How about start from scratch?
This appears to be your commendable intention.
Or are you pushing a particular value-agenda?
Namely the values of:
(1) "pragmatism" (defined by the "strongest"?) so the value-agenda of
(2) "physical power"?
(3) moral relativism (which says let such-and-such culture do its thing? What if its thing is slavery or cannibalism? On what grounds can you oppose such practices?
Starting from scratch:
What and who exists is what and who exists.
Value: do not deny existence of any phenomenon (honesty).
Value: let be whatever is (liberty)
Value: You do whatever you do (responsibility)
Quote: "..I believed
an expectant mother, while still early in the pregnancy, has dominion over her pregnancy"
Use of language: "her pregnancy". Political use of language? Alternative: "her child".
Science has shown that biologically from conception the baby is an "alien"; is not part of the woman.
Liberty: neither dominate or submit, say libertarians. You would have the woman have "dominion over"? Non-libertarian! The facts of biology have dominion if you like: they say there are two people here from conception, my understanding is.
Quote: "If those values were universally true, then why wouldn't others have them? " They do.
They forgot them. Most humans have forgotten (repressed) their infant experiences; so hardly seem qualified to argue against regarding infants as worthy of full respect! Surely?
Quote: "The picture I see is that all human beings have their rights granted by the art of the possible...made possible by good management and good regulation."
But that sounds like a quote from Stalin or someone? Who decides what is possible? Letting an unborn child live is possible. If we are going to have a law to protect life; we might as well be logically consistent about it. If someone were assaulted while in the 2nd month of pregnancy, and the baby died; the assailant would face more serious charges, wouldn't they?
Quote: "These proceed from good process of consensus-building, based on first principles which extend dignity and rights to most higher life forms in various degrees."
Unfortunately, consensus-building produced acceptance of slavery, witch-hunting, and cannabilism, didn't it? With life on the line; and failure to recall infancy leaving a gap in information in most people; jury must side with life surely?
" Do they extend to
human or pre-human foetuses three months after conception?"
Based on available information, science of the unborn, logical consistency: killing unborn babies seems like a bad idea.
Quote: ". I don't think anyone has a right to
tag others with the slander that they are "immoral" when..."
Who said who was immoral? Who cast the first stone?
Did someone say the 1 month-old baby was "immoral", was violating a morality? A morality constructed by "pragmatic consensus building"?
Quote: "... they are just trying to manage their own personal physiological and family affairs.."
Um...propaganda? Your conclusion is contained in the premises: "their own physiological affairs"?
What about the baby's physiological affairs?
Science tells you they are trying to manage this alien being too!
Um... killing one's offspring as a form of "management"? Sounds like "collateral damage"?
Quote: " and are not in violation of civil or criminal statutes." This is irrelevant: that the law allowed slavery did not make it right.
Just because some people loudly condemn others for "immorality" does not mean the disputed behaviour is right, does not mean it is not contradictory.
One the one hand, one may say: NO COMMENT. But if there is to be a law; the better arguments favour a rule against killing offspring, I think.