2 Comments
Commenting has been turned off for this post

I was with you right up to near the end when you said "... it seems like the state then does have some interest in protecting the fetus." That woke me up, because states don't have interests. Strictly speaking, states don't exist. Only people exist, and I can't see how any person other than the woman would have more standing in the decision to have an abortion or not.

Expand full comment
author

Remember I'm saying abortion definitely should be legal in more than 99% of cases, and maybe should be restricted in some fraction of the remaining cases. If you wish take my line as "People who form the government have an interest. . ." The idea is that a woman gratuitously having a late-term abortion, if (and that's an important if) she could about as easily give (premature) birth, is wrong and probably properly against the law, because the fetus has moral standing that is not totally dependent on the woman. One could argue that those conditions never obtain, so abortion always should be legal. Or one could argue that the practical difficulties of government agents sensibly restricting abortion are so severe that abortion always should be legal. I don't claim to have fully worked out those counterarguments or replies to them. Please see the first two articles in the series for further development of the point that a conscious fetus has moral standing.

Expand full comment