Sunday, April 8, 2012 3:42:12 PM
Busdriver - You aren't allowed to kill or neglect a baby because you have a right to give that baby up for adoption. You can put it in someone else`s arms and walk away (if the bio dad wants to raise it, I believe that women, like men, should provide child support).
Like I said, if we can do that for fetuses in the future then we shouldn`t be allowed to kill them either. If there`s a viable space for them that isn`t inside me, then we should put them there.
Until then, my womb is my womb and the rights of a clump of cells to live inside of me, use my organs, my blood, my breath is not a right the clump of cells has. If I make the moral decision to allow it, fine. But it`s not an inherent right.
A clump of cells has the right to its own cells and I won`t be harvesting them for organ replacements for myself. It doesn`t get my body as a guarantee either.
Sunday, April 8, 2012 3:04:05 PM
The government shouldn't tell people what they can and can`t do with their bodies. It is their job, however, to prevent one person from taking action against another. The issue is whether or not abortion is an action taken against another moral agent (the fetus), or simply an action pertaining solely to one person. I believe that fetuses qualify as moral agents (that is, people who have full moral rights and responsibilities), because I also believe that the prerequisite for moral agenthood is potential rationality. It can`t just be rationality, otherwise babies would have no more rights than fetuses. It`s hard to draw a line for full moral rights that doesn`t involve either neglecting infants, or including animals (although some would be perfectly ok with giving them full moral rights). So my question is, if you believe fetuses don`t have a right to life, why? Or if they do, why does a woman`s right to her body supersede it?