Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I think that depends on when you believe life begins. I don't think killing a baby that has been born is the same as aborting a fetus early on in it's development. I think the academics point is that the justification we sometimes use for that is fetus hasn't developed a sense of awareness but the same could be said of a young child. Still, I think it's different.
|
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?