Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Bart Stupak's amendment barring federal funding for abortions did pass but could be removed from the final bill.
Click to Print
Include Comments
What an elephant has to say about abortion
“A person’s a person, no matter how small.”
That’s according to Dr. Seuss character Horton the elephant, who in “Horton Hears a Who” vows to protect microscopic-sized Whos from the bigger, oblivious world. While Horton’s tale may be rooted in fiction, for a Colorado pro-life group, the message is a rallying point.
“It’s so true that whatever stage of life you’re in, you’re a person, whatever your size,” says Kristi Burton, the [Colorado for Equal Rights'] 20-year-old founder.
The March 14 release of “Horton Hears a Who” in theaters across the nation is providing the perfect platform for the group to draw attention to its efforts to put a measure on the ballot that if passed would define personhood as beginning at conception.
Although it doesn’t seem Dr. Seuss intended to communicate a pro-life message–as he apparently criticized prior uses of Horton’s phrase in association with pro-life messages–it’s funny how an elephant in a children’s book can make so simple what adults complicate too much.
back to top48 Comments to “What an elephant has to say about abortion”
The children I’ve talked to always get it. Maybe that’s because they are not as far removed from that stage of life themselves. Maybe it’s because they are more empathetic in general. I don’t know.
Report comment to moderator
Even teen-agers get it. Mine and their friends all did.
My grandchildren are at the Suess-reading stage. I’ve read “Horton Hears a Who” and “Horton Hatches the Egg” to my grandson over and over. I think it’s done me at least as much good as it’s done him. These books have a strong message of care for others and personal responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
I have long viewed Dr Seuss’ wonderful story of Horton to be perhaps the best proLife apologetic we could have in our arsenal.
I hope this movie is viewed by many many kids and by all current and future OBGYNs, along with aspiring judges and attorneys.
Report comment to moderator
Recently watched the sonogram of a nine week fetus. It is a Who if I ever saw one! Quite small, quite human, quite beautiful.
Report comment to moderator
What an elephant has to say about abortion
I guess if we can talk to supernatural and invisible spirits, we can talk to elephants. At least we can look at the elephant when we talk to it.
Report comment to moderator
You know those really early in-the-womb photos, where the baby is curled up and doesn’t “look” very human yet?
A Chicago museum has an exhibit room of unborn babies from conception to full-term–from miscarriages, I assume. I went years ago, and realized how very tiny those early humans are. By the time they are looking quite human, you still have to squint to see them. (My sister said she wouldn’t have wanted to see such an exhibit because they are people, and should have been buried. Yes and no–that exhibit cannot help but have saved lives, and I think that “living on after death” in such a way as to save others’ lives was as much honor for those little ones as burial would have been, in that instance.) As you move through the exhibit, you see tiny little babies you could hold easily in one hand, but absolutely no doubt they’re babies. It was disturbing, but awe-inspiring too.
For the first time in history we can see inside a womb–and one in three pregnant moms say no to their own little ones. (One of the most compelling bumper stickers to me is the one that says, “The most dangerous place in America is inside a mother’s womb.” Too true, and horrifically sad when the nurturer willingly hires a destroyer.)
Report comment to moderator
The attempts to define “personhood” at conception is an attempt to do an end-run around Roe vs Wade. Thankfully the effort failed here in Georgia just a few days ago. The legislators recognized that it had a whole host of problems, including outlawing certain forms of birth control and making criminals out of women and physicians.
Report comment to moderator
“The legislators recognized that it had a whole host of problems, including outlawing certain forms of birth control and making criminals out of women and physicians.”
I don’t have a problem with that.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, “Roe vs Wade” was an end run around having a national debate on the subject.
Report comment to moderator
OUTDEEP is incorrect about the debate. There was a debate prior to Roe v. Wade and Michigan, among other states, voted to de-criminalize abortion. Every state had an opportunity to debate the issue and some availed themselves of the opportunity.
Question, by “national debate” do you mean that you’d like a nation-wide abortion law, or do you want it to be state-by-state. If the latter, why should the ethics and/or rights of abortion be different from state to state? I’m suggesting this is an inconsistency in the re-criminalization movement.
Report comment to moderator
My wife always made this Who connection. I think it is right on the mark.
Anlir:
The attempts to define “personhood” at conception is an attempt to do an end-run around Roe vs Wade.
What a pathetic cop-out. As if the issue was created by a the writing of a US Supreme Court decision. You could say the same thing to abolitionists 150 years ago.
