First, I don't see myself as "waving aside all consideration of harm to the woman." I think that's a bit of a hyperbole. I've already given you my thoughts about life-threatening harm to the woman. And I have been thinking very seriously about the type of harm that can result from non-life threatening situations, as in kidney or liver failure. I don't have an answer, because so far, I can neither reconcile it to my anti-abortion position nor decisively say that it is cause to end the life of the child. If the life of the child is at least as important as the health of the woman, then it's akin to picking the lesser of two evils. This is where people can get outraged that I think a woman should carry a child at the expense of her liver or her kidney. (I don't conclusively think that. Believe me, I am thinking. I am struggling with the concept. That's all I can say at this point.)
As far as "only acknowledging the fetus", hopefully the above paragraph proves that is not so. Plus, I have fully acknowledged risks to the mother's life as taking precendence.
However, considering the current pro-abortion laws and my view of the fetus, my response to the idea that I champion the fetus is,
someone has to. My whole life I have rooted for the underdog. The fetus is the underdog under current law.
I disagree that a temporary loss of automony is a legitimate cause to end a life.
I don't know what these current state legislation attempts are about. Honestly, I don't tend to quickly grasp evil intent, because I tend to think the best of people. But, as I've already said, this Michigan bill is insane.
And as I've said before, I'm very comforted by the fact that late term abortions are relatively rare.
Since when did the ability of a person to live on his or her own give value to that person? We support the poor, the weak, the disabled. The living breathing free thinking woman, as you say, has the advantage over the weak, the creature who is 100% dependent on its mother's mercy for its continued existence and journey to independence.
You're using the bodily automony argument at the end, which I've already tried to address. The point is that the fetus is dependent on the woman. It is the equivalent (in my mind) of a child with no alternative for care. There is a fiduciary duty. Starting at that point, if I can then address your first point about harm: those types of harms you mention (financial, emotional, decrease in quality of life--and don't forget, this is all
temporary) are not sufficient justifiction to end the life of the child.
Agreed. The emotions that crop up when working through this issue have a polarizing effect and nothing ever gets done, outside of ridiculum like the MI bill. Although, I am also guilting of emoting.
I think this whole line of reasoning is absurd. A murderer can not in any way be compared to a pregnant woman, or a woman who has had sex. Sex is NOT a crime. Pregnancy is NOT a punishment. It's just a fact of life, and it should only be terminated for serious and compelling reasons, which, I believe, we're discussing, and I'm seriously thinking about, based on all of the excellent posts I've read.