Since I have been thinking about it, off and on, for nearly 30 years, it is unlikely that I will change much at this point....
The zygote is a human organism. Whether or not it is a person, or what constitutes personhood, is too speculative to serve as the criterion. For example, an infant has no real consciousness, but a mere sensory flux, and is incapable of deliberation and moral choice. Does that mean it is deficient in "personhood", and therefore fair game for destruction? A comatose patient has no effective consciousness, although there may be residual sentience, in the sense that he is capable of responding to stimuli, and may be able to dream somewhat. Yet we do not even begin to contemplate abandoning him unless his condition is hopeless. No, the only relevant criterion is whether or not it is a human organism, however undeveloped. However, because it may be harder to see than when the child is, say, 5 months, I would make a concession to the "controversiality" and be lenient. In other words, I do not care if it is a "person", only that it is a human being......
I didn't really say anything about shame, although I suppose it could be extrapolated. I am supposing that one would wish not to do this (abort), but that exigencies might arise, and cause one to do it. I am not supposing that there is a necessary stigma, merely that it is always viewed as regrettable........I will review my post to refresh myself on exactly what I said..... |
