Finally, abortion. Let it be conceded that a woman has the right to control her body and its processes.
But let it also be conceded that a fetus in the womb is a human being with human rights, not to be deprived of that status by any sophistry.
At some point, near viablity, so conceded.
But a womans egg, fertilised in the lab, is obviously not a being with rights. Therefore, it is a moral dilemma as to exactly when a developing fetus has rights that supersedes its mothers.
The clash is absolute; rights theory cannot resolve it. Therefore an arbitrary political decision must be made. The position most compatible with other American ideals is to protect the weaker party -- the developing baby -- from destruction by the stronger, unless doing so would demonstrably endanger the life of the mother.
Exactly, and that decision is presently based on murder law. -- The state must prove, in a trial by jury, that a human being was killed with malice.
The state does not have the power to sequester women to prevent such 'murder'. -- Thus, the human dilemma is left up to state/local prosecutors as to whether a crime has been commited in each individual case. Such is individual freedom.
Pure libertarian thinking must concede these bounds -- the bounds of individual action, individual responsibility, and clearly defined, non-contradictory rights -- before "orthodox" conservatives will take it seriously.
Constitutional law on individual rights is a very serious thing, agreed - and present abortion law is well balanced, imo.
- Medical advances may soon make it possible to grow a fetilized egg to term in an artifical womb. -- Should the state do so to preserve the developing fetus's 'rights'?
Why is that obvious?
2. Constitutional law is indeed a serious thing. Where, in the actual text of the Constitution, do you find a general right to abortion on demand? Or do you subscribe to the theory that if the constitutional ruling feels good or agrees with your preconceived notions, it must be good constitutional law?
3. Do you believe that the constitution is a fixed document which may be amended only according to its own specific written provisions? Or do you believe that it is a "living" document which must be construed and reconstrued by the courts and principally the United States Supreme Court to fit the changing demands of successive eras in our history?
At some point, near viablity, so conceded. But a womans egg, fertilised in the lab, is obviously not a being with rights. Therefore, it is a moral dilemma as to exactly when a developing fetus has rights that supersedes its mothers.
The problem seems to be determining at what point "life" begins. I view the nine or so months spent in gestation as a continuum, so it's difficult to pinpoint that exact time. With that in mind, isn't the most moral course of action one that advocates - to a certainty - no violation of the child's rights? And isn't the only certain assumption one that says life begins at conception?
Good question butm a better question might be...If the state deems the mother un-fit will they take the fetus and grow it in said lab. I can almost gurantee that women in prison would be forced through this process if/when the technology becomes avaliable.
EBUCK