One of the many points in dispute between pro life and pro choice is whether a fetus is alive prior to birth.
Assuming that life begins prebirth, is it morally or ethically possible to choose to abort the pregnancy?
What special circumstances, if any, would tip the scales?
For purposes of this thread, let us assume third trimester.
One argument is that the state has the authority to take life. By making abortion legal, the state has delegated that authority to the woman. While this is a bit cold, it is essentially the position of every politician that says, "It's the law."
J
I somewhat fit into this category. I have sufficient reason to believe (and I worked very hard to acquire this knowledge) that fetuses begin to become sentient during the third trimester, and that this sentience gives them moral value infinitely greater than their moral weight before the onset of sentience.
I think of a 20 week fetus insignificantly different from an egg, though I recognise the social difference (like the difference people have between, say, a fawn and a cow). But, the difference between a late-term fetus, an adult, and a fully demented senior is a question of degrees. A night & day difference from an embryo.
Now, that said, I find 'medical necessity' a reasonable out when it comes to abortion. I mean, if there's a serious risk of trauma, then it becomes a matter of self-defense. It's recognisably awful that the fetus is given lesser consideration, but I think it's best just to acknowledge that it's a dilemma. The lack of fetal sapience is a real saving grace here, for me, because I'm extremely sympathetic to the viewpoint that the fetus is the more innocent party here.
That leaves us with the subset of 'on-demand' abortions we can imagine being done for 'convenience'. Morally, they're a really sticky situation. Practically, I'm not sure they're all that common. If I'm 'okay' with legislation that insists a doctor sign off on the medical necessity, then I guess that technically makes me no longer completely 'pro-choice'. I don't think the number of women affected by such things are all that high.
In a completely 'post-hoc' justification sense, I believe that being perfectly 'okay' with pre-24 week abortions free up a lot of room in the pro-choice victory-space. And, I think making sure medical necessity is protected is important, er, for medical necessity. The number of potential victims is a lot smaller than many other arrangements, and it's important to not let 'perfect' be the enemy of 'good'.
