Well Funkshen, I disagree with current human rights legislation that defines life starting at birth. I believe, as Christopher Hitchens did, that life starts from the moment of conception. We as a society arbitrarily decide to ignore the life growing inside a mother's womb.
that's nice, but this thread is specifically about legislation giving a foetus legal personhood. furthermore, when talking about human rights in the substantive sense (as in rights or duties that humans possess, and that are or should be legally enforceable), the relevant legislation is very relevant indeed.
Also Crobat, I disagree with the foetus being a 'biological parasite'. Here's a good argument (worth a read, Funkshen), which supports my view:
http://www.uffl.org/vol12/pruss12.pdf
that's a nice bit of literature, but it's makes a number of unwarranted leaps in logic.
a baby can't be considered part of the mother (or of the father) because it is a unique composition of their DNA? this is a petty syllogism. by that same logic, a donated organ can never be a part of you; transfused blood is not a part of you. furthermore, by this logic, a clone in utero
is a part of as you have an identical genetic composition. this is a very convenient argument, made to support the notion that a child in utero is not a parasite, that does nothing to dispense with the arguments to the contrary.
honourable mention to the the impenetrable logic of "you were once an embryo, therefore you never stopped being an embryo!". the author thinks that because an embryo might become a person one day, he in fact is a person. surely there couldn't be any point in between conception and childbirth at which a foetus is substantially developed and demonstrates most of the characteristics of a human being, rather than those of a simple, parasitic organism (you know, such as the ability to feel pain; to survive outside the womb; so on and so forth).
the whole "cartesian dualism" paragraph is a linguistic clusterfuck.
"my wife has never kissed me" - kissing is the physical act of two lips meeting, or lips meeting another part of the body. this is not an absurd paradox that devastates the notion of mind-body dualism (not really relevant anyways).
"my body is simply property" - yes let's dispense with the great philosophical tradition of Locke and others with a handwave, and pretend this is a paradoxical notion!
"If my body were mere property, then the government would in principle have a right, when necessary, to extract a kidney from me as a tax payment" - it's more likely than you think.
i can't really be bothered to engage with this article anymore. i'm more than happy for a Christian, Muslim or Jew to quote their holy text and say that a foetus is sacred. but this author's argument is as ludicrous as Zeno's paradox of motion. i could attack its many convenient assertions one at a time, but the very idea that you can write a treatise about why a foetus is a person and think it's a slam dunk without addressing and engaging with any definition of life is absurd and arrogant. let us also not forget that the author did not, contrary to your assertion, dismiss any notion that a foetus is parasite. this article is emotionally prejudiced and preaches to the choir, and would have been much stronger (read: persuasive) if it was a balanced discussion of relevant arguments, both philosophical and scientific. alas, methinks that was not the intent.
I'm pro-life in all circumstances, except when the mother's life is in danger (see Aquinas' principle of double effect). However, unlike some on the religious right, I do not support banning abortion all together. A lot of people in my family (and my friends) have had abortions, and I understand things from their perspective. I think, there needs to be more options for young women, who want to have the baby, but know they can't look after it without giving up their career, can't 'afford' to have it or are ostracised by the father and their own family. As Pope Francis said, we (the right) ought to stop judging women who have abortions, and try and create viable options. This might include more readily accessible adoption services, and also things like 'Pregnancy Alternatives', a centre which operations in Surrey Hills - directly opposite an abortion clinic, and its' more full than the abortion clinic.
viable alternatives to abortion sound great, but forgive me for being irredeemably cynical about 1) the charity and compassion of catholics, and 2) any success the catholic church might have if it continues to refuse to endorse and educate people on safe sex practices, particularly on the use of condoms (you know, like a whole bunch of Western catholics are doing).
nice to know that 'Pregnancy Alternatives' is opposite an abortion clinic - if the alternatives don't work, an abortion isn't far away!
"[an] unborn child seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix, You can't say the rights question doesn't come up." ~ Christopher Hitchens
the rights question does come up. and we say that, to a point (e.g. third trimester), the mother's rights trump the rights of a foetus. the question doesn't come up, but we've moved on.
furthermore, an enemy of an enemy is not your friend. it seems very odd for a Catholic to regurgitate Hitchens (of course, on the only point of contention you might agree with him on). Hitchens thought that abortions were regrettable and, in an ideal world, would not be performed. however, cognisant of the underlying causes of abortion (religious propaganda and the irresponsibility of religious institutions, lack of safe sex practices and education, poverty and crime), he never advocated for banning abortion; for instance, he supported Roe v Wade.
edit: i can't stress enough how utterly shallow that article you linked is. it doesn't even touch on the issues of abortion being morally equivalent to murder, spontaneous abortion, self-awareness.