The well established reasoning regarding self defense can accurately be applied to the issues of abortion and 'rights', so long as the applier doesn't commit the fallacy this article author makes, namely an either or ... the right to end a pregnancy for reasons of self-defense ought not be misconstrued to create a right to a death in the family, a death of the newest, most innocent family member. If that reasonable perspective is applied, then terminating a pregnancy in cases of rape, incest, and imminent threat to the mother's survival doesn't create an automatic cancellation of the right to life for the little one on life support ... the physician already acknowledges she is treating two individual alive humans, not just the one giving life support.
If you stretch an analogy to an extreme, you can compare the two. E.g., if the mugger just wants my wallet, and promises that he almost certainly won't kill me if I give it up, does that make shooting him no longer an act of self-defense?
MHGinTN wrote:
the physician already acknowledges she is treating two individual alive humans, not just the one giving life support.Good point. This then raises the question as to whether society can force a women to provide life support services when there is no (currently) viable alternative way to provide these services.
Even if the pregnancy doesn't pose an threat to the mother's survival, can society force one person to provide life support to another, even when the risk to their life in doing so is minimal?
Can we force a parent to donate part of their liver to their child? After all, fatality rates among donors in "living-related liver transplantation" are relatively low.
WFTR wrote:
While pregnancy is definitely a special case that is hardly analogous to any other situation, it is a fact that parents are required by law to sacrifice their liberty and property for the benefit of their children, at the risk of being charged with negligence if they don't. There's no justification for allowing parents to "choose" to kill a child - either before or after birth.A woman can give her newborn child up for adoption for just about any reason. She can just say "take this kid away right now, immediately, I cannot support this child". In the case of a women who just became pregnant, would you suggest that the state tell her "you're going to have to wait nine months, compromise your health, and possibly die, but then, after you give birth, you can give up the newborn"?
I agree 100% that this analogy is stupid when you talk about a late-term abortions, but I posit that it has some merit in relation to arguments against RU486, etc.