Abortion

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings. A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  And the question to me isn't even about what is or what is not a human, specifically, since many things have human DNA but are not necessarily human.

It is interesting that you bring up natural rights here, as natural rights philosophy has been associated with the pro-life position since its development in the late medieval era. Man's nature is to be dependent and in a constant state of development. Much of the uniqueness of humanity comes from the fact that humans stay in a state of dependence to adults longer than any other species, and have a longer period of biological immaturity.  To limit the scope of human protection based on diversion from an idealized "self-owned man" is tantamount to a denial of human finitude, and thus mortality itself.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I tend to put my trust in the medical professionals who have said a fetus is not a human life. I think at some point is becomes lift, but at conception, I haven't read anything that tells me it is a human life. Of course, I will probably go to hell for saying that, but oh well.

Why put your trust in the medical professionals who have said a fetus is not a human life as opposed to those medical professionals who have said a fetus is? 

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings. A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  And the question to me isn't even about what is or what is not a human, specifically, since many things have human DNA but are not necessarily human.

It is interesting that you bring up natural rights here, as natural rights philosophy has been associated with the pro-life position since its development in the late medieval era. Man's nature is to be dependent and in a constant state of development. Much of the uniqueness of humanity comes from the fact that humans stay in a state of dependence to adults longer than any other species, and have a longer period of biological immaturity.  To limit the scope of human protection based on diversion from an idealized "self-owned man" is tantamount to a denial of human finitude, and thus mortality itself.

Man's development is only dependent when it exists inside the womb.  Afterwards, it becomes an independent process.  The "self-owned man" is not a diversion at all because rights are guaranteed to fully-formed, individual beings, not potential or collective beings.  A fetus- especially during the first few months when it is merely a mass of protoplasm that exists as part of the woman's body- do not, and should not have the same rights of the pregnant woman, and that of which lives inside another cannot claim the rights of its host.

Man's development is dependent throughout life upon the sources of its nourishment. If you lose your dependence, you die. That doesn't mean you're not an individual - Is a joey not a kangaroo because it hangs out in the pouch?  A fetus is a biologically distinct individual. An organism with millions and billions of specialized cells cannot accurately be called "a mass of protoplasm."

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I tend to put my trust in the medical professionals who have said a fetus is not a human life. I think at some point is becomes lift, but at conception, I haven't read anything that tells me it is a human life. Of course, I will probably go to hell for saying that, but oh well.

Why put your trust in the medical professionals who have said a fetus is not a human life as opposed to those medical professionals who have said a fetus is? 

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings. A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  And the question to me isn't even about what is or what is not a human, specifically, since many things have human DNA but are not necessarily human.

It is interesting that you bring up natural rights here, as natural rights philosophy has been associated with the pro-life position since its development in the late medieval era. Man's nature is to be dependent and in a constant state of development. Much of the uniqueness of humanity comes from the fact that humans stay in a state of dependence to adults longer than any other species, and have a longer period of biological immaturity.  To limit the scope of human protection based on diversion from an idealized "self-owned man" is tantamount to a denial of human finitude, and thus mortality itself.

Man's development is only dependent when it exists inside the womb.  Afterwards, it becomes an independent process.  The "self-owned man" is not a diversion at all because rights are guaranteed to fully-formed, individual beings, not potential or collective beings.  A fetus- especially during the first few months when it is merely a mass of protoplasm that exists as part of the woman's body- do not, and should not have the same rights of the pregnant woman, and that of which lives inside another cannot claim the rights of its host.

Man's development is dependent throughout life upon the sources of its nourishment. If you lose your dependence, you die. That doesn't mean you're not an individual - Is a joey not a kangaroo because it hangs out in the pouch?  A fetus is a biologically distinct individual. An organism with millions and billions of specialized cells cannot accurately be called "a mass of protoplasm."

After a person is born, however, it no longer depends on living within the body of another for development or existence.  The resources that a person uses for survival cannot claim any rights of their own; water cannot claim it has the same rights as a person, a shelter cannot claim it has the same rights as a person, and an animal cannot claim it has the same rights as a person.  Such is not the case during pregnancy.  Potential people cannot claim the same rights as actual people, and potential must never be confused with actuality because they are two different things.  What can become an infant is not actually an infant, just like what can become a tree is not actually a tree.  Placing a bunch of cells under the same regards as an actual human being is neither practical nor morally just.

So, what is your position on breast feeding?

Should it be a crime for a pregnant woman to consume alcohol, as this will cause harm to the fetus?

The interesting thing about this question is that it points to the continuity between the fetus and the born child. You might say "It's her body she can do whatever she likes" but then once the child is born and has a damaging condition, has any wrong been done?
The government isn't competent to track the alcohol consumption of every pregnant woman, and I absolutely wouldn't want it to try. But at levels that would damage the child's development, it is an abrogation of that child's rights, and I think the law should have some role here.