The argument made for abortion for years has been that human life doesn't start til birth. The next step in that argument is in defining conscienous. So argues Peter Singer, in an August 2007 editorial:
Opponents of abortion think there is a very compelling reason for
denying freedom in these circumstances. They regard abortion as murder.
Killing an embryo or fetus, they say, takes an innocent human life.
Defenders of a woman's right to choose sometimes challenge this
claim. They deny that the embryo or fetus is a human life. The abortion
debate then focuses on the question, "When does a human life begin?"
I
think this is the wrong question to ask. In a strictly biological
sense, the opponents of abortion are right to say that abortion ends a
human life.
When a woman has an abortion, the fetus is
alive, and it is undoubtedly human – in the sense that it is a member
of the species homo sapiens. It isn't a dog or a chimpanzee.
But
mere membership of our species doesn't settle the moral issue of
whether it is wrong to end a life. As long as the abortion is carried
out at less than 20 weeks of gestation – as almost all abortions are –
the brain of the fetus has not developed to the point of making
consciousness possible.
So, according to Peter Singer, being conscious is the new definition of a worthiness to live. We are now placing ourselves at the same level with all other animals and plants. Even to the point that now, in Spain, apes will be extended rights along side their human counterparts. Another move that has Peter Singer's backing.
(HT: World on the Web)
-Colonel Steve
Recent Comments