| You are right, of course, Derek, but, on the other hand, the more it looks like a baby, the harder it is to pretend it is not. And, of course, a baby is not, in any meaningful sense, a person, although it is accorded legal protection once born. There is no real distinction between a third trimester fetus and a baby, except that one is in the womb, and the other is out. The real question is, is there a significant enough distinction between a fetus at an earlier stage and a baby to extinguish claims of infancy, albeit at less developed stages? If there is an infant from the start (conception, presumably), then what basis do we have to deny protection to the infant in the womb, but accord it to the infant outside the womb? If there is not an infant, what is the salient cut- off? And even if there were a salient cut off, do we want to encourage careless about human life (since it is, at least, a human organism), or do we want to preserve a sense of reverence that would at least mandate a more restrictive abortion regime? |