There is no more reasonable benchmark to define the advent of personhood than conception. We go over this time and time again, and the pro choicers run away from the argument. The fetus is a separate life, the fetus is human, the fetus is a person.
Report comment to moderator
What Roe v. Wade short-circuited was the nation-wide availability of constituent states to decide for themselves whether to permit abortions. Your semantic quibbling does not address Anlir’s misrepresentation of the Supreme court ruling’s impact and subsequent rulings and laws.
Why should ethics and/or rights of abortion (sic) differ between state? Because our constitution established a federal system where the powers of the federal government were constrained and most decisions were left to the several state legislatures whose decisions are more closely answerable to the citizens.
There is no inconsistency in citizens wanting the ability to decide to enact laws respecting life within their own states. Your “recriminalization” rhetoric is disingenuous at best. Not all violations of law are crimes. Some are regulatory violations or torts. Even where an abortion might be criminalized by a putative, post-Roe law, the onus would fall on the physician, not the woman, who would, as in pre-Roe legal landscape, be considered a victim. And I am not troubled by criminalizing the deliberate ending of a human life outside of immediate self-defense or the imposition of capital offense following due process. I am troubled by the moral confusion of those who want to continue to be free to do exactly that.
Report comment to moderator
one of the most compelling anti-abortion speeches i ever heard was a single sentence:
A woman in a wheelchair goes up on a platform and says simply “I am a failed abortion.”
The woman had numerous medical problems due to the attempted saline abortion, including (I think) cerebral palsy. I forget the specifics of the video, and where i saw it, but it was incredibly powerful.
Report comment to moderator
What amazing is the kind of drivel that come out of Kristin’s head, when she both claims that the interpretation is some simple and clear and mis interpreted at the same time.
Playing rhetorical scholar again, here. Is Kristin supporting that the usage of the term carries meaning out of its original intent and context? Is she giving us license to decided what terms mean “for us”? What Horton says “to us”? Clearly the simplicity she feels boiled down in this “children’s phrase” (it was written by a starkly old man) doesn’t come from any classical way of reading text but from her own desire to form a politically expedient description!
So lets throw out the bible and sign here up for the post-structural revolution! Welcome to the club, girl.
Report comment to moderator
I always find it interesting how people read their religious or political agenda’s into things that have nothing to do with it. People are so desperate to argue their point that they seize on anything, no matter how far fetched, and claim it for their side.
Report comment to moderator
Luke,
Dr. Seuss was 50 when he wrote Horton Hears a Who. Is that “starkly old” in your opinion?
Report comment to moderator
“A person’s a person, no matter how small.”
AMEN!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
While it’s perhaps a stretch to take Horton as a pro-life missive, it’s undeniable that the richness of literature is in large part due to the fact that the best work is open to multiple interpretations, particularly when those readings have a personal bearing or connection for the reader.
For an ideological movement to co-opt a work of art or book or whatever is simply natural. If it resonates at a personal level, it will likely resonate at a similar level with like-minded people. Take something like the Wizard of Oz and the gay rights movement, or songs that get used political campaigns (i.e. Bill Clinton & Fleetwood Mac); it’s all the same. There’s nothing disengenuous about it, it’s really just a rallying point and a rhetorical tactic more than anything.
Report comment to moderator
What Roe v. Wade short-circuited was the nation-wide availability of constituent states to decide for themselves whether to permit abortions.
Eventually, the time to do that ran out, because every State had women who claim that a State doesn’t have the power to criminalize abortion. Michigan, along with other sevral other States, voted to decriminalize in the early 70’s.
KEN’s constitional analysis reflects deep, unamerican disregard for the structural effects of the Fourteenth Amendment. He is also being profoundly inconsistent with himself. If abortion is an issue of “life” and universal morality, it cannot be separated from the individual rights that the Federal government is required to respect, even over against the States. Ethically, our Constitution is no more capable of tolerating the criminalization of abortion in some states than it was of tolerating slavery in some. The only logical and constitutional arrangement is either Roe or equivalent decision, on the one hand, or an abortion counterpart to the Thirteenth Amendment, on the other. Anything less than these is a moral surrender, which undermines your argument for the univrsality of your ethics.
Report comment to moderator
LUKE: the kind of drivel that come out of Kristin’s head
Yes, it’s a gift to be simple, but you can be simple and wrong. Other simple people, me for example, can reach an opposite conclusion.
Report comment to moderator
Hello RobHays!
I’ve never understood that whole “Wizard of Oz”/gay connection. I understand why Judy Garland is held in esteem, but not the movie itself. All I know is that I had nightmares over the flying monkees when I was a kid.
