I know you're making a separate point, but still:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
1. Women have a right to control their own bodies.
2. Abortion is a way in which women may gain control of their bodies.
3. Therefore, abortion is a right.
1. Women have a right to control their own bodies.
2. Swinging their fists such that they hit someone else in the head is a way in which women may gain control of their bodies.
3. Therefore, punching someone in the head is a right.
No, society has not "compromised" a solution. You have one group dead-set on eliminating abortion, and the other group dead-set on keeping it as a possibility.
The "compromise" here is that Roe vs. Wade set a specific standard that one side cannot legislate past, regardless if they want to.
Actually, Roe v. Wade set two specific standards on each side that neither side
can legislate past. It's incredibly wrong to say that the ruling only limits the degree to which states may restrict abortion. The ruling also limits the degree to which states may allow abortion and does effectively establish that a fetus gains rights gradually as the pregnancy continues.
Said case affirmed that abortion was a constitutional right of women as a direct result of their right to control their own bodies.
Er... Technically correct, but not as absolute as most people assume. All constitutional rights can be infringed when they impact with another constitutional right. Like the right to life.
It doesn't matter one way or the other if you think the fetus is a life. Women have, in our society, the right to liberty. Even if the fetus is alive, they still have the right to liberty. It's a shame that the fetus can't survive without the woman, but that's not the woman's problem.
Again, that's not really correct. There's a reason why late term abortions of a viable fetus is a crime. If you were correct, it would be legal to have or perform an abortion right up to the moment of birth. It's not, at least partly because of the Roe v. Wade decision. While conservatives oppose the ruling because it effectively legislated from the bench, the same set of guidelines that say that you cant restrict abortion in the first period of pregnancy also say that you can't allow it once the fetus reaches a certain stage of viable development (typically somewhere around 5-6 months). Roe v. Wade also allows for changes in medical technology, such that as our ability to keep a fetus alive outside the womb increases, the legal standards in terms of abortion must change as well.
The ruling ties abortion to the development and external viability of the fetus. So it's completely wrong to say that the fetus's condition as a living organism is irrelevant. It's arguably the single most relevant element involved.
If society cares that much, then it should be investing in artificial womb research that would enable fetuses to be transferred into a new environment to grow, rather than be aborted. I've never heard of a pro-life organization interested in that sort of research.
So like arguing that left over IVF fetuses should be made available to surrogates (so not artificial, but wombs other than their biological mother) so as to give them a chance to live rather than being harvested for stem cells. Or perhaps encouraging women to give children up for adoption rather than aborting in the absence of a magical artificial womb?
You do bring up an interesting point though, but I suspect you're not looking in the more interesting direction. What do you think the pro-choice folks would argue if such a thing were available? I just don't believe that the entire pro-choice argument revolves around a woman's right to control her own body. I think that's the argument used most, because it works. But I honestly think that for many pro-choice folks, it's about the right to abort the child
. Period. It's about the right of a woman to divest herself of the responsibility of raising a child in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. I suspect that if artificial wombs existed, the same vocal pro-choice folks will argue that the state has no right to force her to allow her property (in this case the fetus) to be transferred from her and to the artificial womb.
Why do you think the points about raising a child come up in such discussions? If it were only about the woman's right to control her own body, then the cost/burden of raising a child should never enter into the discussion. Yet, it pretty much always does. It's the social argument for abortion as an institution. We can argue whether we like or dislike that, but it is a fact that abortion is supported by many because they believe it allows a means for a woman to avoid a condition (single motherhood) which will significantly decrease her likely socio-economic outcomes. If the woman would still be responsible for the child, even if the entire pregnancy could occur outside her body, those same people would still argue she had a right to terminate the pregnancy.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. Edited, Nov 19th 2013 7:24pm by gbaji