It seems I have presented myself with one hell of a problem. I’ll try to sum it up as quickly as possible. I tried my damndest to make this accessible. Here goes.

Who has moral duties:
If you have the capacity to have your actions governed, you have moral duties As an adult (or even a teenager), you have moral duties, not only to other adults and teenagers, but to some of those beings who are alive but have no duties to you. Adults have moral duties, some of which are moral duties to not to torture and kill, not only other adults, but also, babies, the severely retarded, perhaps cats, dogs etc.

As an adult, you can have your actions governed by a moral code, so your actions can be moral or not. Babies, and the severely retarded do not have the ability to have their actions governed, and therefore cannot do things which are moral or immoral.

So, its NOT immoral for a lion to abandon its weak children. It IS (well, can be) immoral for a human to abandon its weak children. Moreover, its not IMMORAL for a lion to kill a human, but it MIGHT be immoral for humans to kill a lion, (if lions can be put in the same category as the retarded and babies, and hey, even retarded babies, in terms of our moral duties them).

See the difference?

One moral duty I am pretty sure I have:

I am sure I have a duty to not kill an adult human. But why? Not because the act of killing is inherently wrong. There are some cases where killing may be a good thing, (like if a person is in immense pain, and will die anyway). Killing is considered wrong (I *THINK*), because you are taking something away from someone, like that person’s ability to pursue happiness and have liberty (to name a few reasons).

But why only adult humans. Aren’t there other beings which enjoy life in a certain way that might make it wrong if I took a life away from them? What about kids? What about babies and the retarded? Why only humans? What about apes and dolphins. Don’t they also have lives that they enjoy?

It is this line of logic that commits me to the idea that I have a moral duty NOT to kill anything that fits, what Tom Regan calls, the Subject of Life Criterion.

“beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future, including their own future; an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference and welfare- interests; and the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual logically independently of their utility for other and logically independent of their being the object of anyone else’s interests”(243) Tom Regan "The Case for Animal Rights".

Anyone who fits this bill has a prima facie right to not be harmed. But keep in mind, there are some rights which over ride other rights, in some cases. So, my right to paint my house red may be overridden by your right to live (in a scenario where if I painted my house red it would cause you to die, and if I did not paint my house red, you would continue to live).

So, while there may be debate over 1) What animals fit this bill and 2) Whether or not this is a proper qualification for the extent of my duties to beings 3) Whether or not this is the ONLY condition we have to meet when we consider our moral duties, I accept for the time being that because cows and chickens fall easily into this category, eating meat is wrong.

What, then, about abortions?

Here, I have two problems:

1. A young fetus has the potential to fall under the subject of life criterion at a later date. As the fetus ages, given there are no complications, the fetus will be born and given the right to live that you and I enjoy (because it meets the criterion).

I honestly have no idea whether or not citing a POTENTIAL to have rights is a valid and or sound claim. However, it seems that IF we extend rights to beings who may potentially have rights (because of that potential), we need to extend those rights to ALL beings who have a potential to have rights. This would include a fetus. To extend rights to a non-fetus being that does not fall under the criterion of life because they MIGHT fall under the criterion later and NOT to a fetus because it is a fetus is an arbitrary distinction.

1a. Also, it seems likely that there is a point inside the womb when a fetus does fall under the criterion, thus granting the fetus the right to live if we accept the criterion.

1b. At the point where a fetus fills the subject of life criterion, it seems it should be allowed the same right to live as any child, or adult or retard or cow. To not assign it this right based on its location seems arbitrary especially since:

2. The right to live over rides the right to not be pregnant.

The right to have an abortion really seems like the right to not be forced to be pregnant. It does not seem like we really have a right to do as we please with our bodies, (as we don’t have the right to walk around naked, or sell our bodies for sex) but more so, to not be forced to remain in a state where a fetus is living off of one’s body.

In fact, the right to not be pregnant seems like more of a luxury to not be inconvenienced with pregnancy (no SMALL luxury, mind you) than anything else.

2a. If you give birth, there is nothing saying you have to keep that child. So any loss you may be forced to incur by banning your abortion rights will be short term. Sure, you may loose out on some income (purchasing new clothes, hospital time) but that relatively small loss of income doesn’t compare to the loss of a life a being as entitled to that life as you or I, will suffer.

2b. A right to not be inconvenienced is never considered as overriding a right to live once a person is given rights. To cite an inconvenience as justification for having abortions assumes that the fetus already has a status that allows inconvenience as a valid claim justifying that fetus’ termination. Meanwhile, the status of the fetus as a being is the very question at hand.

* * *

Now, all you pro life people may not like that very much, and that’s fine. But trust me, there is no one who WANTS more to support idea that I should be allowed to get an abortion than me.