In any event, I know people appropriate stuff all the time for their cause/movement. Sometimes they can stretch it a bit far in my opinion. People read all kinds of things into a movie, a book, a character, or a song. Then when the author, etc. is interviewed they say “What?? I didn’t have that in mind at all”. I’m fairly sure the director of “Horton” (or Dr. Seuss) didn’t have the abortion issue in mind at all.
Report comment to moderator
ANLIR: I’ve never understood that whole “Wizard of Oz”/gay connection.
Because Dorothy is a damsel in distress, with men to protect her. Because the skies are blue and the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true. And oh yes — because of the wonderful things it does!
Report comment to moderator
The pro-life lobby resorts to another smoke-and-mirrors tactic to evade the central policy question regarding abortion: Will we use the force of the state to dish out punitive criminal sanctions upon those who perform and/or have early-term abortions?
If the pro-life lobby believes that the answer to this question is “yes,” then why do they go to such contorted efforts to evade it? Instead, they’d rather draw analogies to out-of-context phrases in children’s fiction.
Of course, their conduct is consistent with most sociologists’ studies of evangelical opposition to abortion. Study after study has shown that evangelicals care little about preserving life. Instead, abortion is all about (1) evangelical identity, and (2) trying to use the force of the state to make evangelical sexual practices normative for the rest of the population.
Report comment to moderator
Study after study has shown that evangelicals care little about preserving life.
******Link to a few. I don’t believe you.
Report comment to moderator
“Will we use the force of the state to dish out punitive criminal sanctions upon those….”
…who kill others?
…who rob?
…who cheat on their taxes?
…who drive while drunk?
Of course the state has the right to do these things, and it ought to do so in the preservation of the life of the innocent.
Report comment to moderator
I would not prosecute women who believed the lie that their baby is not human or is not alive, who trusted a homicidal physician. There is no point in prosecuting them.
I would absolutely prosecute abortionists. There, I have (once again) answered the question which, as you all know, has been answered already by those many states that have already outlawed abortion pending roe v wade being overturned. There is no secret here.
As usual, the pro-choice people on this board bring up the subject of the life of the fetus and then drop it like a hot potato. They dismiss the idea that life begins at conception without providing a more reasonable time when life begins and without explaining why they think the fetus is anything other than a young human. Because it is a losing argument for them.
You define life by defining what murderers you would be willing to prosecute. Isn’t that backwards? I don’t want to prosecute those who kill felons, so felons must not be alive.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir at #20: People read all kinds of things into a movie, a book, a character, or a song. Then when the author, etc. is interviewed they say “What?? I didn’t have that in mind at all”. I’m fairly sure the director of “Horton” (or Dr. Seuss) didn’t have the abortion issue in mind at all.
This reminds me of one of my favorite standards about Isaac Asimov. In the late 1960s he met a fan who started discussing one of his stories and going on about how it was a brilliant allegory of the Vietnam War.
Asimov said that the story had nothing to do with Vietnam. The fan replied, “Just because you wrote it doesn’t mean you know what it’s about!”
As for Horton, I would just point out that the Whos were mature, intelligent, fully functional persons. They were not fetuses.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer challenged me on another thread to show where I had ever “thought about the baby” in regard to abortion. I can’t remember which thread it was and can’t find it now, so I’ll respond here.
First of all, as I said in the other thread, I’ve said very little about abortion so I object to having a position assigned to me on the grounds that I am supposedly “liberal” (I assure you, I am liberal only relatively. If I were posting on a liberal blog I’d be labeled a moderate. But it is true I am not a conservative.)
The more I ponder the abortion issue, the more I think law professor Laurence Tribe was right in calling it “The Clash of Absolutes.” I am pro-choice, yes, but I am not a fan of abortion. I certainly do not think women should have abortion for reasons such as sex selection.
There is almost never a good legislative solution offered. Conservatives tend to want to ban them all and liberals tend to fear putting any but the most minimal restrictions in place. I’m in the middle of those positions.
However, I put some of the blame for the number of abortions on the conservative side of the aisle. In addition to opposing abortion, conservatives also tend to oppose sex education, availability of contraception and other measures that would work to reduce the number of abortions. Because they don’t go all the way to eliminating sex outside of marriage entirely, your side usually stands against them.
