Abortion

(Firstly, I'd like to compliment you for your eloquence and organization. Nicely done.) On the topic of the source of all systems of morality, we're in complete agreement that there are really only two possible options for the origins of moral conscience and moral opinions: either a naturalistic process which has been in the works long before either of us ever saw life and that to this day is constantly and gradually self-correcting and self-improving through the labors of the philosophers, researchers, and law-makers that govern us, or, conversely, by divine fiat which has been set in stone and rendered timeless by a deity (or deities) likewise immune to the ravages of time; the constant shifting and metamorphosing of human culture. I have a feeling we may find ourselves on opposite ends of this topic, and I won't delve too deeply into this because that's likely to lead to a completely different debate altogether and draw focus away from where it belongs. However, I disagree with a claim you made in this section of your argument. You stated: "These are the sources of human morality, which is that which benefits the species and/or increases the quality of life of human beings. The development of human morality has reached the point where it is considered right to protect the rights of all human beings, even the minority and/or those who are deemed to be of little or no value to society." I don't agree with you that the only purpose morality serves is to benefit humanity or that modern sensibilities about morality are specifically geared toward protecting the rights of human beings. There are many entities considered morally relevant by modern opinions that are not human, and entities which are human that are not considered morally relevant. I don't believe that the only purpose morality serves and the only interest that society ought to have is to further the interests of mankind alone, but ALL manifestations of intelligent life. We will likely disagree on this point, and it isn't necessarily central to the debate at hand, but I felt it important enough to touch on before continuing. In regards to whether or not a fetus is biologically human and metabolically alive, we are in agreement of those facts. However, I find some flaws with your stance that biological humanity automatically translates to personhood in the case of the fetus or the vegetative. While those trapped in permanent unconsciousness are granted personhood in some areas, elsewhere, they are not. There are certain jurisdictions which deny personhood to those in persistent vegetative states, leaving the decision to sustain their vitals up to the immediate relatives. I fail to see what is so compelling about a pulse or the possession of human DNA that it would convince one to grant an organism personhood based purely on this criteria. Life is so much more than base biology, and the idea that this is all that matters when discussing issues of personhood is an extremely depressing and troubling thought to my way of thinking. You touched on the idea of a soul. Being that I have no belief in any such thing, I can't support opposition to abortion on the grounds of the presence of a soul, regardless of which specific religious tradition we're dealing with. Since you don't seem to be relying on this sort of thing to make your point, I don't feel a need to explore it any further, aside from just pointing out that if the religious believe that this is compelling enough of a reason to strip women of their right to abortion, then they MUST, at a minimum, be able to give demonstrable evidence that there even exists such a thing as a soul before we consider this argument and weigh it in against a woman's right to abort. The burden of proof is on them. In regards to your opinions on bodily autonomy, I don't understand how you can claim that continuous violation of one's very being for nearly a year is somehow less of an offense than the death of something that never even realized or cared it was living in the first place. How is inflicting suffering and enslaving someone to involuntary bodily functions for the sake of something mindless, thankless, and destructive the lesser evil in this scenario? Assuming that a fetus at 8 weeks possesses no self-awareness and lacks completely the ability to feel pain, can it really be said that we are wronging it in some way by disconnecting it from the woman upon whom it is parasitically dependent and allowing it to expire? You seem to be implying that it is somehow a greater wrong to harm an unintelligent being that cannot suffer than it is to harm an intelligent being that can. If we have on our hands an entity that cannot suffer, that does not even possess the ABILITY to suffer (which is a trait that distinguishes the fetus and the braindead from, say, someone who's asleep or who has been knocked unconscious) how can we be said to be harming them? How exactly do you harm something that cannot suffer? How do you wrong something that has no wishes to violate? I would suggest that we cannot, and due to this, a fetus aborted cannot truly be said to be victimized in any sense. We have not caused it to anguish, we have not violated its wishes or free will, we have not stolen from it anything that rightfully belonged to it. What crime has been done, then? You said that imprisonment is a violation of one's bodily sanctity. It isn't. If a crime has been committed by an individual against the general populace the government has the right to exercise self-defense by rushing to the aid of its people. If someone has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with freedom, then they lose their freedom. They do NOT in the course of that process lose their bodily rights. The institution they are housed in cannot take blood or tissues from them. It cannot sterilize or cripple or lobotomize them. It cannot experiment on or utilize in any way it deems fit the living bodies or remains of those imprisoned. Imprisonment is not a loss of bodily sanctity, it's a loss of liberty, and it's justified in certain circumstances. Loss of bodily sanctity is not. (Example: We don't rape rapists, and we don't maim those who have maimed others. Even in response to a violation of one person's bodily sanctity we cannot violate someone else's. Nothing justifies this, ever.) You also claimed that choosing to be sexually active is essentially equal to stating that you are willing to gamble your educational and financial future, health, sanity, and potentially even your life to bring an unwanted baby into the world. It's not. Yes, pregnancy is a risk of sex. However, consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy, and consent to pregnancy is not consent to remain pregnant. Also, the act of braving societal disapproval and having the courage and foresight to undergo an abortion procedure at one's own financial and personal cost IS an act of taking responsibility for the process by which you became pregnant. When someone chooses to have sex and as a result becomes infected with an STD, we don't say "Well, you knew this was a risk you were taking when you had unsafe sex. Tough luck." On the contrary, we do everything we can to try and cure them, or at least, to help manage the symptoms of their disease and ease their suffering. We don't force them to deal with the ailment on their own as a sort of warped recompense for their sexual activity, the way that some try to do with pregnancy. We don't have a right to use STDs to punish people for being sexually active, why would we be justified in using pregnancy for this? In closing, I would like to point out that human beings are never entitled to have someone else take care of them, as you claimed. Never, at any point in our lives, have you or I had the right to force someone else to care for us. Not our parents or grandparents, not our teachers or neighbors. No parent HAS to take care of their children after birth. In fact, there isn't even a law stating that parents have to name their children once born. A woman who does not want her baby after birth can simply leave the hospital without it, never once having seen, held, fed, or loved it. Men do not even have to attend the birth at all. Being human does not mean that you are entitled to be cared for by other humans, either before or after birth. You can claim that it OUGHT to be that way, that parents ought to want and love their children, that the elders of a family ought to care for the younger, that society ought to care for those without familial ties to lean on, but we don't have the right to legally force upon people our fanciful opinions about the way things should be in a perfect world. Also, I disagree with you that parental duty ever goes so far as to demand a sacrifice of one's bodily resources. We have no right to force a parent to donate blood, breastmilk or any other bodily substance, even with an innocent child's life hanging in the balance. The right to life has limits, and possessing the right to live does NOT mean that you have the right to live no matter what. The costs your life incurs upon the people around you is a pivotal consideration in whether or not you get to go on living. If I find myself in a life-or-death situation not all things are justified to save me. If keeping myself alive meant that I had to run IVs from my mother's arm to mine, utilizing her as a dialysis machine, I would need her consent first, correct? The fact that she is my mother who made and raised me doesn't mean her responsibilities for my life go that far, nor do I have a right to demand that much of her, as I'm sure you agree. So why would the case have been different when I was still in utero? Why is it that you believe I had more rights before birth than I do today, when I can actually desire and savor life? Why do humans receive a restricted right to live after they are born and can desire life, but an endless one before they're able to care? Thank you.