> mbs: here again I think you're a little pregnant, no pun
> intended. Personhood connotes rights. And surely the most
> basic right is to exist, which in and of itself trumps any
> concern by the mother, other than equivalent biological
> existence.
"And surely" is a phrase writers use to cover up their inability to justify what they wish the reader to accept as a given.
It's not at all clear that a fetus is a person. Nor is it clear that people have an absolute right to use other people's bodies, even if their life is at stake. If the only way in the world I could live was through you donating an organ for me, I don't think that would establish my right to life trumps your right to control your own body.
Telllingly, the only circumstance under which people imagine that we have an absolute right to use others' bodies is - when the bodies in question are women's.
> I can't escape the conclusion that outside of
> practical considerations about enforcement, the only
> philosophical justification for abortion rights is that
> society has the right to decide (and routinely makes
> decisions in this vein) who lives and who dies.
Wow, now you've made the leap that a one-minute-prebirth-baby is morally identical to an abortion at any stage of pregnancy at all, without even pretending to justify it. Are you claiming there's no difference between an embryo and a baby?
I'd agree that aborting a one-minute-prebirth baby is immoral, unless (in some circumstance I can't even imagine) it was needed to save the life of the mother. As I said before, no one argues for one-minute-prebirth abortions; yet you apparently develop your entire argument from this strawman.
Barry