I submit that perfect is the enemy of good. If you’re serious about wanting there to be fewer abortions, then allow things that would accomplish that goal rather than standing firm on an abstinence-only platform. You may think it’s the only morally pure position, but the reality is, it’s an unattainable goal. So work with your liberal colleagues to make the perceived need lower and while you won’t get the perfect world you dream of, you’ll get one that’s better than it is now.
Report comment to moderator
As for Horton, I would just point out that the Whos were mature, intelligent, fully functional persons. They were not fetuses.
Yes. And the book was written for children. Children who are presumably small. I do not think Geisel’s use of size was an accident.
It would be a mistake to claim that the book was written to further pro-life causes. But it has always amazed me how applicable its message can be, especially when set against those arguments that seem to suggest that one becomes more human as one grows more cells.
Report comment to moderator
None of the liberals have the courage to address the issue of life. It is just too inconvenient.
Sperm meets egg and a new individual is created. What about this do you not understand? It is you who are in the dark ages, or maybe it is like living in perpetual childhood before the facts of life are known.
SteveG – these are two completely separate issues. We can debate the best thing to tell teens, and you may have a point. But life is another issue. We can also debate the best way to prevent gang violence, but no one would use such a debate to imply that murder may be OK.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis: SteveG – these are two completely separate issues. We can debate the best thing to tell teens, and you may have a point. But life is another issue. We can also debate the best way to prevent gang violence, but no one would use such a debate to imply that murder may be OK.
That is true. But can you imagine a situation where the conservatives refused to support any proposed approach unless it cut the murder rate to zero?
Murder is already illegal, so your example is a good indicator that just banning something without addressing the reasons it happens in the first place is not always effective.
People get accused of “coddling” when we talk about trying to understand why people do the things they do and find ways to address those reasons. But the reality is, making people not want to do something in the first place — which requires understanding why they do — is a more effective long-term preventative than just outlawing the act.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:
Where, in what you wrote, do you show a reason why abortion should not be considered murder? Would we entertain making gangland murder legal because we have not come up with an effective way to stop it, or because there may be controversy on the subject?
Would it be OK to teach marksmanship in the inner cities to make sure they kill the right person and not innocent bystanders?
Address the issue of life.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:
Would banning abortion interfere with teaching teens about sex?
Would banning abortion discourage teens from acting responsibly?
This is not a question of letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. The question isn’t when should abortion be banned, as if there were no facts of life to bring to bear upon the subject. The issue is <when does life begin? The perfect/good argument is a red herring which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of life, the quiet denial of which begins all your arguments.
If you can’t address when life begins, how can you be trusted to discuss anything regarding sex and pregnancy, with teens or anyone else? Isn’t the beginning of life the central fact here?
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis … I don’t believe early term abortion should be banned, because there is no consensus on when the fetus becomes a person with the moral and legal protections according to a person.
Before you respond, think about this: You believe in the Commandment “Thou shalt not murder,” yes? But I would bet that you allow exceptions to that Commandment for war, capital punishment, self-defense and maybe a few other situations.
(There are some people who are consistently pro-life and oppose all of those things; I think they are the only ones who deserve the description “pro-life.” If you support capital punishment and are not a pacifist, you’re anti-abortion, but not pro-life, in my opinion.)
These debates never have any obvious solution. People who oppose the death penalty say the government should not deliberately take a human life, even that of a convicted murderer. Those who support it say it’s justified argue that he’s sacrificed his right to live by taking another life.
On the abortion issue, some people believe the fetus doesn’t become a person until some point after conception, other argue that conception is the clear line.
There’s no clear Scriptural position on that question and even if there were, it would not be relevant to lawmaking for the people who don’t adhere to the Christian scriptures. There’s no clear medical consensus either.
I understand the position and the passion of the anti-abortion side, and I think it’s fine for you to continue to try to change minds. But the issue to me, and to many people, is not as clear-cut.
Report comment to moderator
I also find it interesting that an elephant is used to promote life in the womb in this story. Elephants are pregnant longer than any other mammal and it shows the sacrifice that the elephant makes to carry the little guy in her womb for so long. If an elephant can go as long as she does, sacrificing her body, why should a woman complain about 9 little months. I don’t know if that came to mind in writing the story, because Horton is a boy and sits on the egg, but it’s interesting to think about.
