What is the unborn?
This is really the only question that matters in the abortion debate. If the fetus is not human, then abortion is no worse than the necessary euthanasia of unwanted animals at the local Humane Society. If however, the unborn creature is human, then how can its destruction be justified at any point in the pregnancy?
This argument is designed to be passionless, but still incites strong emotions because of the subject matter. But really, if the argument is this simple, why is it fought so vehemently and with so much agitation?
This is not really a matter of choice - at least from a legal perspective. Killing a non-human is not a crime (except sometimes as a civil matter if you kill something that doesn't belong to you, which doesn't apply in this case), and unjustified killing of a human is homicide. This is a simple matter, legally speaking. Extenuating circumstances may lead to differing degrees (1st, 2nd, or 3rd) or qualifications (manslaughter, aggravated, etc.) but it is the crime of homicide(person-killing) nonetheless.
It may be argued that not all humans are persons, but this is the same argument used by Nazis, the KKK, slave-traders, and other racists, sexists, and others throughout history. This doesn't necessarily invalidate the argument, but it certainly puts those who would use it in dangerous company. And in fact, I believe any attempt to define the differences between human and person would be a merely philosophical distinction, whose sole purpose would probably only be to provide different values to each - one higher, one lower. That is a dangerous game to play on any level, and even if the definition is found to be useful, how does one decide the timing? In other words, even if you make the distinction, when does the fetus gain full "personhood?" This question is unknowable through scientific research, as it is a question of metaphysics. Therefore, who gets to make this critical, morally culpable decision?
Currently, that decision is given to the mother, but in no other legal or moral context is that kind of decision allowed without accountability. In fact, it is a crime (negligence and/or conspiracy, depending on context) to act in a way that might injure a person, even if that injury never occurs. But in the case where a "possible" person is certainly killed (abortion), no crime is committed? But more importantly, many view this as morally acceptable?
Hence, the title of my this post...
