Over at Thoughts of a Regular Guy, there is a discussion about abortion. Most of the abortion apologists remain anonymous and rant often incoherently. Getting one to make an actual argument is tough. However, one has and I replied. She couldn’t help the dig at my IQ, but I don’t expect better when someone remains anonymous. I did want to provide my reply. I think that the exchange highlights the basic difference between the positions. What follows is the text of my reply
One of the anonymous said:
A fetus is indeed human, you are smart afterall, well done. A child, like an adult, exists as a physically independent entity. A fetus cannot exist as a sovereign entity, but requires a host to survive. A fetus’ so called right to life boils down to the “right to remain in the womb”—and such a “right” is only possible by the violation of the actual right of the pregnant woman to her body. In contrast, observe that a child’s right to life does not contradict the rights of anyone else. The principle here is that any alleged “right” that by nature entails the violation of the rights of another is not a right. There is no such thing as “trading one’s rights for the rights of others.” Proper rights, i.e., rights that are objectively defined, are non-contradictory.Abortion is an inalienable right. Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person. This is why making abortions will remain legal in this free country.
Here is the crux of the argument for abortion. It boils down to two points.
1. There is no basic right to life for all human beings - there are classes of humans that do not possess this basic right and that class is those that are completely dependent for sustenance and protection.
2. There is a right to manipulate one’s body any way a person sees fit and the right to manipulate one’s body is the most basic right.Your arguments, though made eloquently are false.
I’d like to start with your second point because it is important to the first point. You claim that a person has a right to manipulate their own body however they see fit. This is patently false. Similarly, my right to swing my arm ends before it hits another’s nose (I presume you would agree with that). There is no right to take one’s own life - it is not even recognized as a license in most of the country. Even if you won’t grant that, I suspect that you might agree that a person does not have the right to load their body with explosives and detonate it in the middle of a crowded bus. That is definitely not a legitimate manipulation of a persons body. So clearly, I cannot do whatever I want with my body.
The line of what is permissible and what is not seems to lie along whether I intentionally do harm to another human being. Certainly, I cannot rightly manipulate my body so as to cause the destruction of others (as in packing myself with explosives) and in swinging my arms. So, the body argument just doesn’t work. It is not the ultimate right that all other’s rights must bow to. So the real crux of your argument lies in the infants right to life.
Your first point rests on the notion that an unborn child is a parasite, that is completely dependent on its mother for sustenance and protection. Because it is completely dependent, it has no rights. You argue that no other humans are completely dependent on another for sustenance and protection. That is not true. We can identify other human beings that are completely dependent on another person for sustenance and protection. These might include a newborn infant, or a small child, or an invalid parent, or someone who has experienced an accident, or is ina coma. Do these persons not have a right to life either? In essence you are arguing for a right to not be imposed upon by another and this right trumps all others - even the most basic human right.
Your argument is the best for your position, but it is usually presented as a person being forced to help another. There is a problem here to0. We can talk about a persons rights and what they are before a critical event and after a critical event. No one has a right to make a woman do anything that would cause her to conceive a child. Period. No one. To do so would be a violation of her basic rights as a human being at a most fundamental level. We need to do everything to keep anyone from forcing a woman to do what it takes to conceive another human being. Indeed, if she does not want to conceive she should not do what is required to conceive a child.
Whether a woman voluntarily does what is required to conceive or is forced to against her basic rights, if the conception occurs, another human being is created and that human being is endowed with certain inalienable rights, first and foremost is the right to life. These rights are not dependent on whether the individual is incapable of providing sustenance and protection for themselves. At this point, a woman cannot justly manipulate her body to deprive this human being of the most basic right in the same way that my right to swing my arm (or a knife) stops before it hits another person.