Report comment to moderator
It’s been many years now, so my memory may be foggy, but I recall C. Everett Koop commenting about a watershed point in the public discussion of abortion, a time before those involved in the debate became so deeply entrenched on one side or the other. He contended that at that point, a compromise allowing abortion only in the earliest stages of pregancy, or only in the case of rape or incest, might have been acceptable to most Americans, including those who now identify themselves as pro-choice. His critique was based on the millions of lives that could have potentially been saved were it not for the all-or-nothingism that squandered this opportunity and left us where we are today.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:
We are not talking about capital punishment, war, or self defense. We are talking about abortion-on-demand. I would approve of war under certain circumstances, that in no way makes a gangland murder OK. The only thing the two have in common is killing. Besides, they are two separate questions with their own separate arguments. You can’t hide your justification of abortion behind war or capital punishment – each must be answered for, and here we are discussing abortion.
You would ban sex selection, yet your arguments (distractions?) seem to support it – there is no consensus, the Bible is silent on it, killing is allowed for other reasons. Surely you see that these arguments are irrelevant to the question of whether it is right or wrong to kill a child because the child is a girl? Don’t they equally miss the mark when applied to a living human who is to be killed to maintain a lifestyle, or for virtually any other reason than to save another life?
The fetus is human, the fetus is alive. He or she is not a convicted criminal and is not a casualty of war. I am not talking to a hypothetical person 51% of whom thinks it is OK, I am talking to you. Can you give a reason why abortion should not be banned?
Most people do not think this out. Set aside all of the convenience issues for a moment – when does life obviously begin, and what does that make abortion? It is a simple question.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe early term abortion should be banned, because there is no consensus on when the fetus becomes a person with the moral and legal protections according to a person.
If I can cut through your “consensus” statements and assume this argument is yours (step forward and be counted), I would ask you two questions -
1) When does personhood begin, and why does this time make more sense than at conception?
2) What is the thing in the womb before this time, and why is it not a younger person?
Both of these dreaded questions MUST be answered in order for YOU to reasonably maintain the “consensus” statement you made. Unless you believe what you seem to imply – that truth is determined by consensus. We can go there if you want to. Bandwagon might make good marketing, but it does not make good logic. But we all know that sex sells.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis: The point of mentioning capital punishment, et al, is that most (though not all) Christians believe that commandment against killing admits exceptions.
The convicted murderer (how can we ever be 100 percent sure of guilt?); deaths in war (even civilian casualties, which are usually said to be unfortunate but unavoidable); or the man threatening you with a gun (but what about turning the other cheek and not resisting evil?)
There is a real argument — and it’s not just Christians vs. non-Christians, the argument goes on within the church too — about whether an early term fetus is yet a person.
I do not claim to have an answer so I can’t respond to your first question in #38. The fact that doctors, scientists and theologians can’t agree on it is what makes the issue so difficult.
You have a firm and clear view. And that’s fine, but it’s your view. The fact that a significant percentage of fertilized ova never implant and get expelled in the first few days after conception suggests that if God designed the human reproductive system, he did so without regard to the personhood of those very young persons, whose mothers never know exist before they’re gone forever.
My only firm opinion on the topic is that both the pro- and anti- side should stop being so darn dogmatic about it.
Report comment to moderator
So you have no reason why abortion should not be banned. If doctors, scientists, or theologians had an answer to question 38, I have yet to hear it. I think they hide behind convenient consensus as you do.
a significant percentage of fertilized ova never implant
This is a theory – nobody knows for sure. But I would not be surprised if it happens sometimes, just as other accidental deaths and still births happen.
I am dogmatic about life. It is wrong to kill a child because that child is a girl. It is wrong to kill a child because that child interferes with your lifestyle. And until you can answer my questions, we must consider it a fact (not an opinion) that personhood begins at conception, because there is no other alternative that makes more sense.
Report comment to moderator
OK, I’ve got to respond to this:
There is a real argument — and it’s not just Christians vs. non-Christians, the argument goes on within the church too — about whether an early term fetus is yet a person.
What is the argument? That’s what I was asking for.
I have heard a lot of arguments – most amount to smoke screens like those you have thrown up here. None answer my questions, questions that are the logical response to every single “not yet a person” argument. At conception we have a living human person whose vulnerability allows others to pretend he does not exist.
Report comment to moderator
Horton did not follow consensus. That was the moral of the story.
Report comment to moderator
No, at conception we have a fertilized egg. I grant you, left alone and barring any anomalies (such as miscarriage) it will become a person. I also grant that this is a strong argument for banning abortion.
On the other hand, the woman carrying the fertilized egg most definitely is a person. The argument for bodily autonomy will not impress you, I know. But many people do take it seriously and consider it a factor to be considered.
