For years, pro-life apologists who defend the value of human life from conception to death, have pointed out an inconsistency. What’s the difference, we’ve asked, between a child before birth and after birth other than size and location? It’s the same DNA, same dependency on others, same potential hardship on the mother. A trip down the birth canal doesn’t make any difference.
We were trying to point out that if babies outside the womb deserve protection, so do babies in the womb. But two Australian ethicists argued the opposite last week in the Journal of Medical Ethics. They claim that neither fetuses nor newborns have moral status as actual persons and thus both pre and post-birth abortions are justified in certain circumstances.
They’re not the first ones to suggest this, and now they claim they were only making a bioethical and not a legal argument. Perhaps, but arguments are like cats: they’re hard to get back in the bag once they’re out and you can’t always predict where they will end up. For thePointRadio.org, I’m John Stonestreet.