Originally Posted by incantana
Equating a human to a rat is nonsense. The question isn't who will raise the kid. It is more fundamental than that. The question is whether or not abortion constitutes the denial of a constitutional right.
When a baby is 8 months old and can live and breath on its own, do you support the ability to abort that baby? To bring intelligence into the equation is also nonsensical. Humanity is not based on a certain level of intelligence. Many severally mentally handicapped individuals exist as citizens but killing them is illegal.
As soon as a baby is "born" it would be murder to kill it as well. Intelligence is not taken into account. You're argument is flawed because you assume that raising the child is the point of contention. That is not the issue with abortion. It is the denial of a constitutional right to life.
Furthermore, suggesting it is anyone's "business" is intellectually bare. Enforcing the law of this country is not something that people do because its their "business". They do it because it is our responsibility to make sure our rights are intact.
The right to life is the most basic of human rights. To deny the right to life in favor of the right to kill is not constitutional. A right to kill does not exist. Furthermore, If a baby can survive at 8 months, it is a human. However, it is still currently legal to kill that baby. This makes no sense.
I never equated a person to a rat.
The meaning is as such:
- The stated terms also apply to a rat.
- Those terms are not enough to mark a rat as special.
- Hence there's no reason why those terms should mark a fetus as special.
- Hence the person should find a different set of terms to describe what would make a fetus special.
But if you want to go that route, then yes, we're all groups of cells, with the same fundamental building blocks.
In practical terms, what makes 'people' different, is our level of intelligence.
You could go the route of natural selection, and say that as a group we compete with other groups. So elimination/subjugation of other groups is in our nature. Hence we place ourselves above all other live forms.
Unless your argument is religious. In which case you're protecting a soul and supporting the will of god.
However, regardless of why you define a person as special, you still have to define a person (human being).
Making that definition before birth is doing so using properties that are 'non-special and non-unique to human beings'.
After birth arguments, while having a place in philosophy, are not practical. As described below at the (*).
Law exists to protect us from trespass by others.
Most are extrusions of trespass.
Theft is someone without domain possessing your property.
Copyright is a subset of theft protection.
Assault/Murder is a trespass on your body.
But the fundamental principle is restricting the rights of one person to prevent them from violating the rights of another person.
We as a group decided that we will protect each other from each other's trespasses, and we have institutions to accomplish that.
And yes, those laws apply to the mentally handicapped, as do all laws for anyone who's been 'completed' (exists/is).
*Birth is an easy line to draw.
Measuring intelligence is difficult, because you end up arguing over thresholds. Exactly 'how' intelligent do you have to be?
That would be a very hard discussion to have, as the threshold would intrinsically be an opinion.
Taking a woman's rights away to make her serve the purpose of a state controlled incubator, is a grave trespass on her.
It's a form of slavery. You require that she do a job, for you. She is not willing, she gets no compensation, and is punished if she does not do the job.
And it really is a matter of 'business', because your domain is your business, and other people's domain isn't.
You wouldn't accept a stranger coming into your house, they've violating your domain.
How can you accept a stranger coming into your womb? That's a far more personal violation.
Raising the child is not the core "can we" or "can't we" item.
It however illustrates the selfishness/hypocrisy of 3rd parties.
It's very easy to trespass on others, but difficult to be trespassed upon.
People love to cry about 'big government', but feel no empathy when using 'big government' as weapon to wield their will.