Agreed. I could turn “pro-life” if we have the infrastructure to turn a growth into a person medically and take care of said new person, but until that point, I stay firmly pro-choice and consider the mother + growth “one person” until they are viable. Then they become “two people”.
I don’t have a problem with those traditions so long as they don’t cause harm. But if they do, then they’re subject to some kind of basic humanitarian / human rights rules imo – the secular religion that’s generally acceptable worldwide mostly – takes over.
I’ve heard arguments against the “rentless tenant” that seemed pretty sound, which is why I don’t use that argument for pro-choice anymore.
I could find it: if I remember right, of the three/four major pro-choice arguments, the tenant argument was one of the logically weaker ones.
The “are children the property of their parents?” is a tough one for me. When I look around, it _seems_ that children are the property of their parents or of those who take care of their kids for them (in loco parentis). I see _very_ little evidence of autonomy for children in society.
Even though I hear about “children’s rights”, it usually ends up being “parental rights” or “state rights” under another name.
While I don’t think it goes far enough, at this point, I’d be happy if at least the CRC were adopted by more countries and enforced. It would be a great step forward in humanity.
She’s an amazing thinker.
I’m glad you don’t see your child as your possession… and I really wish more people thought that way.
I had a friend, who ended up founding a parent’s movement called “Taking Children Seriously” in the early 90s. It grew pretty big. She co-founded it with David Deutsch, the physicist.
Their philosophical arguments were a bit too ‘heady’ for me, but I respect the heck out of them that no only did they stand up and speak out for what they believed in, but started a movement that continues alongside others that are similar.