- Nov 2018
- Rocky Mountains
I don't have time to comment on your entire diatribe. However, I will make a few arguments:....
* There is no problem with an abortion procedure, with the exception of one thing, which is the tearing the fetus up into pieces.
An abortion procedure seems to involve an extra, unnecessary, and hazardous step. What if an abortion procedure were simply carried out without tearing up the fetus? It would be one less step to deal with & that cuts down on the amount of time spent on the process; it would also be safer, since there isn't the risk of leaving behind baby pieces that'll fester & could kill a woman after having an abortion. Am I wrong? Is there something I'm missing? If tearing up the fetus is only being done for political reasons, because the abortionist has to jump through legal loopholes, then let's fix whatever it is about the legal system so that the end result is that the abortionist no longer has to tear up the fetus. I can't imagine why there would be a biological reason that makes it impossible to terminate a pregnancy without this step of tearing up the fetus, but since apparently you're the biology expert who knows everything that's involved here, maybe you can explain why it's "biologically" or "medically" needed - if this is the case.
The central problem with your argument is the assertion that a fertilized egg is a human because a human starts as a fertilized egg. You could a well assert that a human is an egg and a sperm because a human starts from those two cells.
Furthermore, you seem to be implying that the pregnant female has no independent rights over her own body.
So from those assumptions, you have now tried to create a violent act against a human being.
Most medical procedures are considered repulsive to the average person. There are people who have extreme anxiety and fear from just SEEING a sharp instrument or needle. However you wish to characterize abortion, it is not any more dramatic than most other surgery and less than many.
Unfortunately, there is no discussion possible when your argument depends upon fundamentally flawed assumptions and assertions. I think most libertarians support women's bodily autonomy and right of pregnant women to choose what to do with her pregnancy. Extreme positions on abortions are just not compatible with biology and reasonable government. Pregnancy is a process. At one extreme is one or more cells that are alive but not autonomous and at the other is a viable human being.
So, unfortunately, decisions that are not going be correct at all stages of pregnancy need to be made depending upon the stage of pregnancy. The concept of bodily integrity (the right to make decisions about ones own body) argues that a women's right to choose should apply to most of pregnancy for any poorly developed fetus. However, a societal interest develops as the fetus achieves more and more viability in the final weeks of pregnancy because the woman is hosting a viable person and the societal interest would increase in that circumstance. A women's right to self-preservation should reasonably predominant, however, if there is a threat to her life at any point in pregnancy.
There will be the occasional pregnancy termination before about 26 weeks that might have produced a viable infant after a c-section and intensive care.
However, that remotely possible survival should not be the sole determinant of the medical choices made by the pregnancy woman. The unique circumstances of pregnancy (the woman's body supports the growing fetus completely), mean that the pregnant woman has unique authority over the circumstances in HER body until that stage of pregnancy where the fetus has achieved clear viability.
Pregnancy is a complex and changing process; it is not a single event that can be easily judged by a simple legal description or regulation.