fast

I'm afraid that I may be losing focus. It is late.

You seem to be conveying to me a sense of what one who is pro-life would say. Unless I'm mistaken, and I very well may be, but I thought those who are pro-choice say that what is right or wrong is irrelevant when it comes to the choice to abort. Hence, it's being claimed that I can find abortion wrong yet be pro-choice.

The moral justification we use for legislating what we do after a child is born does not seem to apply for what we can do before a child is born since what is right or wrong is inapplicable when it comes to aborting the unborn fetus.

doghouse

Sorry.

41 states have animal cruelty laws, 32+ have felony provisions. For the most part, these laws do not differentiate between wild or domesticated animals, and the protection afforded by these laws cover both types of animals. Many do have exceptions for certain types of hunting, farming and research.

My point is that it's not necessary to afford an entity, such as an animal or fetus, the legal rights of a person in order for that individual to have some protection under the law.

xunzian

I think a lot of it hinges on the definition of person. Since I view personhood/humanity as a relational product, I'm not sure that we can say that a fetus is "meaningfully" human, even if it is biologically human. A lot of this deals with the question of "life" and where it begins. I mean, the sperm and egg are fully alive, yet very few people in the modern world consider menstruation to be "dirty" because it is a wasted life and likewise, very few people are opposed to male masterbation because it is murder by the millions.

Starshark

It does have to be at least born, though. How many animal fetus rights are there?

Jolly_Penguin

How can what is right or wrong ever be inapplicable? You suddenly become amoral on a topic because you are told to?

As far as I can tell the pro-choicers are not immoral, they just see the unborn entity as NOT our equal, as a mass of cells, or as part of the woman, and thus not worthy of our compassion and protection. Given this understanding of the unborn, as not a person and not our equal, killing it is not wrong. And the woman's right to control her body clearly trumps any othe concern.

doghouse

A lot. Many states have laws where under many conditions, killing a fetus is manslaughter or murder.

Starshark

Animal fetus.

doghouse

Human beings are animals (except for certain politicians that are more in the vegetable family).

More to the point, I was just illustrating there's not reason you can't have certain protections under the law for an unborn entity as someone suggested.

Let's try to focus here.

fast

If it's wrong to kill someone, then we should not kill someone, but that it's wrong to kill someone isn't to say that we should necessarily create and enforce legislation to prevent others from killing people.

However, we do just that. We bar people from wrongly killing others, but (and even if under the assumption that a fetus is a person), we should not bar people from wrongly killing those people that are yet born if it’s indeed true that it’s acceptable to separate the moral issue from the legal issue. Hence, that it's wrong to kill an unborn fetus (even if regarded as a person) isn’t to say that we should use legislation to bar women from abortion.

Isn’t that what I’m being told in this thread?

I have been told that I can believe that abortion is wrong and justify my pro-choice position. I am merely expounding on what I've been told; I am not necessarily espousing it.

If I can indeed hold a belief that abortion is wrong and justly hold a pro-choice stance, then I don't see how morality matters in terms of holding the political position.

I've said that abortion is wrong, so I don't care what they think. If they abort a child, then what they're doing is wrong and therefore immoral. The question is whether or not I can then justify my pro-choice position.

I'm told that I can.

Again, the moral justification we use for legislating what we do after a child is born does not seem to apply for what we can do before a child is born since what is right or wrong is inapplicable when it comes to aborting the unborn fetus.

Jolly_Penguin

If we're going with the unborn being our equal then this just sounds like blatant bigotry against the unborn. Else, why do we not have this same logic for other murders?