If The Foetus Is Not A Person, Does It Follow That Abortion Is Morally

If The Foetus Is Not A Person, Does It Follow That Abortion Is Morally Neutral? One reason the debate about abortion goes nowhere is that each side focuses on a different topic. We make no progress because we are not talking about the same thing. The pro-abortionist focuses on a woman's rights and life, and the anti-abortionist focuses on a foetus' rights, and protecting its life. There is actually much agreement between the opposing views. Most on both sides would agree that the life of a child is a precious thing that deserves full protection of the law. There might be nearly universal agreement that it is a woman's exclusive right to make decisions concerning her body. So where's the disagreement? The entire complex issue comes down to these questions: Is the foetus a person? If so, is it always a person, or does it somehow become one (and when and how might this happen)? If not, does it follow that abortion is morally neutral? 'person, n. an individual human being: the outward appearance, living body (exclusive or inclusive of clothing) of a human being' What is a foetus if it is not a person? It is not simply a bunch of cells of the mother's body, for what identifies the mother's cells is their DNA, and this bunch of cells doesn't share that DNA content. If it is not a bunch of the mother's cells, then what is it? It is a new organism, because it contains a completely original set of DNA, and it is simply called a foetus. Animals , plants, and single cells are all alive, but not people. If we work from the premise that the foetus is not, in fact, a person, we have to consider the value of life when it is not that of a human being, and then decide what value we give to the life of a foetus. The moral weighting of abortion must be based on that value. Is killing an animal morally neutral? Many people strongly disagree. If someone were to murder your dog for the sheer fun of it, that person would be considered sick in the mind; if you accidentally killed your poor hamster, you would probably feel pretty terrible; animal rights organisations fight to raise awareness of animal suffering. These indicate that although these animals obviously aren't persons, they nevertheless are alive, and the emotions attached to their death indicate that we hold some sort of respect for life other than that of a person. Is killing a plant morally neutral? Most people would probably think so. If you go out into your garden and pick some flowers to give to your mother, few people would consider you sick in the mind; if you accidentally stepped on a pretty flower whilst out walking in the forest, you might be sorry because you have destroyed something that was beautiful, but you're unlikely to agonise over it. Yes, there are societies that work to protect plant-life, but their motive is different than that of animal rights organisations - they are not trying to raise awareness of plant rights, or how much plants suffer, but rather of the danger of extinction of species of plants. Research is being done in an attempt to find out whether or not plants feel pain, but generally this isn't taken particularly seriously because we hold a different attitude towards the lives of plants than we do towards those of animals or people. Is killing a cell morally neutral? We tend to think so. If you scratch your arm, I don't think anyone would consider you sick in the mind; if you accidentally bump the side of a table, you are extremely unlikely to worry about the cells you have just killed. There are no organisations fighting for a cell's right to life, or trying to raise awareness of a cell's suffering. This seems absurd, because we hold little or no respect for the life of a cell. Animals, plants, and cells all scientifically classify as living. What is it that makes us have such a different attitude towards animal life than towards plant and cell life? The obvious difference that distinguishes animals from plants and single cells is