RE: Is "Pro-Life" an Accurate Label?
Very well said! I think this is my favorite comment so far. Thank you @baerdric. I also agree graduated rights makes the most sense and is a really good framework for thinking about this.
I would agree, "Pro-Choice" could be picked apart in the same way, but, contextually, that's a very specific choice they are talking about. In the case of "Pro-Life" they are also talking about a very specific type of life. I attempted to show how that life is very similar to other simple life which is not complex and we have no moral issues with terminating. That, to me, was the confusing part. But again, I see your point and I think the "unique DNA" perspective carries some weight. "Rights" are a human construct, but if we are to be consistent with them, we should extend them (to some degree or another) to unborn babies.
To me, it's like a complicated trolly problem. How do we weight the value of the dividing cells against the wellbeing of the woman and her family? Weighing a fully-functioning viable, completely innocent human being against the wellbeing of the woman takes on some different values.
Comparative and graduated rights are the only way not to argue fruitlessly about this. The other option leaves us in two hopelessly separated camps,
There's no room for rationality between those two groups. Unfortunately, the most vocal members of those groups will not take a step back and attempt mediation.
Interesting line of reasoning, @baerdric.
Part of the challenge is how we view life. If, indeed, abortion is murder, then how can there be mediation?
It is an extremely rare case where the mother's life is in danger. I couldn't imagine having to face the choice of killing my unborn child vs the probable end of my own life. Even in cases where the mother's life is in some way threatened, death is almost never inevitable. It's merely a potential. We're talking about an incredibly tiny segment of pregnant women, yet this is the argument given for all women to have a choice.
Perhaps, if the doctors tell the woman that she most likely will die during childbirth, or as a result of it, she should be given the choice. Should there be any mediation beyond that?
Since murder is the unlawful killing of a human, and since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder. It is killing, I agree there is a life, but at this point, it is not murder. It may be manslaughter or self-defense. That depends on the varying levels of rights involved.
If you hit me with a baseball bat, then haul back to hit me again, I can kill you. Your right to life is decreased by your actions, but mine are in full force. Although I don't know that your next blow will kill me, my rights extend to cover the risk. The mediation goes in my favor.
A fertilized human egg is a life, it is human (deserving of moral regard), but it is not yet "a human". It may become a human, or two humans, or a cyst, or a cancer. Until we know, it does not have full personhood.
Personhood (IMO) can only be assigned to creatures with a functioning nervous system and only to the extent of that nervous system's full development. For instance, we do not allow children to own property partly because their brains are not fully developed yet. On the other extreme we do not expect a brain dead man on life support to have the right to vote or get married.
The rights assigned to a fertilized egg must be very low, but those rights still exist. Within that range, mediation can be fruitful.
The life of a fertilized egg should not (perhaps) be destroyed for cosmetic purposes, but if it poses a significant health, safety, economic or other risk to the woman or the family, a judge may (or may not) find in favor of the woman's rights. Until reimplantation of removed unborn babies is possible, abortion is the only fair method of redress in her favor.
There is a wide range of mediation available once you remove the false term "murder" from the equation.
There's a lot of inconsistency in regard to what constitutes murder in when it comes to the unborn.
If a doctor commits malpractice on a pregnant woman and the unborn child dies, it can be considered murder.
If a pregnant woman is murdered, it can be considered a double-murder.
If a pregnant woman is attacked and loses the child, it can be considered murder.
The only one who really has the right to kill the unborn without it being "called" murder by the court is the mother.
If we let the legal system change the meanings of words, eventually the legal system itself becomes irrelevant. We're living much of this today, where someone can question the meaning of the word "is" in court, with a straight face. Murder has historically been the taking of an innocent life, period. Only in recent years has the issue of "legality" been brought into the definition.
This inconsistency in how "murder" is used points to the disingenuity of how it is charged. It is either murder or it isn't. If the taking of an unborn life is murder, then abortion is clearly wrong, regardless of what any court says.
Well, you are simply wrong about that, "murder" has always been about legality and never about the innocence or lack of innocence of the person murdered. Criminals, rapists and even murderers can be murdered, if they are killed illegally - and women and children can be killed legally in war, self-defense, accidents, etc and it's not murder.
But I see that you are in one of those two irreconcilable camps that further the polarity of the issue. Have a good day.