Jane Galt's post on the ethics of abortion brought up some interesting issues:
You cannot morally treat children, or fetuses, as if they have the same rights and obligations as human adults; they have fewer freedoms, but more entitlements. Children are not only uniquely vulnerable, but also uniquely innocent; that fetus did not ask to be in your body, and has no means at his disposal to get out and stop bothering you. Trying to reason his fate from principles designed for consenting adults is neither practical nor morally just.
I love a principled argument, although it's not always enough:
Evolution does not take cognizance of how beautifully consistently you have reasoned from first principles when it decides what behaviours will survive.I can just hear the Objectivists jump up and object, "Ah, but that's only true if your first principles do not reflect the reality of evolution." They do have a point.
Left this comment in response:
A thought experiment might help work out opinions on this issue: what if one day it is possible for a couple to have a child in vitro, where the woman's body is not being used to nurture the child? Should the parents then have any choice as to whether the fetus continues to live or not? If so, until how late in its development? For most people who want abortion to be available, the reason is not "a woman's control of her body". That's a red herring, a straw man, in plain terms, a lie. It's because the baby is inconvenient, it would interfere with a lifestyle as it grows up. A baby grown in a test tube would interfere just the same way. So it would be interesting to hear pro-choicers' opinions on the scope of parental power. The same kind of dilemma presents itself in proxy births. Do the biological parents have the right to force the proxy mother to have an abortion if they suddenly decide, "Hey we want to go to law school - a baby isn't really convenient right now."?Of course I think I'm right. Most abortions have nothing to do with the fact that the baby is inside a woman's body. So how can you take seriously those people who act as if that's the whole issue? Why don't they have the gumption to say what they really mean, that adults should have the right to kill annoying little brats any time they want to? Oh, OK, that was a little over the top. In fact - AH - isn't it only the fact that the fetus is inside the woman's body, out of sight, that makes it possible to contemplate "getting rid of it" with anything approaching equanimity? When it's outside, pulling on your skirt in the supermarket and whining, you might like to exterminate it, but those darn human feelings get in the way. And I suppose even if it were floating embryonically in a glass, blinking in its primitive cuteness, it would be harder to order its execution.