So even though a child could exist outside the womb a month or more early with no special care, until it finally gets around to popping out, it has no rights?
Seems quite arbitrary.
I hate to get away from the point, but it might be necessary here to explain
why some of us are arguing from that perspective.
I don't believe that rights are inherent or predetermined, as I'm sure you know. I believe that rights are societal/cultural inventions that are projected onto/into the world. Since a fetus exists prior to the ability to do this, it cannot conceive of rights
for itself.
Now, if everyone will take closer note of the argument, us pro-choicers aren't saying "There should be at
least a certain number of abortions performed each year." We're arguing for a woman to choose that option if she so desires. On the other hand, pro-lifers want to restrict that option entirely. This is because pro-lifers project the rights that are dictated by society onto an unborn fetus. And that's fine; but there are those of us who don't see it that way, and who don't believe that abortion should be restricted because of this.
fortunately, after doing a little
research, i realized the civilized world as well as
public opinion pretty much agree with me
Popular opinion has never been, nor will it ever be, a sign of something being correct. There was a time when popular opinion held that the sun revolved around the earth.
I don't think anyone here is going to bat for 3rd trimester abortions in situations that aren't medical emergencies for the pregnant woman. Don't dwell on that. I want women to do what is best for them, and there's not really a reasonable case where it takes them 6-9 months to figure that out.
In regards to personhood, that's really not a bridge that a human crosses until some time after being out of the womb. It probably takes well after a year for infants to take on substantial characteristics of a person, i.e. a personality, specific relationships with others, ability to have two-way communications, advanced brain functions.
I definitely understand arguments against abortions when the fetus would be viable. I really don't see much difference between an 8 month fetus and a 1 month infant. I would draw the personhood line somewhere between birth and a year old, but I'm pragmatic enough to accept that the argument will always end with birth.
In my mind, these debates always take a particularly self-centered view. Let's look at what's best for society. When we talk about abortion, we aren't talking about husbands and wives wiping out a fetus at 30 weeks. We are largely talking about people who were not ready to have a child, and they want to make a decision very early on.
I'm in agreement (again). I don't see much of a difference
biologically between an eight-month fetus and a one-month infant; but the fact still remains that they're separated by the moment of birth.
I want to be clear that I'm
not suggesting a bunch of women should get abortions, or that pregnant women in their third trimester should
absolutely get abortions. I'm arguing for the proposed right of the individual, which exists in a structural cultural framework and has an awareness of itself and of its proposed rights. A fetus has none, except those which society projects onto it.
