[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Chris

The ethicists have raised a point that is very, very uncomfortable for those that advocate abortion IMO. The fact is, we have no scientific definition for when personhood begins. What we have is a fudged moral compromise, using a vaguely scientific measure of 'viability', to determine when abortion can happen and when it cannot. This definition isn't even universal, it applies in the UK but is different elsewhere.

The reason the argument is so uncomfortable for pro-choicers is that it exposes the arbitrary nature of our current law to cold, hard logic. There is no cold, hard, dispassionate reason why a severely disabled baby can be killed in the womb but not immediately post-birth. The reason for not killing such a child after birth is not scientific but moral. And if we accept the basis of the debate is a moral one, rather than hiding behind supposedly scientific arguments about "viability", what is that morality to be based on? Where should we draw the line, and why?

That's the case for any number of things, we draw arbitrary lines with animal rights all the time, so is the "adult"/"child" distinction.