From a non-religious perspective — and the laws of our country are theoretically not supposed to reflect religious beliefs — there is an argument for leaving the decision in the hands of the woman and her doctor. People who believe abortion is wrong are not compelled to do it. People who believe it to be acceptable are not compelled to avoid it.
I do think the number of abortions should be minimal, but I think, on balance, the better way to accomplish that is through education and persuasion than force of law. If most people can be convinced it’s morally wrong, then most people won’t do it no matter how legal it is.
Report comment to moderator
I do think the number of abortions should be minimal, but I think, on balance, the better way to accomplish that is through education and persuasion than force of law. If most people can be convinced it’s morally wrong, then most people won’t do it no matter how legal it is.
We are in 100% agreement here – but note that this is not a reason not to ban abortion.
And is not a fertilized egg a living human? It is not dead. It is human. If not, when does it become a living human and why is what exists just before not a younger human?
The argument for bodily autonomy will not impress you
Another agreement. An arbitrary criteria that is not better than conception. Children are not truly autonomous for a long time after birth. So before this time they are less autonomous, after more autonomous – no significant change. And the time of “bodily” autonomy is a function of technology, if it can ever be accurately determined.
If I held the other end of the rope that prevented you from falling to your death, you would not have bodily autonomy. It’s my hand I can do with it what I want.
The issue is not what we believe, the issue is what is in fact true. If it was declared that Methodists are not people, would we not argue that this declaration is wrong? Yet those who believe Methodists are people would not compelled to kill them. You have not been able to logically show that a fetus is not a person.
Report comment to moderator
I meant the woman’s bodily autonomy.
A fetus may be argued to be not a person prior to the point where it is able to survive outside the womb because until that point it is dependent on its symbiotic attachment to the mother.
Or it can be argued to be a person because it is new entity with its own genetic code from the point of conception.
Both arguments carry some weight, neither is so obviously persuasive as to win the day with everyone.
Report comment to moderator
A newborn child can not survive without outside help. Indeed, the mother’s body responds to the newborn’s need to be fed. The symbiotic attachment continues – before the baby is fed via the umbilical cord, after via the breast (or some other adult the baby is dependent upon). No significant change, compared to conception – before there is a person who is more dependent, after a person who is a little less.
The criteria is dependant on technology. Babies can survive outside the womb weeks earlier than they could a few decades ago. Were those babies back then not people? Who can say if a particular baby can survive or not today? Before, you speculate that the baby probably can’t survive outside. After, that the baby maybe can. No significant difference – a slight change in the probability of survival. The only way to tell is to try to save the baby. It’s like the all you can eat restaurant that stops feeding people with the explanation that that’s all they can eat. The baby can’t survive outside the womb because you kill it.
My rope analogy comes into play also. Do I not have bodily autonomy? Am I not free to let go of the rope and let you fall? I would say that since another life is dependant on me I am responsible for the other life as well as my own. A symbiotic attachment adds responsibility, it does not take responsibility away. This is especially true if I pushed you off the cliff – if I am partially responsible for your predicament.
No, there is nothing here, nothing at all that indicates the presence of a new life. No way to tell if it is a person or whatever you think it would be before it is a person. Every observation would indicate that the thing in the womb before your criteria would make it a person is just a younger and slightly more dependent person.
Conception clearly makes more sense as the most logical time when personhood begins. Before, you have two sex cells. After, you have a completely new individual. There really is no comparison.
Report comment to moderator
the point where it is able to survive outside the womb
This point can only be estimated, so it would actually be an arbitrary date figured from the woman’s remembrance of the date of last menstruation. I doubt that they would do an ultrasound to assess the viability of a fetus they want to kill. But even if they did survivability would still only be an educated guess.
The issue of the woman’s bodily autonomy would remain, because after survivability she would still be forced to go through childbirth.
But what chance of survival are you shooting for? Is it typical to declare someone who is less than 50% likely to survive a hazardous experience no longer a person? Maybe we should shoot for 25%, or 10% likely to survive. Your criteria is arbitrary and unmeasurable.
The qualities of survivability and dependence do not compare with the quality of life in regards to determining personhood. They are arbitrarily chosen – is survivability a better criteria than self-awareness, or age, or mobility, or wantedness? You can take your pick, but you will see that there is no significant change immediately before and after any of these criteria are met, if such a time can be accurately determined at all. Compare that with conception and the beginning of human life.
All you would be doing is allowing the killing a person (a living human) because you think that person is probably vulnerable. Such a criteria would leave the door wide open to sex-selection.
Report comment to moderator
Person: a human being, whether man, woman, or child.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!