a false dichotomy relying on the assumption (and it is one) that intrinsic qualities of the individual infant are the only things to take into consideration. other things involved are
-the effect on the mother (not just on her health, which is less contentious, but on her "freedom"; ie. freedom to not have a baby in her belly)
-relationships forged with outside world
-status as dependent/independent
...etc
it's also a false dichotomy on the assumption that birth and abortion-via-foetus-killing are the only options
one compromise is to say a woman may elect to have a foetus removed from her at any point, but can't decide to
kill it (in other words she can have it yanked out whenever she wants, but
if it can be kept alive by other means
then it must be)
to respond to the question posed at the top of this post -- i would say that the real relevant difference between a baby and a foetus (and a crab, for that matter) is its connection and importance to
persons. i'm not saying i've solved it, but it's the best answer i have.
edit: on topic, the biggest shame in this story is that it will probably used to negatively paint abortion by anti-abortionist assholes.
Bookmarks