The author described a situation in which a fetus was aborted near the end of the pregnancy and she could actually hear the screams of the fetus. She’s never had an abortion, but she has been psychologically affected by working in an abortion clinic, even if she’s not the one actually performing the abortion.

I don’t think the argument that abortion is religiously immoral is sound. By making laws that outlaw abortion based on religious teachings, we are entangling church and state, two entities that should NOT be entangled.

In addition, how is it possible to list criteria used to determine what women are allowed to have abortions? Every woman differs and I think it’s somewhat ridiculous to have a checklist on what makes a woman eligible to have an abortion.

1) The issue of abortion reduces to whether a woman has a right to control her own body.
2) A woman has the right to control her own body.

It seems to me that you have taken 1) as being absolute and thus see anyone who argues against abortion as arguing against 2). On the contrary, 1) is very much part of the issue – in fact attacks on 2) are so irrational that they don’t really deserve to be addressed, as you suggest at the end of your last message.

As advocators of the right of a woman to abort we should be defending 1) and not igoring attacks on 1) by misrepresenting them as being attacks on 2).

I hope that clarifies what I have been saying.

The whole point in question is whether the issue is simply about “the legitimacy of allowing a woman to control how her body is used”. Once you accept that premise, which I do, then the issue is clear-cut. All I have been arguing is that this premise does indeed have to be established.

I recall a statement by a black person from a while back, in the context of discussions about race: “I refuse to have a polite, civil discussion about whether or not I am a monkey.” That sums up how I feel about this discussion.

Yes the situation is asymmetric between the sexes. (Thus the abortion laws are, rightly, asymmetric: the woman has the right to abort or not as she chooses and the man has no say in the matter.) That does not touch the issue of whether it’s simply a civil rights issue or whether the question of whether the fetus has rights has to be addressed.

There is a large subset of the human population that is physically incapable of ever being in A’s situation. This class of persons, class C, will never be asked to bear physical responsibility for B. The situation is fundamentally asymmetric. That’s one reason it’s a civil rights issue: rules are being made that can apply only to one class of persons, class A.

Meanwhile, let’s say you hit someone with your car, and as a result, that person suffers kidney failure. By luck, you are a compatible donor and you are healthy enough to undergo surgery. No other compatible donor is available. You are responsible for the situation; you may feel obligated to donate your kidney; people may think you’re a jerk if you don’t agree to donate your kidney — but you can’t be forced to do it.

To simplify it, imagine three situations.

1) Not as a consequence of her action but just by accident person A acquires a depedent person B. Person B is a rational entity that has human rights; it is somehow attached to person A (though not as a result of person A’s actions) and needs person A to survive. The options are a) severe the link between person A,B causing person A to live but B to die or b) A to undergo a painful operation that will liberate B and eventually let both of them survive.

2) As a result of her action person A acquires a dependent person B. B was either created by A or already existed – but the important point is that it is A’s responsibility that B is dependent on A. B should be considered a rational being with rights. Again the options are for a) severing the link causing A to live but B to die or b) undergo a painful-for-A operation to liberate B.

3) Either as a result of her actions or not person A acquires a dependent clump of cells B. The creation and dependence of B on A may well have been A’s responsibility but there is no sensible argument for why B should have any rights at all. Again the options are: a) severe the link causing B to die or b) make A undergo a painful operation liberating B (that may eventually cause B to develop into a being with rights).

It seems to me you could make a strong case that in 1) then A shouldn’t be _forced_ to undergo the operation. Thus if abortion falls into this category you could then make issue solely about civil rights (what a woman can do with her body) and completely independent of the more philosophical issue of whether an embryo has rights.

However the case 1) is clearly not the case relevant for abortion since the mother is responsible for the creation and dependence of the baby (except in cases like rape etc, which I’m not addressing). Since the mother (A) is responsible for the dependence of the embryo (B) it is quite clear that either case 2) or 3) apply.

If case 2) was relevant then I think that the mother (A) should be forced to have the baby (B). On the other hand if case 3) were relevant then it is quite clear that the mother (A) should be free to abort.

Although I don’t think the distinction between 2) and 3) is completely sharp to me, in my opinion an abortion within, say, the first 20 weeks of pregnancy clearly falls into category 3) whereas abortions much later, e.g. just before birth, are much more problematic.

Therefore I don’t think it is irrelevant whether the embryo has rights or not because if you grant the fact the embryo should have rights the issue falls into category 2) not 1).