I'll reiterate my point. I think an unborn baby should have rights. But the problem is, I don't think those rights should trump those of the mother. Thus, the mother choosing to have an abortion isn't murder, because the baby's survival was wholly contingent on being allowed shelter in the mother's womb. For example, if you were dying and needed a kidney from me to live, I should only donate my kidney out of my own free will. If I decline to give you my kidney, and this results in your death, this does not mean I "killed" you by refusing, because your survival was wholly contingent on me donating you the kidney in the first place.
I realize that you're on "my side". But to call abortions baby killing is 1) inaccurate, and 2) unhelpful to the conversation, regardless of which side you're on.
My kidney disease is not a product of your choice. Your comparison is...well, lets say bad. Except in the cases of rape, a fetus' life is
alwaysa product of the mother's
choice. It's precarious position is CAUSED by the mother. A more apt choice for your comparison is you inviting someone into your home, and then your stairs collapse and trap them--without you helping them, they will die. Under the law, you most
certainlydohave a duty to protect and aid your guest in this situation, since he was placed in this situation and put under your power/care by your request.
It's still a stretch, because helping someone from under rubble, or calling medical assistance won't occupy your life for 9 months. BUT the fact is that it's a far closer comparison because it takes into account that the life in the balance was placed under your power by YOUR CHOICE. That's the ultimate consideration in the rationality of these things. The mother diminished her rights the moment she allowed herself to become pregnant, just like a home owner diminishes his rights to keep his home unsafe, the moment he invites a guest in. Your comparison lacks that accounting of choice and it's a HUGE reason why abortion is a lot more complex than rendering aid to a stranger, because the fetus is NOT just some random occurrence, it's not just some random life-form that comes from nowhere. Except in cases of rape, it was brought on by INVITATION, through a very specific act.
As for the rights of the mother "trumping" the fetus. I think the courts decision is very apt, and a great decision in an imperfect world. Once the fetus is considered "human" by the minimal standards, the question becomes about how sacred (In a secular sense) the rights in question are. The mother's rights to liberty is being
temporarilyimpinged. It's a fundamental right in this country (stated in the Declaration, enshrined in many facets of the Constitution.), but it's only being abated for 9 months+whatever amount of time an adoption takes/recovery from the pregnancy. The mother also has a statistically low chance to be stricken of the right to life through complications (Sub 1%), and that SHOULD be a consideration, especially give it's societies fault she might not have healthcare. However, the "viable fetus'" life (Which again, the courts classify as human after the first trimester) is having it's right to life
permanentlystricken. It also completely loses
allof it's other fundamental rights.
Quite simply, from a rational perspective, you're looking at trading the temporary liberty of one person, for all the rights in total, in permanence, of another. There is no reasonable comparison here--no rational person could say the mother's rights are more important here....IF you consider the child alive.
And that's the point of the debate. When life starts. The truly irrational people are the ones who believe a fetus at 8 months is not human, or at 2 weeks is a human. They have taken the debate to ideological levels. Once we define when life begins, the argument between rights becomes exceedingly simplistic in a rational sense. It's that line of demarcation where we define life that makes this a difficult argument.
And I think that line comes after the first trimester. Personally, I think all abortion is awful. But I don't blame the mother for this barbarity. I blame a society that makes single mothers outcasts, and makes it difficult for them to find jobs, go to school and improve their life. I blame a society that doesn't provide basic healthcare to it's citizens despite being able to. I blame a society that makes life so harsh, even in the midst of plenty, that mothers would even think about terminating their pregnancies. And that is why there must be this window when we can justify ending it before it's a life--because society can't offer proper healthcare and infrastructure to mother's, nor can it provide adequate (And free) means to prevent pregnancies for mothers, then it has no right to outlaw it completely. (Again, until it becomes a full "human" in our eyes.)
Personally, if it were up to me, I'd combat abortion by first truly being "Pro-life" and not just "Pro-birth". Much like the gun debate, I think the laws on abortion are targeting overly simplistic and ultimately symbolic symptoms of the problem. If we really want to lower abortions, then we make it both safer and easier to access all the things a mother and her baby will need to make a life for themselves--once you do that, I think you'll see a dramatic drop in the abortion numbers, far more than any illegality would get you (And yes, I know they are low already.)
