it, debate it, discuss it. "My body! My choice" is essentially a cry to suppress the debate about the unborn child-- the focus is on ME, not SOMEBODY ELSE. Many women can relate to that.
There will come a time when they will be forced to stop arguing that way. They will have to make arguments with the idea that the fetus is human, and about the nature of humanity, because if they don't, the average person will come to realize that they're avoiding the issue. But in order for this to happen, we need more pro-lifers speaking up. This would inevitable, if only more pro-lifers pointed all this out.
