Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
Yes, and there are limits to when you can abort. So, there's nothing to discuss really, apart from the ridiculous suggestion that you should be able to 'abort' post-birth. I don't think anyone is taking that suggestion seriously.
|
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.
---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
The counter argument would take the perspective of the woman involved. She is not responsible for the sins of her child's father either. Why should she have to carry his child?
|
The child and the mother both figure in this equation. Which is worse: killing a child or counselling a victim of crime?