The abortion paradox

[genkaus]

It is common to characterize the unborn as globs of cells, etc. Biologically all human beings at every stage of development are just globs of cells.

But humans do have attributes other than biological ones. Unborn babies don't. They cannot be classified as anything other than globs of cells.

I can accept that viability is relevant and the perilous position of the unborn has bearing on weighting the rights of the unborn against those of the living. Failure to implant occurs naturally and often. The unborn are dependant on involuntarily nourishment from the mother. Infants and young children are dependent on the active care of others until they are able to care for themselves. But that fragility and dependence does not erase anyone’s humanity. No does the lack of ability to care for those who depend upon us make them less deserving of life.

Quite a few assumptions here. You are assuming it has humanity to begin with. You are also assuming that whether someone deserves to live can be determined and quantified.

Laws and societal pressures tell everyone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, male and female. In some cases, each of us is obligated, to greater or lesser extent, to act upon other people’s bodies without their consent, helping when they are incapacitated by injury or forcefully when they threaten others by their actions. The abortion debate is no different.

Actually, no, "each" of us is not obligated to act upon others' body without their consent, unless they have explicitly assumed such an obligation. So if someone is injured or dying, you are not obligated to help them unless you are a doctor or a paramedic and if someone is threatening someone else, you are not obligated to interfere unless you are a cop.

Reproductive freedom is vitally important to a free society. The question is not whether we should have that freedom or not. The question is at what points we can rightfully exercise that freedom. I believe that once a person has conceived they have already made an irrevocable choice to have a child.

Since it can be so easily revoked, clearly it's not irrevocable. Your beliefs do not line up with reality. In fact, until they actually have had the child, the choice is still up for revocation.

At the same time I acknowledge that some people had that choice forced upon them, a fact that must be taken into consideration. Likewise, caring a child to term can be medically problematic and give rise to other moral dilemmas. Weighing the life of the mother versus that of the child during triage is the classic streetcar problem and there are good arguments on both sides. Special cases, however, do not detract from the wrongness of abortion in general.

I agree. Special cases would not detract from wrongness of abortion - if abortion was in fact wrong.

In short, I believe that pro-choice advocates hold the position that the unborn are not really human and that that stance has repercussions far beyond the abortion debate.

Such as ....?