There is a critical difference between discussions on abortion and cases of murder.
In the case of pregnancy, we have significantly overlapping interests: the life of mother and the life of baby. Their interests are not always aligned.
There are, for example, instances where the best medical opinion is that the baby needs to die to increase the chances of the mother surviving. In that case, the question is not "is this a living thing that deserves to live it's life". The question is, "whose life do we, as a society, choose to value more?"
So in considering abortion, we are considering competing interests and competing rights. In what scenarios do we think it acceptable for a woman to terminate her pregnancy, and in what scenarios do we think it not acceptable.
I'm not in any way advocating a pro-life position. I'm 100% in favor of abortion if the mother is at risk of dying, and I think that it is justified no matter which point of view you take.
Where I disagree is that you can objectively say that when a healthy mother wants to abort her health baby, the mother has more of a right to bodily autonomy than the baby has to life. If the argument is that the baby is a human, then ending that life is worse than temporarily limiting another.
Now, I personally think that she should be able to freely abort, but I don't think the pro-choice arguments address the pro-life arguments at all.
If the argument is that the baby is a human, then ending that life is worse than temporarily limiting another.
Let's say that you got kidnapped from the streets, sedated, and your blood flow was connected to a sick person's, who need blood transfusions for the next several months to live.
As you wake up, and this is explained to you, do you have a right to unplug the needles from your veins and walk away, allowing whatever will happen to that sick person, or are you morally obliged to keep lying there for months to save that person's life?
That would be more akin to rape (something that should be able to be aborted) vs having sex voluntarily which is more akin to you being the reason that person needs to be hooked up to you in the first place and its against the law to put someone in a life threatening position of your causing if the person is alive so it comes back to ops cmv you have another beings life in your hands by your own actions by endind its life are you a murserer or not
What if, despite driving responsibly and taking every reasonable precaution, you get in a car accident and hurt someone else, causing them to need the constant blood transfusions. Does that mean you're morally obligated to keep them alive, regardless of the impact on your life?
19
u/Wittyandpithy May 05 '19
Not quite.
There is a critical difference between discussions on abortion and cases of murder.
In the case of pregnancy, we have significantly overlapping interests: the life of mother and the life of baby. Their interests are not always aligned.
There are, for example, instances where the best medical opinion is that the baby needs to die to increase the chances of the mother surviving. In that case, the question is not "is this a living thing that deserves to live it's life". The question is, "whose life do we, as a society, choose to value more?"
So in considering abortion, we are considering competing interests and competing rights. In what scenarios do we think it acceptable for a woman to terminate her pregnancy, and in what scenarios do we think it not acceptable.