my rights end where anothers begins

my disagreement is probably one of the main reasons for the variance in opinion


whether or not another life constitutes a strict issue of one persons privacy, or whether that life has similar 'personhood' to be protected

I understand that many people have different ideas regarding when life begins and when the the laws pertaining to personhood apply to the unborn.

Even in some court cases litigation has taken place on behalf of an unborn injured party.

These are certainly points of controversy, but those points should not be made outside the judicial system. To amend, or add to the law requires that steps be taken within the legal system.

At this point, those who don't like the law, as it stands, are not taking their grievance up with the legal system, they are imposing thier own kind of discriminatory sanctions against all women.

That kind of discrinatory behavior violates the social contract which allows us to feel safe and secure in our surroundings. It just seems to me that we need to address all the issues but until they are addressed we still need to comply with the law as it stands.

When life begins is not even important. What potential the group of cells has is unimportant.

For a moment lets take a look at another aspect of life and how our legal system has adapted to fit with our lives and make the best of bad situations.

If you are rendered in a coma with no brain functions, your family can decide to remove life support.

If you develop a mental disorder and can no longer be responsible for your own actions then either your family or the state must take responsibility.

No where in our system are rights defined by potential, or by the vague notions of what life is, or is not.

Capability; characteristics of mind; functioning cognition; ability to be responsible are universally the criteria by which law interacts with a person and their rights.

The law and rights are dependent on the ability to understand right from wrong, and until a person can do these things there rights and legal authority is displaced to a guardian.

Here is the kicker, a group of cells that have not developed the pattern recognition ability cannot even be said to sense things, no less the ability to assume control of rights, express rights, or IMHO have rights.

When this issue is argued its always from the perspective of babies. But this is inaccurate. A 4 week old fetus is not a baby. A 6 week old fetus is not a baby. ~ 60 days is needed for the development to even begin to be baby like. However we still miss the link between rights and responsibility.

The law should be rational. It should not allow us to end the life of a brain injured person and not a fetus with no functioning brain.

These are seen as different due to subjective potential, objectively the situations are no different.

A person with a moral responsibility is being asked to carry a burden for another being, and those seeking to change this law are saying this burden carrier cannot act legally and responsibly to arbitrate the situation as they see fit.

More and more people ask the government to be the responsible party. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. The more responsibility we shuffle off on to the government the less freedom we have, the less responsibility we have, and no expectations can be set.

I am pro choice, but if I was in a situation in my current pay bracket, with my current life I would not get an abortion. I would be responsible, and I would take that responsibility seriously, but if the law removed that responsibility from me, then what would that leave me with? It would make me the guardian of this child by force. I would not be free to choose my life. I would not be free to choose to be a father, it would be forced on me.

Reproductive rights are essential to liberty, to responsibility and to remove the possibility of resentment of a government that controls every aspect of our lives. Giving the government this power is a slippery slope of epic proportions.

Once a right is removed it is almost never redeemed. Also once the government has that right, a faceless entity then gets to use your reproductive rights for what it sees fit. Scared? You should be.

Good post, many valid points and espesially about our need to maintain liberty and freedom by taking as much responsibility for it and likewise allowing others to be just responsible.

There are just some things that should never be in the control of government and how we attend to the matter of procreation is one of them.

I would love for someone against choice to try to take these points head on, they never do, they always come from an emotional perspective of protecting babies.

They never deal with the inconsistency of the law as it respects rights as it pertains to their position.

They never deal with the real science that shows that fetal development of the brain comes late, in fact the brain continues to develop well after birth. This makes brain development not a dividing line but a continuum were the only basis for graduation MUST come from function, which mirrors the law in EVERY other respect.

They never deal with the end results of the law, they never ask the question of what a world without abortion would really look like.

I will take on this point

'The law and rights are dependent on the ability to understand right from wrong, and until a person can do these things there rights and legal authority is displaced to a guardian'



a one month old baby doesnt 'understand' right from wrong, and they are under the responsibility of a guardian, but that does not extend the right of the guardian to terminate its life,,,,