Portugal, due to its heavy Catholic tradition, is one of the few “modern” / Western countries where abortion, except in cases of rape, danger to the mother, or heavy deformation, is forbidden by law. Early next year, there will be a referendum about changing that law, which, hopefully, will mean that we will finally leave the Middle Ages around here.
To me, forbidding abortion reminds me of this Robert A. Heinlein quote:
Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
In other words, some people just want to be left alone and decide for themselves, while others feel the “need” to control others, to decide what others can and cannot do. Much like the sodomy-as-a-crime laws that still exist in some states of the U.S..
To put it simply: “You’re against abortion? Fine, then don’t have one.”
However, some people have argued that, in Objectivist / Libertarian terms, abortion is an “initiation of force”, a violation of the fetus’ rights.
The common answer is that a fetus doesn’t have rights, because it’s not a human being; it’s a potential human being. In other words, to say a fetus has rights, then we should say that every sperm has rights, much like in the Monty Python sketch. 
What do you think?
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Whether or not a fetus is a human being is irrelevant. What is important is whether or not a fetus is a moral agent since all and only moral agents are protected by morality (thus subject to the notion of initiation of force). Do we treat a fetus like a moral agent? Nope.. Is a fetus responsible for its actions? nope. Do we have any basis whatsoever for suggesting that a fetus is a moral agent? Nope..
Moral agency requires at least rationality, awareness, vunerability, and the ability for impartiality. Of these a fetus possess only one, the same one shared by plants, tables, and most everything we encounter in our lives: vulnerability. Clearly this is insufficient basis for claiming moral agency on the part of a fetus..
I agree with TX.
It is however kind of sad to me though, I’ve seen how guilty some people feel afterwards.
I also see that with the moral agent thing in mind, elders and other less fortunate people may also be subject to death.
I am personally against abortion because I look at the potential that a fetus possesses. To me, that potential is worth protecting. When having sex (and I am leaving out situations involving rape or incest or other instances of being forced) one must accept that a potential consequence of doing so is pregnancy. Having an abortion is, to me, a convenient way of avoiding responsibility for one’s choices.
That being said (and on this one I’m not budging, sorry), I will not force my personal opinion on another. My opinion is my own and at no point do I support legislation that would force my opinion on anyone else. That includes not treating someone differently because they chose to have an abortion. I know enough people, good friends, that have done so - or been the male involved - to know that I can’t make their decisions for them. I guess you could say I disapprove of the act - but not the person making the act.
And although I understand your reference, Pedro, to the Monty Python sketch I do not see the potential a sperm has as on the same level as that of a fetus. Nor would I feel the same about an unfertilized egg. It is only after fertilization that I see the potential it possess. Before that it is like looking at a piece of wood and saying it has the potential of being a table.
A skin cell or hair follicle has the same potential, but none of us feels bad when we slough off these, nor should we.
Are you willing to accept all possible consequences of sex? Such as the woman deciding to accuse you falsely of rape? Or do you contest such situations because the facts are contrary to the claims? If you dare to object, then you are not accepting the consequences of that sex act, and if you do not object you are allowing falseness to rule the day… I contest that neither of these outcomes are acceptable, which demonstrates that the approach itself is fatally flawed.
Your claims about abortion stand true for the rhythm method, condoms or any contraceptives as well, which at least ought to give us pause…
As for the fertilization reference, this is at best completely arbitrary. Why not simply start at arousal? Why not the thought of sex? Why not penetration? Why not the casting of the test tube?