Doesn't it seem that even giving an inch on abortion (late term limits, etc) implies that the fetus is in fact a human or developing human with full rights, and thus any abortion would in fact be murder?
Lots of murder isn't illegal. It's measured on degree of intent and consequences.
Abortion rights, one way or the other, aren't black and white right-and-wrong, but a grey mishmash of measuring which rights are more important, which do we need to hold over others, and at what point in time those situations change.
Late term limits might, for example, simply be saying that once the fetus is that developed its right to life outweighs the right of bodily autonomy, for instance because it is no longer 100% dependant on the mother to continue living.
Contributing to the idea that abortion is black and white, right and wrong can only be detrimental to both sides in the longrun, or to any attempts to ever give concessions or compromises, which are all conducive to the resolution of any social progressive conflict (unless you're of the bloody revolution type).
technically, yes. it does. a fetus at viability has the right to either be saved or it has the right to die in the arms of the woman. a pre-viable fetus cannot survive, if it were birthed at that point in time.
Just a quick thought ... the idea of term limits - at least in some cases - works off of the belief that the situation changes somewhat after viability is reached, in that there is a good probability (or even a possibility) that the fetus could survive on its own. As such there is not an explicit dependency on the mother for the fetus' survival, at least technically speaking.
That said, the fetus' rights would still be second to the mother, who would remain legally allowed to abort if her health / life were directly threatened, so I don't think term limits and other legislation necessarily implies anything about "full" rights. Could be wrong, though.
because there is a point where the fetus, if birthed could sustain life, even with assistance from life support. it's at that point that it's no longer 100% reliable on the woman's body for survival.
I like to think that abortion rights are black and white, because for me, they generally are. I don't have the rights to judge another woman for doing whatever she wants with her body, even if I wouldn't make the choice for myself.
Comments 51
Abortion rights, one way or the other, aren't black and white right-and-wrong, but a grey mishmash of measuring which rights are more important, which do we need to hold over others, and at what point in time those situations change.
Late term limits might, for example, simply be saying that once the fetus is that developed its right to life outweighs the right of bodily autonomy, for instance because it is no longer 100% dependant on the mother to continue living.
Contributing to the idea that abortion is black and white, right and wrong can only be detrimental to both sides in the longrun, or to any attempts to ever give concessions or compromises, which are all conducive to the resolution of any social progressive conflict (unless you're of the bloody revolution type).
Reply
What? Murder is, by definition, illegal.
Reply
Self defense.
Defense of property.
War.
Death penalty.
By no means am I pushing forward an advocacy, but just because a human kills another human doesn't immediately make it wrong in the eyes of the law.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
That said, the fetus' rights would still be second to the mother, who would remain legally allowed to abort if her health / life were directly threatened, so I don't think term limits and other legislation necessarily implies anything about "full" rights. Could be wrong, though.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment