Re: Abortion

BlackWater wrote:

> A fertilized cell is NOT a "person" - but a 8.9 month
> fetus has everything required to be so except a seperate
> mailing address. Clearly "personhood" - moral and 
> hopefully legal - is something that *develops* as the
> pregnancy advances. 

Sort of.

> There's no clear line, but it seems that the MIDDLE
> point - 4.5 months - would make a fair delineator 
> between 'tissue' and 'citizen'.  Arguments that 
> revolve around either extreme of the process are
> just missing the realities of pregnancy. You start
> with no one and end up with someone - but the
> change isn't instantaneous. 

I understand what you're talking about; but remember the birth
date itself is a compromise, since 'babies' aren't really
sentient.  Historically, they talked about quickening, which
I think is around 6 or 7 months.

Now, I've got nothing about refiguring where compromises
should be; we allow votes at 18 now rather than 21, for
instance.  And I've seen a movement for the voting age
to be reduced to 16.  But I think the reasons for changing
these boundaries have to be explored pretty carefully.  If
a woman were to be seriously harmed because she couldn't
get an abortion after 7 months (say), and the baby wouldn't
survive anyway, that seems like a pretty Bad Thing.  Or
say the baby would survive but lead a pretty Bad Life;
how bad does it have to be?  These aren't easy questions;
and generally the only people who think they are are people who
aren't directly involved with the actions or consequences.



--


[EMAIL PROTECTED]           http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt