Ok, so the high school story aside, this is why I come to SPS right now- there are some actually good points and discussions to be had.
...well I come here for the birddog stories too, lets be honest.
I appreciate how you phrased your point and it is certainly valid.
I think that if a fetus is going to have rights, then it opens up a whole ****-ton of issues(unintended consequences?) that seem to not be addressed or considered.
- if a fetus has rights, is the mother legally punished for drug or alcohol use while pregnant? She is violating that fetus' rights.
- can a pregnant woman be confined to a safe location to ensure a fetus is not violated during gestation?
- if a fetus has rights and is seen as a person, are they a dependent when in the womb? This would affect taxes, census, etc.
- when a pregnancy does not reach full term, will there be autopsies and investigations that could lead to criminal charges? So grieving families will be investigated since the fetus had the right to live.
I know these(and more) questions may seem far fetched, crass, or perhaps both. They are very real issues though and will come up directly after recognizing a fetus as having rights. I dont think many of the iusses can be reconciled without violating the rights of others which creates more issues of morality.
How I view all this is that rights should begin once a person is no longer relying on a host for life. This is a simplified statement, but it basically means once a child is born, they have rights. Before then, we need to rely/hope the parents will consider the fetus' best interests when making decisions.
Though i have typed all that, I am not an abortion advocate. I think very few are actual advocates for it, to be clear. It is dishonest to say someone who doesnt want it fully banned is therefore an advocate for abortion, just like it is dishonest to say someone who doesnt support abortion wants rape victims to suffer.
The idea of life is incredibly complex and my lack of eloquence is a disservice to this discussion.
Ill open myself up to criticism(probably by others) here. 11 years ago, our second child died shortly after birth from an incredibly rare recessive genetic trait called ARPKD. My wife and I didnt know we are both recessive carriers(because its recessive so it doesnt affect us) and we just got lucky with our first. We obviously didnt want that to happen again(1 in 4 chance of death), so we decided to try again with IVF even though we can look at each other and get pregnant. Our DNA was analyzed and the marker was identified. Then embryos were created and sent off to a lab when they were at the 4 cell stage. A cell from each was pulled and tested for the genetic glitch. The viable good embryos were then sent back and 2 of the 9 were used, of which 1 took and gave us our next kid.
This took a ton of discussion on our part because we were playing with life. Was it justifiable? Was it unethical? Was it selfless? Was it selfish? I am confident and at peace with our decision, but can understand if others view what we did as wrong.
- it was good of us to not chance life on our own and possibly bring another life into this world that would only suffer and die shortly after birth.
- it was selfish of us to create another child instead of adopt an already born child in need of a loving and stable home.
- it was good of us to donate our son's tissue and organs so 4 other kids could improve their lives.
- it was selfish of us to create more potential life than we would use.
- it was good of us to donate the unused embryos to research since this disease isnt well funded.
- it was selfish of us to destroy life.
Those are some of the arguments for and against what we did. Ends up life isnt black and white.
That was an overshare, but this topic deserves actual respectful discussion and specific instances as it isnt clear cut. It also deserves more maturity than many on this board seem to be capable of.
