NOT the ones about whether the fetus is a “baby” with a right to live or when does life actually begin (at conception, at birth, or when the woman decides it does) but about whether or not the state has a vital interest in the pregnancy which overrides the mother’s right to make her own decisions in the matter.
And also, what about the male? If he has no interest at all in taking the baby to term, then how can he have an obligation to be a parent to and provide support for the child once it is born?
Does a married woman who finds herself pregnant with her husband’s child have a duty to tell him or should she feel justified if she wants to keep the fact that he has a child on the way secret and secretly dispose of the pregnancy without at least informing him?
I am pro-abortion all the way (rah-rah-rah!!!), but I will play Devil’s Advocate to keep the discussion lively.
I don’t have a strong desire to debate the topics about wife vs husband interests, but whether or not the state has a vital interest is more central to the general topic of abortion.
The quick and short answer to that is No; the state’s only interest should be in terms of defining terms and making law, while executing enforcement of those laws.
Without going deeper into the conversation you’re asking us to not talk about, I’ll just summarize by pointing out that each state already has laws outlining end of life definitions and who can make medical decisions.
So it seems reasonable to me that beginning of life definitions, lawmaking, and decisions could mostly use the same types of definitions and lawmaking as the end of life laws; such as how medical professionals and the subjects closest family members can assess a subject’s “cognitive agency” and purported will to be treated in terms of life support and life continuation, vs (say) DNR.
An embryo or fetus obviously doesn’t have any cognitive agency, much less an ability to imagine it’s own future, lack thereof, or concern for its own future.
Good one Unseen. I have never even considered this particular dilemma. If abortion wasn’t so wrapped up in politics I would immediately argue that a potential father should at least have right of knowledge and a chance to at least voice his thoughts about it. But after thinking about it the politics….maybe that particular right isn’t really practical.