-
You are balancing competing rights: But where do you start, as we have no obligation to donate organs or blood to our legal children, for example. You wrote you are pro-choice, what swung it for you?
That unborn children are classified in a way that prevents them having legal rights does not impact on any theoretical moral rights.
== No, hence the cut-off date of 24 weeks in nearly all countries, even where abortion is legal.Though I am not sure medical ethics would use the term -moral- rights, I don't know how they define it, but even in Canada where abortion is full decriminalized there is a limit set by medical ethics.
But you could argue that just criminalizing in all cases impacts on moral rights of women as well.
Balance of harm is an easy case to argue, I think so, but you'd think unwanted and unloved children , families in poverty, and forcing women to stay with abusive partners is a clear indication of harm. How can a very early pregnancy be "harmed"?
Unless you consider starting life means you must fulful the process, but in that case IVF should also not be allowed as the success rate is low. But only the really hardcore pro-lifers want to go that far. Maybe those guys with their mad law proposal really want to go there...yey.
But you are right that it is possible a less abstract discussion swung it in ROI. As many groups spoke and the anger about the sexism of the RCC, the Magdalene laundries and actual women telling stories had an impact for sure.
I just notice that the lifers in NI/ROI have been generally quite dishonest in their arguments, completely ignoring the woman (never on the pictures, just the baby), twisting "evidence" on harm, pretending abortions are like killing babies, being vague on what life is.
I personally think the UK law is better than the ROI law, I don't agree with having to provide reasons after 12 weeks, but I think the decision was made fairly and fully informed.
You are reading a single comment by @JWestland and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
JWestland
To be clear, I'm "pro-choice" (if that's how we term it). I'm just making the point that you are balancing competing rights. That unborn children are classified in a way that prevents them having legal rights does not impact on any theoretical moral rights.
TBH I'm not sure of that. Balance of harm is an easy case to argue. Life is much more nuanced. I would be extremely surprised if classifying how alive embryos are was a swaying factor for the ROI compared to the societal repressions from abortions being illegal.