The Rev wrote:
"Thus the needs of the
woman should supercede the needs of the fetus, since the fetus is only better
than a steak in its potential."
"But why should the
needs of the women supercede the needs of the fetus?"
The woman's needs supercede
the needs of her fetus because, according to a rational theory of
individual rights (cf. "The Rights of Man" in The Virtue of
Selfishness by Ayn Rand), individual rights apply to actual
human beings (which the woman is), not to merely potential human
beings (which the fetus at best is).
On a proper theory of
individual rights (i.e., on a view of individual rights which is based on an
objective view of reality and a rational view of epistemology and morality),
the woman has sole discretion over the choice of whether or not to
carry her pregnancy to term. Some argument may be made for later stages of
pregnancy, but there is no question that during the first trimester of
pregnancy, a woman has the sole right of choice in this matter. She may choose
to keep or abort her pregnancy for any reason she chooses.
Thus, when Peter points out
that "Abortions are performed even if it is just the whim of the
mother--or even in many cases when she is pressured into it by family
and friends (in the case of a teen pregnancy, for example)," as sad
as this might be to some people, it is the case that the mother still retains
the right of choice, regardless of how she arrives at the choice.
Many people do not like to see
others act freely on their choices, and thus seek to stifle them in some way.
If they are not successful through legal procedures, some even attempt to use
force against those doctors who do carry out abortions. Just another example
of how abandoning reason leads to the use of force.