Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
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?
|
The question of a cut-off only arises because abortion has already been deemed acceptable. The heart of the issue, morally, is whether abortion is acceptable in the first place.
The cut-off date is entirely arbitrary. It is, more or less, the limit of viability according to current medical technology and practice. Fifty years ago, viability would have been much later. Fifty years from now, it will most likely be somewhat earlier.
It is often stated that the unborn child is not a person but is a 'potential person'. This ultimately is the justification for ever carrying out an abortion. The academic paper in question here argues that personhood is established after a child is born and that by that logic, the 24-week limit (or any limit in any country where abortion is carried out) makes no sense.
Quote:
|
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.
|
By 'semantics' I assume you're thinking of my insistence on referring to the inhabitant of the womb as a 'child' rather than a dehumanized term like 'embryo' or 'foetus'. I have framed the question the way I have because personally I have no doubt that every one of those that has had its life ended by abortion was an actual, real, human child whose right to life was curtailed.
I don't think it's a case of either/or with regards to sympathy. In a case of rape the facts are awful for both mother and child. But only one course of action results in a death.
Again, however, 'death' is semantics, isn't it, if you don't believe that an actual human being really died. Which brings us back to the question posed by the academics. If the inhabitant of the womb is not a person, at what point does it become one?