"Folks don't recognize that [abortion]'s a vague, complicated moral issue with multiple valid perspectives, all of which lead to different policies."
No, it really isn't. Let me help you out:
Is the person a fetus or not?
And done. All moral standings fall from that, easily, and within normal morality, no special rules needed.
"But what about..."
-"life of the mother" - when you can only save one person, you save that person. This is boringly true in all kinds of normal situations. It also touches on similar issues as people declining medical care (most common example: chemotherapy) and dying of something that might have lived through. If the fetus is not a person, remove that clump of cells like any other unwanted lump.
-"rape" - if the mother did not consent, she has no moral obligation to put herself at risk for the fetus. Full stop, nothing to talk about. If you really want to be a stickler, you could even charge the rapist with murder. That's how the morality works out... if the fetus is a person. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.
-"incest" - the only kind of incest people talk about in these cases is "statutory rape". See "rape", above.
The fetus is not a moral actor at the time of conception. It is not at fault for anything.
Now, morally speaking, if the fetus is not a person, have the clump of cells removed like any other "not a person" clump of cells. Nobody cares if you remove your spleen. THAT is the point of contention - "when does personhood begin"? Everything else is downstream from there.
Our society can't come to an agreement on abortion because we disagree on the foundation but we argue over the color of the walls.
Or we realize that we live in a complex society with many different points of view, but *we have to obey one set of laws*. So we compromise. Abortion on demand up to some point, which can be politically determined; then, only in dire circumstances. Late in pregnancy, the circumstances have to be dire indeed.
"Folks don't recognize that [abortion]'s a vague, complicated moral issue with multiple valid perspectives, all of which lead to different policies."
No, it really isn't. Let me help you out:
Is the person a fetus or not?
And done. All moral standings fall from that, easily, and within normal morality, no special rules needed.
"But what about..."
-"life of the mother" - when you can only save one person, you save that person. This is boringly true in all kinds of normal situations. It also touches on similar issues as people declining medical care (most common example: chemotherapy) and dying of something that might have lived through. If the fetus is not a person, remove that clump of cells like any other unwanted lump.
-"rape" - if the mother did not consent, she has no moral obligation to put herself at risk for the fetus. Full stop, nothing to talk about. If you really want to be a stickler, you could even charge the rapist with murder. That's how the morality works out... if the fetus is a person. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.
-"incest" - the only kind of incest people talk about in these cases is "statutory rape". See "rape", above.
The fetus is not a moral actor at the time of conception. It is not at fault for anything.
Now, morally speaking, if the fetus is not a person, have the clump of cells removed like any other "not a person" clump of cells. Nobody cares if you remove your spleen. THAT is the point of contention - "when does personhood begin"? Everything else is downstream from there.
Our society can't come to an agreement on abortion because we disagree on the foundation but we argue over the color of the walls.
Or we realize that we live in a complex society with many different points of view, but *we have to obey one set of laws*. So we compromise. Abortion on demand up to some point, which can be politically determined; then, only in dire circumstances. Late in pregnancy, the circumstances have to be dire indeed.