I think Howard is pro-life

[WholeAssholeOut]

When compared to lawlessness, legislation can be a decent approximation of morality. However, when looked at closely, the law books reveal myriad cases where the morality of the statute can be readily disputed. (And sometimes legislators actually do what they're paid to do and revise these things according to developments in people's sense of morality (like in the case of slavery).)



Because "it's" not a piece of property (even though some hotheaded idealogues may want you to think that it is) but a human being waiting to grow and to get out. As a mother you have rights but also responsibilities. All these can be contested and debated.

If your thinking derives from a feminist perspective, you can see how "what's good for women" is in many situations directly in conflict with "what's good for the unborn baby".

^ That's a pretty tough nut to crack...

my rights>rights of an fetus. every time

[Goo For You]

I suggest checking out a classic on this topic. (One of my favorite books actually.) To understand what really constitutes morality in our world, it takes a lot more than simply asserting one's rights over others'.

[Goo For You]

Here's a utilitarian argument for why your fetus' rights are more important than yours: You have already used up many (more than likely 30+) years worth of utility (or "happiness"); therefore, the fetus has a lot more "happiness" potential left than you.

(^ This is essentially the same logic as when you choose to save a drowning child over a drowning adult.)

If that sounded like a weird argument to make, welcome to the fascinating world of moral philosophy, where utilitarianism is one of the biggest, oldest, and most solid schools of thought around.