> I'm all for more information on who's getting third-trimester
> abortions and why, but you lose me when you start talking about
> how a proper defense of "womanhood" is rightly a defense of
> the baby in the womb.
My point was that the latter deserved some standing, relative to the idea of an absolute right vested in the mother. If a woman has rights as a human being, then the fetus logically must have some standing, since it is human too.
> The philosophical pro-choice position is that before birth, the
> absolute dependence of the fetus on the body of the woman (for
> nutrients, oxygen, etc.) gives the woman some rights over the
> fetus, rights she would not have over a baby, who is dependent
> only in a much more general social sense. Third-term abortions
That's a new one on me. Hadn't heard that before. More often I hear it's my body I should be able to do what I want, for which there is much to be said but not quite enough since there something new has been added.
Why does the greater dependency imply less (or no) rights for the fetus? Also, you say "some" rights over the fetus, but clearly the rights are absolute under the pro-choice position. There is no limitation of rights allowed if there is an absolute right to abort.
> appear more complicated because premature babies can
> sometimes survive with medical assistance, and obviously no-
> one wants to kill babies, nuts like Singer aside. But guess what?
> Even in the third trimester, the fetus isn't outside the womb; it
> still depends absolutely on the physical systems of the mother.
> Therefore, the woman still has the right to determine whether
> or not to continue the pregnancy, though she wouldn't have the
> right to kill a premature baby.
I don't understand this argument at all. If anything, dependence of fetus on woman would imply some responsibility on the woman's part beyond her own preferences.
> That's the argument--makes sense to me, but take it or leave it--
> but we all know that women don't get abortions because they've
> developed airtight logical pro-choice arguments. They get them
> because their backs are against the wall. I would imagine that
> this is especially true of third-term abortions. Probably most of
> the people (three or four hundred a year?) getting third-term
> abortions are women with serious medical problems; the "lazy
Not according to stats supplied by others. It's less than 20 percent.
> and irresponsible" ones are likely to be teenagers who are too
> afraid to admit they're pregnant in time to get an early abortion,
> thanks in no small part to the folks who tell them they'll be
> murderers if they do.
I do remember using the word irresponsible, but I didn't put a number on it or generalize about it, as best I recall. Remember, this all started in a discussion of terminating pregnancies of babies with defects. If you like, call it tragic or arduous. The fetus doesn't care.
If you agree that there is such a thing as an objectionable abortion, and if it's true that there are very few of these, it should follow that our refusal to accept limitations on these marginalizes us and sets back the cause of reproductive rights.
For instance, it's possible that the absolutism of pro-choice has the perverse effect of upholding the legality of almost any type of abortion on paper, but fostering the practical elimination of real avenues to legal, unobjectionable termination of pregnancies which is becoming more obvious all the time.
> So when you laud the "coherent" Catholic position--which, in
> its divine coherence, extends to contraception as well--what
> exactly are you looking for, Max? Just playing with a new
Truth. I'm a seeker of truth. In my spare time. Doesn't mean I plan to uphold it and live by it, or condemn anyone else for not doing so. I'd just like to know it first. Take things one at a time.
> argument, or do you take it seriously? More limitations and
> regulations on abortion? An outright ban on third-term
If it was up to me I'd consider restrictions on the abortion of viable fetuses, where viable is broadly defined (in terms of disability, not in terms of earlier term pregnancies), IF such a policy was coupled with effective state support of unwanted newborns. I realize that's a big if in light of the sorry state of foster care in the U.S.
The rest of your post is in the nature of an attack on me which I'd just as soon let pass. I've no appetite for humor on this subject.
MBS