Originally Posted by
Smokering
OK, trying to keep on topic here....
How then do you respond to the argument I made in my original post? To recap
"A woman should have every right to her body" - I assume you mean "every right to do what she wants with her body"? But abortion and infanticide obviously involve someone else's body as well - the baby's - so that should really be phrased as "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else" (or at least, sign the consent form allowing someone else to do the killing).
We view this so differently. I'm very grey where you're in black and white.
If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that.
So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?
If you would prefer those specific words then sure. Those are your words. Again, I don't see it as a women gleefully skipping to the clinic and opting for a hanger over a suctioning device. There are many reasons a woman could want or need to end the possiblity of the fetus/baby.
So what are those circumstances, and how do the circumstances of abortion (which you think should be legal) and infanticide (which you find "disturbing", although I don't believe you commented on whether you felt it should be legal or not) differ? A PP mentioned that a baby in the womb can only be looked after by one specific mother, whereas a baby outside the womb could be looked after by others; but that distinction would seem to assign moral worth to babies solely on the basis of convenience. If it were impossible for a mother to hand over her baby for fostering/adoption; if she were the only person available to care for it; would not infanticide be permissible, under that paradigm? If her "moral compass" were OK with it, and she wanted to use her body as she pleased (ie not feeding and caring for a helpless baby - or I suppose, by extension, an invalid or otherwise helpless person)... would you believe we didn't have the right to force her to do it, and that therefore she could order the death of the baby, or even perform it herself if she wanted to use her body that way?
Black and white still. We both see this so differently and maybe it not worth discussing at all. I in no way feel I should try to change your mind on how you feel. Mostly because you live in another country and your votes do not touch my uterus.
This issue is so much more complex then calling a women a murderer. It really is.
In other words: you seem to be pro-choice but anti-infanticide, but what's your reasoning that finds a moral distinction between the two?
Heres the kicker, I don't believe in the death penalty either.