"Ah," the pro-choicer might say, "but the fetus is not a person." But on what will you base personhood if not on one's fundamental human nature? As the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform points out, "If personhood is not recognized based on one's human nature [�] then it becomes a subjective notion based on the functions of one human being or on the feelings of another."
Slavery is a case in point: slaves were denied recognition as persons because they were different from those whose views were being enforced. But personhood does not depend on whether you are black or white, tall or short, more or less developed, more or less able to perform certain biological functions, but on the fact that you are a human being. Why should this standard not be applied to the unborn child?
Ultimately, the pro-choice position lacks intellectual rigour. Pushed to its logical limits, pro-choice arguments must conclude that even innocent persons can sometimes be killed for the convenience of others. Pro-life advocates see this as an extremely frightening worldview, since [b]it bases a human being's right to life on a merely functional view of personhood.[/b]
source.
_________________________
Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator
_________________________
