For me, making the woman the decider, is the best possible solution. But if the foetus is viable without the mother, then the woman cannot decide that it should die. This is a very rare case.
I'm not saying there aren't other possibilities. I'm just saying the above is the only one that makes sense to me.
Joanna
----- Original Message -----
On 27 February 2012 19:59, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> The reason I picked these two is that the main issue for me is whether the mother is the decider.
>
> In case 1, she is not, but only in a wider context in which "life is sacred" -- which to my mind has all sorts of good implications if you really follow through.
>
> In case 2, she is the decider and that's the end of the story, because if you get into why she's deciding one way or another, you're introducing another decider. You can improve the cultural context or material reality in which she's making the decision, but it's still her decision, no matter what it is.
But neither of these two arguments necessary lend themselves to the either/or options you've suggested. A person could feel that life is sacred and therefore oppose abortion in the case of rape, or under any circumstances whatsoever.* A person could feel that the woman is the decider and therefore support the right to abortion at all stages in the pregnancy, not just up until viability. And that's excluding the people whose views on the subject aren't based on concerns about life or choice anyway, but sexual control/morality, racial issues etc...
People are all over the place on abortion, I just don't think you can narrow it down to only two positions, basically.
*The anti-abortion movement in Ireland doesn't even support exceptions to save the woman's life... although this is based on a creative definition of "abortion" which excludes any procedure aimed at saving a pregnant woman's life.
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk