Unsafe for the host?
So do you follow the reasoning that the child in the womb is akin to a parasite? (yes this is what pro-choice groups argue).
And who's morals are you following to derive at your views? If you read Nate's post, you'll see that a baby can be killed even in mid delivery. Up until George W signed a bill recently, this was legal in all 50 states.
So basically, its moral to kill a baby while inside the birth canal, but suddenly, its immoral to kill it once it is outside the birth canal.
Do you see how messed up this is?
Its really no wonder that Dr's who perform abortions routinely have a change of mindset about this more and more.
My sole moral is the non-coercion principle. So long as you don't initiate force or fraud, you are good to go. However, even this simple moral system has bugs, notably, children. Should a parent be liable for the health of their child? If not, then for how long? And by what epistemology do you arrive at your conclusion?
I don't bring this up to make it look like I condone child abuse, merely to let you know where I stand morally, and that I'm aware of the flaws in my moral system. This is just some general purpose information about my perspective which should prove relevant to the discussion. About abortion in particular, let me quote Eric Raymond:
"The liberals' looney-toon feminist need to believe that a fetus one second before birth is a parasitic lump of tissue with no rights, but a fetus one second afterwards is a full human, has done half the job of making a reasoned debate on abortion nigh-impossible."
On the other hand...
"The conservatives' looney-toon religious need to believe that a fertilized gamete is morally equivalent to a human being has done the other half of making a reasoned debate on abortion nigh-impossible."
In other words, I don't feel that an unborn child is or isn't a parasite. The issue is not so black and white. I consider a baby to be the moral equivalent of a human being, but I don't consider a lump of cells which couldn't survive 10 minutes outside the womb to be the moral equivalent of a baby. And even if I did consider gametes to be on equal footing with humans, my moral system still breaks down.
The question is, who initiates the coercion in the case of unwanted pregnancy? The host must coerce the gamete to terminate the abortion. But the gamete coerces the host by demanding 9 months of nurturing. But the host coerces the gamete by forcing it into existence. But the non-existant gamete coerces the host by forcing abstinence or sterilization (and yes, this is coercion --- there is always a possibility of a plane crashing into your roof, but flying isn't illegal; just because something might cause coercion does not make the activity coercive so long as the probability of incidence is sufficiently low --- which is a whole 'nuther debate unto itself, but I digress).
One might agree with all of this, but conclude that adoption is a better kludge than abortion. I disagree. In my heart of hearts, I see a world where abortion is impossible as a worse place. A child is better off not existing than being born into a world without love. The contrary opinion would be that no adopted child would wish they had never been born. I agree with this, and extend the proposition to include all sentient beings --- anyone who truly wishes they never existed can and will rectify the situation promptly. However, though this is an exercise in pure speculation, I'd wager that nobody's first sentient thought occurs before birth. So, I could rephrase my position as "better to preempt sentience than to terminate it." Further, consider that with 1 to 2 million abortions each year, the market for adoption would rapidly become over saturated if abortion was not an option.
)
