...there is nothing like pregnancy. There is no other requirement embedded in either law or Judeo-Christian reasoning for one human being to potentially risk their life for another when they don't want to. Cases have been brought and utterly failed -- we would never require someone to undergo even minimal surgery, for instance, a bone marrow transplant, on behalf of another. The ONLY basis on which one can posit such a duty on a pregnant woman is not because of the moral agency of the fetus -- people in need of kidney transplants have moral agency too -- it's because of the relationship between the woman and the fetus, and thus, whether they acknowledge it or not, the pro-life position emanates from a view of morality that requires women to sacrifice for their unborn fetuses if that is what is required. To say that it has nothing to do with the status of women when it so evidently requires pregnant women to bear a burden that is not imposed on any other human being is -- well -- lacking. You take your pick of whether the deficit is one of honesty or logic.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Sometimes reading the comments doesn't suck
From Barbara in Virginia: