Your historical account is bogus. It is true that custom varied widely in various times and places, but in many places, the child in the womb was regarded as living, and the only issue was how soon it was "quickened". In any event, it is obviously arbitrary to have removal from the womb as the standard for life, since the only difference between the child prior to birth and after birth is the life support system. That automatically raises the question of where the line is drawn pre- birth. Since the same organism, in different stages of development, exists from conception, I find it hard to draw a line later than conception. Suppose the matter were doubtful, though. Let me ask you, if there were a button that you could push where there was a 25% chance that you would be killing a baby, would it be moral to push it (we are abstracting from justificatory considerations)? No, in and of itself, it would not be. It is no more moral, even if the line between mass of cells and baby is controversial, to abort, with certain carved out exceptions, like grave risk to the life of the mother.
Should we mandate abortion when we consider the parents unfit? Plenty of people have flourished in the face of difficult circumstances. Saying that they would be better off dead if they are not born inton ideal circumstances, or even implying it, is revolting...... |
