abortion

[Gordon Fitch]

C. G. Estabrook:
> ... 
> Most arguments that hold abortion to be an ethically-acceptable choice
> depend on the assertion that a fetus is not a fully human person, and
> therefore the rules about killing human beings (e.g., that killing can be
> justified in cases of self-defense) simply don't apply to the argument.
> (It's true that some recent defenses of abortion have begun from the
> premise that abortion means killing a human being; as the defender of
> civil liberties Nat Hentoff puts it, it's finally hard to deny that "it's
> a baby.")  Physical dependency -- the fact that the fetus depends on its
> mother's body -- is often, curiously enough, alleged as an indication of
> the less-than-full humanity of the unborn.
> ...

Regardless of its status, the fetus can be construed as an
unwanted invader of another's body over which it has no rights.
This position actually reflects the idea that the carrier of
the fetus _has_ rights, so it may be a shocking approach.

The focus on the fetus, whether on the part of anti-abortionists
or of those who argue that the fetus has not achieved humanity,
operates to cast the carrier into the background as a sort of
dark, undifferentiated matrix whose will and interests are of
no great account; hence the contempt sometimes uttered about
"lifestyle" abortions.  I suggest that this backgrounding,
which usually arises from misogyny, not be accepted.

-- Gordon