We do not have the right to police other nations in their laws, no matter what Dubya tried to say.
What about humanitarian intervention? It's true that the Bush Administration pursued an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. But I don't think the mention of Dubya was appropriate here; it just makes it seem like you're trying to simplify the debate and lump "pro-life" with Dubya. When I think intervention in a more positive sense I think along the lines of UN Peacekeeping & the ICJ. I'm not against the principle of UN intervention in genocides. I believe it's more important to stop genocides then it is to protect state sovereignty. The idea of state sovereignty, and even the concept of a state itself, are relatively recent, and I believe them only in the utilitarian sense--respect each state's sovereignty so that they're all happy.
There's no inherent moral value in respecting state sovereignty except because of the practical benefits (no war, etc)--a state is not a human being.
But I don't think the issue is even whether you or I believe or do not believe in intervention--particularly not the Dubya brand of it. My point is that if abortion is positively, undoubtedly not murder, then certainly intervening in another country's abortion laws would be unjustified. But if
abortion = infanticide = genocide--then would you still be averse to intervention?
Similarly, I do not believe that I have the right to police what other women do with their bodies.
Neither do I, to a point. I believe no one has the right to police what people do to their own bodies, if their own bodies are the only bodies involved.
But my point was that some people believe that abortion is not just an issue concerning women and their bodies, but that they believe the issue involves another body--the body and life of a fetus. I'm sure many of these people also believe in the right of people to do what they want with their bodies--except when their actions harm another (i.e. the fetus). In your above claim, there's already an implicit simplification of abortion to merely an issue of women and the right they have over their bodies. You avoid entirely the possibility that the fetus might be considered a third party--a body separate from the body of the woman, and posessing its own right to live. You argue from the assumption that abortion is not murder without addressing the assumption directly at all--and once again, I repeat, I don't claim that it is, or isn't.
I'm only saying that such assumptions are problematic, because much of the debate revolves around the disagreement over whether abortion is or is not murder.
Since you, as someone who believes in pro-choice, think abortion is most emphatically not murder, could you explain why? And where would you draw the line? At what point in the fetus' development would it be acceptable to abort it, and at what point would it be unacceptable? And why?
That's really what I was trying to ask, above.
Also, I don't mind that you used my name, or "you" --it makes it easier to argue--but for the record, I haven't specified my personal stance on the issue. I don't necessarily think that "pro-choice" = baby killing. I was following a certain line of logic and questioning assumptions that I found problematic, but really, I'm more curious than anything. "Pro-life" argues that because a fetus is an innocent human life, it should be protected--just like the life of a baby, a child, a teenager, an adult...etc. How would you respond to this?
I do not have to justify my stances by your morality. While there are certain things that are Just Wrong, you do not get to decide what they are for me, nor I for you.
Sounds like moral relativism. But what if I decided that I had the right to kill anyone that called me "dear?" What if my personal moral code said murder was acceptable as long as I didn't murder brunettes? It sounds completely arbitrary, but must I justify my stances on murder by your
stances on morality? Sorry if that came across as flippant--the example was silly, but I hope you get my point.
In any case, this is irrelevant. I generally don't expect others to justify their stances against my measuring stick, but at the same time, whether we like it or not, there are certain universally accepted moral precepts in today's world that you cannot ignore when debating things like abortion. One of them is the idea that human life is precious and should not be harmed.
To reiterate with a point I made several times already: I don't think either "pro-choice" or "pro-life" support murder; both sides agree that murder is bad. The issue is in their disagreement over what "murder" is. So perhaps it doesn't have to do with morality at all. It's a technical issue, perhaps a scientific one. So I'll ask again. If abortion is not murder(and therefore acceptable, and not a contradiction of the belief that human life is precious), why? What makes killing a fetus acceptable, but killing a baby, or an adult, unacceptable?
It is not advocating murder - it is called 'pro-choice', not 'pro-abortion'.
I used the term "pro-abortion" because I think "pro-choice" (the term) ignores the crux of the point of debate. And it implies that those who are "pro-life" are against CHOICE, while "pro-life" implies that those who are "pro-choice" are against LIFE--which is not true at all. Both sides simply have different ideas of what constitutes "choice" and "life."
You could argue that pro-abortion implies that the woman will necessarily abort her baby, but the term could also simply refer to support of abortion, although not necessarily choosing it.
I didn't want to be repetitive, believe me. But hopefully I did make myself clear.