Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Actually, there's plenty to discuss precisely because the original suggestion was not supposed to be taken seriously - or, at least, it wasn't supposed to be the start of a campaign for a change in policy on abortion. So far as I can see, it was a theoretical, academic discussion designed to focus thought on the ethics of abortion and the definition of personhood. At the heart of it was the argument that by a common and widely accepted definition of personhood, post-natal abortion is logically just as ethical as pre-natal abortion.
If you offer moral and logical reasons why abortion should every be acceptable under any circumstances, then you should have morally and logically consistent reasons why you draw the time limit where you do.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but current 'cutoffs' for abortion are not set according to a definition of personhood but rather on viability of existence outside the womb?
Quote:
|
The child and the mother both figure in this equation. Which is worse: killing a child or counselling a victim of crime?
|
That is a highly subjective question, and the 'obvious' answer depends very much on the semantics of how the question is posed. Suffice to say though, that at short notice, my sympathies are firmly with the mother.