So as long as you murder behind closed doors, it's fine.
Oh dear...
"Human" does not imply "human being". A severed finger is human, but it is not a human being. What defines/constitutes a human being vis-à-vis that which is merely human? It is likely that nobody knows with certainty. That means it remains an open question, which further demonstrates that no matter what position you adopt regarding "abortion", you are doing so presumptively and we now see that your presumption is perforce arbitrary and uncertain to any supportable degree as a universal truth.
It is intuitively clear to me that a fertilized egg, while human, is NOT a human being. It is equally clear to me that a 30 week fetus is. But I could be wrong on either or both of those "clear" understandings - and so could you and anyone else.
Therefore, the best policy is that of liberty where women are granted their EQUAL RIGHT to their beliefs, however erroneous you may find them, and to act in accord. It may be pretty fucked up in your mind and in mine for any of a number of reasons, but that's the way of liberty. Sometimes liberty fucking sucks. If you think liberty is always pretty in its result, you do not understand it. For example, if a woman is threatened with gang rape and kills the 14 men so threatening her, are we to call that pretty? Blood and gore are never that to my eyes, and yet I would defend that woman's right to the bitter end to kill that many and ten millions more if that is what she needed to do to protect the sanctity of life and limb.
We cut tumors from our bodies all the time - nobody raises an eyebrow. Tumor is human, but not a human being. We don't know when a fertilized egg becomes a human being. The anti-choice people choose to err on the side of maximal caution (not maximum, which I will not discuss here unless someone wants the explanation) by assuming the fertilized egg is a human being. If that is their
choice of belief, I respect it even though I may disagree. Others believe differently and are as entitled as anyone else to those beliefs and to act upon them precisely because the truth has yet to be demonstrated in irrefutable terms. Note that "violently emotionally compelling" does not equate with "irrefutable". There were many things in eras past that were so very painfully obvious to "everyone"; things which in the intervening time have been proven beyond reproach to have been dead-wrong. The world, as it turned out, was in fact
NOT flat. Burning witches did not, in the end, improve the state of the world. The list continues a rather long way yet to go, so I will stop here as I believe the point is made sufficiently.
I completely respect the "pro-life" position, save their advocacy for the application of force against women who would terminate their pregnancies. That advocacy speaks in diametric opposition to proper human freedom. To be so convinced of one's absolute knowledge in the context of one's clear and present ignorance on a given point is perhaps the most dangerous act of all. Belief <> fact beyond the fact that it is one's belief. I well understand the pro-life position and upon the day when that which makes us a human being vis-à-vis merely human is established beyond refute and it is similarly established without blemish that those qualities inher to a fertilized and completely undifferentiated egg, I will be the first to trumpet the pro-life clarion call. I am serious about this. Demonstrate to me these two basic propositions such that I am convinced and I will advocate for such force right alongside the rest.
Until then, I must maintain my very uneasy skepticism - and trust me when I tell you that it is very much so - in defense of my best take on retaining proper respect for the rights of others even when their choices disgust and/or horrify me. I understand your horror completely and though I agree with you, I cannot make that jump in the absence of sufficient proof. This instance of the ugly side of liberty I feel compelled to accept as a matter of sacred principle, and believe you me I do at times hate it.
Not quite off-topic: for later term terminations (talk about horror), given what I suppose here to be the epistemological problem at hand, would it be a rational and well reasoned compromise to eliminate the D&C for most procedures and replace it with induced labor such that the fetus is expelled "naturally" (I know... trying to be conversationally practical) and if it can survive, we decide we had a human being on our hands? I know it's a pretty shitty middle-road, but is it not still better than slice and dice, where the little guys have zero chance of life? Any prospective mother electing to do this upfront quitclaims her right to the result regardless whether it lives and those receiving are entitled to take whatever heroic measures they deem fitting pursuant to saving the life in question.
Jesus... what a horrible topic this is. It makes me ill just thinking of it... so while I support you women's right to choose, fuck you anyway.
