Part 2 of a 3-Part series on continuous thinking, conflicting rights, bodily autonomy, potential life v. actual life, and how to reduce unwanted pregnancies
GW1: Interesting article. I agree with a large part of it, but disagree with some points. I think it is important that skeptics, freethinkers, and atheists debate among themselves about important issues, like abortion, to see if we can reach some consensus.
MS1: ...(3) if rights are to be legally protected for one over the other, a stronger case can be made for a woman than a fetus because, (4) an actual human being and rights-bearing person must take precedence over a potential human being and person,...
GW1: A late-term fetus is a human being or human person, just as the pregnant woman. And a right to life should supercede a right to bodily autonomy. Without life, then no rights make any sense.
MS1: From stalking to chastity belts to female genital mutilation, throughout history men have tried to control women’s sexuality and reproductive choices.
GW1: And almost all of this control by men has been morally wrong. However, might there be cases when it is morally right? I think so.
MS1: While it may seem unlikely that if Roe v. Wade is overturned and most states ban the practice that we will see the return of infanticide, given our history it is not impossible, so this too must be factored into the abortion debate, along with the more likely prospect of illegal abortions on a black market.
GW1: I think that an increase in infanticide is extremely unlikely and that although illegal abortions are likely to increase, they are unlikely to be at the rate they were just prior to Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood and other similar organizations will help to transport women who want abortions to favorable states. This will become an efficient operation.
MS1: Banning abortion will not end the practice. What will?
GW1: Nothing will end the practice! In fact we should not want the end of abortion to ever happen. Why? Because there will ALWAYS be some unwanted pregnancies. We should always have safe, accessible, free, and legal abortions somewhere.
MS1: Instead of moralizing over the ultimately insoluble issue of whose side is right in a conflicting-rights issue like abortion, we should work toward the eminently soluble problem of unwanted pregnancies.
GW1: Although it is prudent to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and there are a variety of ways to do that, there are right sides in the conflict-of-rights’ situations involving abortion. Sometimes when there is a conflict in rights the mother is on the morally right side, sometimes the father is on the morally right side, and sometimes the fetal person is on the morally right side. I don’t think these conflicts are “ultimately insoluble.”
GW1: Interesting article. I agree with a large part of it, but disagree with some points. I think it is important that skeptics, freethinkers, and atheists debate among themselves about important issues, like abortion, to see if we can reach some consensus.
MS1: ...(3) if rights are to be legally protected for one over the other, a stronger case can be made for a woman than a fetus because, (4) an actual human being and rights-bearing person must take precedence over a potential human being and person,...
GW1: A late-term fetus is a human being or human person, just as the pregnant woman. And a right to life should supercede a right to bodily autonomy. Without life, then no rights make any sense.
MS1: From stalking to chastity belts to female genital mutilation, throughout history men have tried to control women’s sexuality and reproductive choices.
GW1: And almost all of this control by men has been morally wrong. However, might there be cases when it is morally right? I think so.
MS1: While it may seem unlikely that if Roe v. Wade is overturned and most states ban the practice that we will see the return of infanticide, given our history it is not impossible, so this too must be factored into the abortion debate, along with the more likely prospect of illegal abortions on a black market.
GW1: I think that an increase in infanticide is extremely unlikely and that although illegal abortions are likely to increase, they are unlikely to be at the rate they were just prior to Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood and other similar organizations will help to transport women who want abortions to favorable states. This will become an efficient operation.
MS1: Banning abortion will not end the practice. What will?
GW1: Nothing will end the practice! In fact we should not want the end of abortion to ever happen. Why? Because there will ALWAYS be some unwanted pregnancies. We should always have safe, accessible, free, and legal abortions somewhere.
MS1: Instead of moralizing over the ultimately insoluble issue of whose side is right in a conflicting-rights issue like abortion, we should work toward the eminently soluble problem of unwanted pregnancies.
GW1: Although it is prudent to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and there are a variety of ways to do that, there are right sides in the conflict-of-rights’ situations involving abortion. Sometimes when there is a conflict in rights the mother is on the morally right side, sometimes the father is on the morally right side, and sometimes the fetal person is on the morally right side. I don’t think these conflicts are “ultimately insoluble.”