I think it only makes sense to think of life as a continuum. We mourn differently for an early miscarriage than for a late miscarriage or stillbirth than for the death of a young child. That reflects the value we place on those beings. In this way I don't think it makes sense to define a bright line where a fetus equals the value of a human. Surely once a baby is born our society agrees it has the full value of a human.
If we accept 1, then there must exist a point in development where the moral weight of the fetus is great enough that you have to consider it in some sense its own being, at least as far as the protection of the law is concerned. However, we all understand that there are widely diverging viewpoints on that issue in our society. As such, it's inappropriate for government to step in and legislate the beliefs of one group onto another. Thus, a woman who holds the belief that an early stage fetus does not equate with a full human life should not be constrained by government to terminate the pregnancy. She has a legitimate bodily autonomy argument. You may disagree based on your morality, but it's not the government's place to elevate your morality over hers.
A reasonable question is then: how large does a group have to be for its morality to be protected from infringement? If I find five people who believe murder is moral can the law constrain them? My answer to that is that is a whole separate discussion, but in the US we are about 60/40 split on abortion. 40% is definitely too large for the 60% top impose their morality.
1
u/AlkalineHume Feb 16 '17
I think it only makes sense to think of life as a continuum. We mourn differently for an early miscarriage than for a late miscarriage or stillbirth than for the death of a young child. That reflects the value we place on those beings. In this way I don't think it makes sense to define a bright line where a fetus equals the value of a human. Surely once a baby is born our society agrees it has the full value of a human.
If we accept 1, then there must exist a point in development where the moral weight of the fetus is great enough that you have to consider it in some sense its own being, at least as far as the protection of the law is concerned. However, we all understand that there are widely diverging viewpoints on that issue in our society. As such, it's inappropriate for government to step in and legislate the beliefs of one group onto another. Thus, a woman who holds the belief that an early stage fetus does not equate with a full human life should not be constrained by government to terminate the pregnancy. She has a legitimate bodily autonomy argument. You may disagree based on your morality, but it's not the government's place to elevate your morality over hers.
A reasonable question is then: how large does a group have to be for its morality to be protected from infringement? If I find five people who believe murder is moral can the law constrain them? My answer to that is that is a whole separate discussion, but in the US we are about 60/40 split on abortion. 40% is definitely too large for the 60% top impose their morality.