I found out about Cecile Richards and her "hand wave" about when life begins in this article at
NRO yesterday. She says:
“It is not something that I feel is really part of this conversation,”
Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood told Fusion’s Jorge Ramos on
Thursday. “I don’t know if it’s really relevant to the conversation.”
I started reading the coments, and found this one, by Bob Wynne:
If any of you full grown adults that are definitely alive needed to
be hooked up to my blood supply for months, would the choice to carry
that burden be up to me or not? It is not a question of whether you are
alive. I accept that you are. Yet there is still a question.
It piqued my interest, and I responded to him. I was expecting the "forced gestation" argument to surface pretty quickly, but it didn't. Instead, I found myself in a conversation with someone who has genuine concerns about the rights of the mother vs the rights of her unborn child.
See what you think. My initial response:
leelu
Bob Wynne
•
a day ago
Wonderfully bogus argument, and totally off the point, too.
No argument from me, Boss. Just asking a question. You might
wonder, "Why would Bob ask that?" In order to get an answer. So far I
have been unsuccessful.
Ah... To answer your question, I would say yes, you definitely should/would have a say in it. OK?
Now, I am asking what the point is that I am off of?
What I perceive as the point of the article - the assertion that the
issue of when life begins is irrelevant to abortion. I just don't see a
connection there?
The point is that I think that if we, as civilized people, can agree
that society cannot force an individual to share their blood, oxygen and
nutrients with another living person, then it is not relevant when a
cell mass becomes a person for purposes of abortion rights. If we can
agree that society can force a person to share their blood, oxygen and
nutrients with another person, then personhood might be relevant in the
discussion.
The short answer is, if "it is not relevant when a cell mass becomes a
person", then ,by a simple logical extension, there no reason why I
should be penalized in any way for shooting you. (This is *not* a
threat, btw.)
Your whole "sharing" example is irrelevant as well. In your case,
you are talking about somthing that, absent force, would be, by
definition, a contractual arrangement. I expect that you would not let
me "hook up" for nothing. That is not the case between a mother and
child - no contract exists. It is a moral issue, based exactly on the
point of the start of personhood. Hand-waving it doesn't make it go
away.
You may be right on your primary position here. We all agree that
you cannot do anything to another person. I am suggesting that if the
fetus is a person, that there is more to discuss along those lines.
Some
would argue that refusing to share your resources is not doing
something to them. It is not allowing them to do something to you. You
are removing them from your personal space. You are redirecting your
blood flow for your personal use. They are free to go on their way.
But they feed on you only by your grace and agreement.
That is what I
would say if some born person needed some component in by blood for
some period of time. I do not believe in killing another, but I do not
belive in forcing anyone to support someone else, either.
As far as
the comparison to the abortion debate, I have no answers. I cannot
support forcing anyone to make that sacrifice. Even if the fetus is
deemed a person, why would I give him or her more rights than me or you?
I am glad that the decision does not rest on me. I feel that it
should be left up to those that will have to live with it.
If you donate blood or are an organ donor, then the resource sharing
issue is moot. You may, if you want, or not. Same with me, as a first
responder - I am under *no* legal obligation to administer CPR, just as
you are under no legal obligation to give blood.
"Feeding" suggests a parasite-host relationship, which again, is
moot, since we are agreed that you have voluntarily donated blood or
organs (I'm thinking "live donor" here, as in kidney or liver parts).
I don't think it's ultimately about rights, altho that certainly is a
big part of the legal debate. If we agree that the unborn baby is
human, then I would argue that his/her "right to life" is equal to yours
or mine. So, in spite of Richard's hand waiving, it really does come
down to that.
I'm enjoying this discussion. I can relate to your dilemma- my
Catholic upbringing informs my conscience even today, yet I don't want
to see women forced into the old "back alley/dirty coat hanger"
environment. Women *will* get abortions, legal or not. If it came to a
vote, I *would* vote my conscience ("No"), and still hope that women who
sought them would be well cared for.
I'd like to post this to one of my blogs (leelusplace.blogspot.com). If you prefer, I will "anonymize" you.
Post it if you like. But I would like to close with the notion that
not all decisions that need to be made, need to be made by government.
And if the solution is not universal, then it should not be enforced by
law.
And there we have it. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment