I'm not ignoring anything. I am well aware of that particular subjective argument.
The bold part is debatable, given human nature. I think sexual repression leads to all kinds of emotional imbalances. The fact that women only ovulate 2 days out of the month but are capable of arousal any other day proves that sex has a social function, even though some may prefer to pretend it is taboo; likewise, men have nocturnal emissions even if they don't masturbate, which suggests that sex can be a physiological requirement.
I don’t disagree that it is debatable… but monks and others live celibate lives and do just fine. It might be healthier for some to be sexually active, but I would still maintain that it is not a need.
What you are putting forth is a cultural value, not an observation of nature. Sex is as integral to our social nature as it is for the other apes we are related to, it is just our social norming processes that concern expression of said instincts.
Apes don’t have abortions nor do they kill their young… I don’t find that analogy accurate as a result. It might be a cultural value, but sex is still a choice that is made and one made knowing full well what the consequences are.
But I digress... about the actual issue of women choosing to have sex, again I say so what? The idea of a fetus being a person (which is debatable) is mutually exclusive from a woman deciding to have sex and accidentally getting pregnant. In order to prove that the woman doesn't deserve sexual liberation you will first have to prove that the consequences of her actions result in the "murder" of a "person", and so far you and the others are doing a poor job of that.
It doesn’t have to result in “murder of a person”. That is just something that pro-choice advocates have invented in order to justify abortion. It is still destroying a developing human life. That is not debatable.
Driving my car on a sidewalk is illegal regardless of any people being on the sidewalk. I don’t have to directly endanger a person in order to make the act illegal or morally wrong.
Second, although you assert that sex is a want and not a need, that is your cultural and moral value, not mine. Just like fetal personhood is a subjective, psychospiritual value that does not reside in the realm of absolutism, the meaning of sex and sexuality is in the same realm. You cannot state what sex is and then apply those values to everyone. Each person decides for themselves what their sexuality means to them.
No. It is not my cultural and moral value. It is a fact. People only need food, water, sleep, shelter from the elements and perhaps infants need love. Not having sex will not see a person dead as not having food or water. A need is a distinct and objective fact. A want is quite different.
I'm also aware of the fallacious attempts to claim that fetal personhood is equivalent to all other modern civil rights movements. The thing about civil rights is that not only are they determined based on constitutionality (of which fetal personhood has failed to qualify to date), they are also weighed against the the functional and stable needs of society. Gay marriage is being allowed because there are studies and logical support for gays to structure their families as straight people do. Polygamy, for example, does not have the same support.
I don’t equate fetal personhood as equivalent to the modern civil rights movement because it isn’t. It is a separate issue. Developing humans deserve their own Rights Movement. They deserve one that is not yet written into the Constitution. The US Constitution is an evolving document and can and should include fetal rights if that is a new issue. There is no way that the Founders could have foreseen this issue in the slightest.
As it pertains to fetuses, there is plenty of evidence to suggest socioeconomic harm to society by banning abortion. During the era of banned abortion in the U.S., the most common cause of death in women of reproductive age was unsafe abortions. This is fact. Pro-life people often say now, "Well, it's their own fault for seeking abortion." Policy is not formed based on such moral relativism. Government concerns itself with the welfare of society, and women, who are already persons. Fetal personhood remains subjective.
It sure is based on such moral relativism, why else would child abuse be illegal? Pro-choice is a subjective position that waffles about. It is fine to abuse the developing human at this stage but not that. I think that we all agree that the zygote stage is certainly not personhood and that the fetus stage is at least a developing human that can, at a certain point, survive on its own.
I actually do accept fetuses as humans since they possess human DNA, but it's the notion of personhood that overrides the rights of the landlord, the mother, that I object to. We abolished slavery partially because of industrialization and partially because blacks proved they were equally competent to whites in life, and fought for their rights. Their personhood was won. The pro-life movement is taking something innocuous and magnifying it to an absurd degree, then claiming moral absolutism, while simultaneously ignoring the psychospiritual questions of other individuals.
This subject is unique. A woman becoming pregnant as a result of sex is just like a human living as a result of breathing. It is just how it is. The Pro-life movement is doing a disservice to itself in trying to piggyback the Civil Rights Movement.
Abolishing slavery had nothing to do with blacks proving competent and everything to do with the South attempting to secede the Union.
I view accepting a pregnancy until birth of a baby and abortion as equal options in taking responsibility. They are simply two different routes. You can spin the personhood argument all day, but there is nothing concrete to prove it. It's why Roe v Wade sided with privacy concerns... because these spiritual questions are of a private nature and have no concrete answers.
It has nothing to do with spirituality or personhood and everything to do with an actual and viable developing human life.
If we could answer this question for sure then the matter would have been settled a long time ago. As it stands, it's subjective and people have the right to decide for themselves, and so they should.
It seems that the matter is quite clear. There is a developing human life. This is simply a fact. People on both sides are trying to win the argument, but the fact is, that no matter what, abortion kills a developing human life and all that the pro-choice side is doing is attempting to justify this action.
