there's more to it than that. I assign value to the human and recognize its inherent worth and that it deserves the protection of the state regardless of its developmental stage
That quixotic standard is admirable yet, kinda falls short when it comes to say, homosexuals. So, don't blame me if I doubt your (special pleading) objectivity here. If you'd be truly honest your position rallies around partisian politics and moral retribution... but you're probably too intellectually dishonest to admit to such.(Hence, you moralize instead of debate abortion.)
not sure why you'd call it quixotic - it's the only rational and logical way to view the development of an individual human, from fertilization to death
and i'm not interested in following your bunny trails about homos and politics
you appear to assign a lesser value to it before birth - hard to say because you've been reluctant to speak plainly. At any rate, it appears that you believe that the mother's autonomy takes priority over whatever value the in utero child may have and disappears after birth.
The mother is in both the predominate physical and moral position,
physical, yes, moral, no, not automatically
that depends on the choices she makes
the fetus in the subsisting, accomodating one; The fetus relies on her...her body to gestate.
yes, the developing human child in her womb is dependent and helpless
Generally speaking, the mother always takes precedence.
no, the dependent and helpless always take precedence over the (relatively) strong and potentially cruel
It's not about me assigning value to her fetus...
yes, it is
you are assigning the fetus a value so diminished as to be inconsequential to you, so that you can allow the mother to choose
its a private, subjective valuation, one commensurate with a free-willed choice.
if this is true, it's equally true of the case of the mother who no longer wishes to be a mother to her infant
To a point...you're not wrong about abortion and I don't generally approve of it 99% of the time yet, there are exception that make up that 1% (rape, incest, danger to mother...etc.)
why not allow the mother to choose in those 1% of cases
after birth?
the woman who is raped, delivers her infant and decides weeks after that she can't bear to be reminded of the assault every day by the infant that greedily demands her total attention - why shouldn't she be allowed to make a private, subjective valuation, one commensurate with a free-willed choice and kill her child?
Plus, it's impossible to understand the circumstances of every woman who's desperate choice is to abort.
why should i be expected to understand the circumstances of every woman (whose) desperate choice is to abort?
should i be expected to understand the circumstances of every poor person whose desperate choice is to steal?
Yet you have to acknowledge the existence of such circumstances to approach abortion objectively...if only to learn from it with an effort to allieviate any such future conditions.
is that what you think has happened with legalized abortion?
for example: do you believe there's any significant differences between killing a child in utero and killing a newborn?
Yes. The former is justifiable, the latter is not.
another non-answer, quip
why not just admit you don't know?
and: how is it that a mother's autonomy wrt caring for her child disappears at birth?
Not clear here but from what I've gathered...the child is now independent, not depedent upon the womb, umbilical cord...etc.
certainly
not independent
the newborn infant is wholly dependent on the care the mother chooses to give it
As such, it's entitled to the full protection of the law.
why would a child whose degree of dependence is unchanged from in utero to ex utero suddenly be entitled to the full protection of the law?
