[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Actually, I don't think it is 'entirely' arbitrary, as there are good reasons for an objective definition for what it means to be able to exist independently: without medical intervention. Leaving aside the fact that a baby can't feed itself, there are measures such as being able to breath independently. The very same issue arises with terminally ill patients. Doctors can decide to withhold treatment when it's perfectly possible to keep a patient alive. As such, what is possible and acceptable are different things (though we may disagree regarding what is acceptable).

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.

Yes, and I don't agree with the position in the paper. It's a though-provoking topic, which to be honest, I've not given much thought. I'd be hard pressed to consider a merged sperm and egg cell a person, and I'd be hard pressed to not consider a just born baby not a person. Where one becomes to other is indeed a big old can of worms.

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.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

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.

Actually, in the case of rape, the consequences for the child are good, as it goes from not existing to becoming a person. Which then leads us to the question whether every life is worth living. That is: is it better to not live or be born as a child that isn't wanted, or be born into circumstances where the mother is not able or willing to properly provide for a child.

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?

It is indeed, and as I said, it's a big can of worms. Ultimately though, this is an issue of pragmatics as much as anything else. Abortions will happen, and if we outlawed them we'd be back to backstreet abortions, which I'm sure you're no fan of either. I'm not convinced that personhood starts just after conception, but I don't think it's right to kill just-born babies either. So we need some cutoff, and a criterion of being able to exist outside the womb seems sensible to me. That's not to say we should think lightly about abortion, but unfortunately, abortion is a fact of life (so to speak).