A baby cannot care for itself and is dependent on caregivers, the only difference that care is internally for one but external for ther other.
So not the only difference.
For me to say "I wish to not have the responsibility of this 3 month old baby," all that needs to happen is to hand the baby to someone else.
For me to say "I wish to not have the responsibility of this 3 month old fetus," there is no way to hand that fetus off to someone else without medical risk to me and death of the fetus.
The day we develop the technology to 'hand off' a 3 month old fetus to someone else with no more invasiveness or risk to either mother or fetus than handing off a loaf of bread, that is the day I'll support such a procedure as the legal alternative to abortion.
Not even a need to preach it. We can submit it to empirical testing:
SimonJM; Right now, today, you can go down to a women's clinic and find a woman who does not want her 3 month old fetus. Take it. But with no more risk or invasiveness to woman or fetus than if she were handing you a loaf of bread, or a puppy, or a margarita.
Ready? And... go.
Be sure to videotape the procedure for peer review and publication.
That he doesn't even understand the basic argument.
I've yet to have anyone in any debate here address the personhood issue. Lack of personhood is used to justify abortion but then ignored when it doesn't suit for babies.
At least the academics understand this and try to address it. You guys raise arguments that are overwhelmingly ignored by the pro's because they know they haven't even got a leg to stand on.
To be frank there are two levels of this debate the informed and the ignorant and I've been persevering to find at least someone here how has bother to get informed.
In no way must one agree with the other side on everything, but if you cannot even appreciate the force or validity of say the infanticide argument Tooley raises -which informed pro’s do– it just shows you are incapable or unwilling to critically examine the issue.
I don't address the personhood argument because I don't care about it. Whether or not something is a person isn't the sole indicator of its right to life. I'm of the mindset that living things should be left alive unless it is necessary for our lives and well being that they don't (for instance, the wheat that made my bread) or when the end of the others life is the only way to ensure that someone else's rights are not infringed (killing and self-defense and abortion).
Now you can continue to ignore my questions and act as if I am ignorant about the issue if you like, but it doesn't do much for the points you are trying to make, whatever they may be.
To me, abortion isn't an inherently moral issue, it is more of a civil rights and legal one. I wasn't aware that by stating my views you would attempt to get me to argue against yours, as that is not what the discussion text indicates.
I was here supporting other people's positions until you negatively engaged me. I responded to your rather silly argument that infanticide should be legal, because in doing so you are arguing that embryos and infants should have the same standing, which I think is silly on the face of it, and it gave me an opportunity to address what I think are major issues, as the discussion text suggests.
I am informed on the personhood issue, but as I've just stated, I don't think it is that relevant to the legality or ethical considerations of abortion aside from the fact that embryos and fetuses do not have full personhood. The fact that infants don't have full personhood either is secondary to their right to life as, to me, neither of my two situations that leads to the ending of life can be met by an infant. I don't need to kill infants for food, survival or self defense, therefore they get to live.
Overall has pointed out that even if the foetus has no rights to be there that in itself doesn't give a right to end its life, if it has some moral value. Therefore she and others argue that if we had artificial womb you would be required to undergo whatever procedure to pass the foetus on.
But it looks like you're not interested in learning about the underlying arguments just the forum to sprout smartarse comments.
Simon the abortion-debate-crusader, how are you? I must say I find your intense interest in this, as a non-uterus owning individual, puzzling and at times a bit threatening. I guess I have a hard time understanding how this can be such a purely philosophical issue to you (or at least that is the impression I've gathered across many conversations on abortion.) The implications are always in the real world, with real women, and real uteruses (uterusi?)
The underlying arguments may be fine and dandy, and people may have come up with all kinds of scales and models and descriptions, but at the end of the day the question is: Do I have the right to bodily autonomy? That's IT. If I have that right, then I have the right to an abortion. Period. Everything else is just speculation on whether not we like abortion, or under what circumstances we personally think abortion is a better option for. But once we put limitations on who can get them, why, where, for what reason, etc. we are putting limitations on the bodily autonomy of women. And that's what the issue always must come down to. If artificial wombs are created, we can revisit the issue. But until then, continued pregnancy requires the hijacking of a woman's body - possibly without her consent.
With due respect how incredibly sexist. I'm using very similar to women who think exactly the same way, gender has no releveance to moral reasoning.
& just as you don't have an unbreakable right to life you don't have an unbreakable right to bodily autonomy. Basic rights can and are overridden when in accordance to other commonly used moral principles.