“The Future Of Personhood” Fallacy: Ethics Done Backwards Isn’t Ethical

Ethics backwards is “scihte.”

Scihte, or whatever you want to call it, is on full and vulnerable display in the recent New York Times special section “A Woman’s Rights,” which we already considered at here. There are many ethics issues raised in the series of eight essays, which are thought-provoking and informative. However, as has always been the case in the pro-abortion camp, the effort crashes on the reef of basic ethical reasoning repeatedly, none more messily than in Part 8,  “The Future of Personhood”:

…What if, as many opponents of abortion hope, the court rules that the fetus has “personhood” rights under the Constitution? In that event, all abortions would be illegal — even in states that overwhelmingly support a woman’s right to choose. Wealthy women might travel to other countries for reproductive health care, but poorer women would be left behind.

And the changes to American life would go deeper than that. A society that embraces a legal concept of fetal personhood would necessarily compromise existing ideals of individual freedom. Americans — even many who oppose abortion — have not considered the startling implications of this idea, even as it has steadily gained strength in the law and in social norms. If a fetus is granted equal rights, women who become pregnant may find their most personal decisions coming under state control….

Would a woman who chooses to smoke cigarettes or drink wine during pregnancy be charged with a crime? What if a judge rules, or a police officer believes, she is risking the life of a fetus by, say, climbing a mountain, or riding a roller coaster, or undertaking a humanitarian mission in a war zone? Who will decide whether a pregnant woman diagnosed with cancer may undergo chemotherapy?…

With this, the Times and the pro-abortion movement reveals the intellectual dishonesty and ethical void in its whole approach to the topic. Forget, for now, about what the Court “might decide,” which is typical fearmongering via “future news.” The real question is this: what if, under sound bioethical criteria and based on valid scientific research, it is objectively determined that a fetus IS a person under legal definitions? Then what is the right and ethical policy? I guarantee that it would not mean that women would be forced to carry children to term in all cases, as the dystopian fiction suggested by the Times would require. Such a definitive determination would require a balancing of the rights of the mother, the fetus, and the needs of society, and determining that balance would be extremely difficult and contentious. However, society and the law engages in that balancing process in many areas, and frequently. It’s called government, and it isn’t easy.

Note the approach and orientation above, though. The Times doesn’t say that it will create many conflicts, dilemmas and public policy problems if it turns out that a fetus is a person. The Times says that we must not regard the fetus as a person because it will cause problems if we do. Reality, whatever it is, must be governed by the desired outcome. Fetuses aren’t persons because abortion advocates insist that they can’t be, because giving them rights would harm their interests.

This avoids the usual way serious and honest people, and their societies, approach ethical problems. The starting point is usually “What are the facts?” followed by,” In light of those facts, what is the right thing to do for all concerned?” With abortion, this process is routinely turned upside down and backwards. “What is the result we want?” is the starting point. “How should we frame the facts to justify those results?” is the next step. That’s advocacy, not ethics. That’s scihte.

The parallels between the arguments of pro-abortion advocates and slavery’s defenders before the American Civil War have often been pointed out, though the “Choice” camp hates it, and largely refuses to deal with it. Slavery was morally, ethically and intellectually untenable once blacks were admitted to be human beings no different from whites accept in trivial physical characteristics.  Because that was teh case, the supporters of slavery embraced a false scientific narrative that the race was in fact a lesser, inferior sub-species unfit for equality and an exception to Jefferson’s “All men are created equal.” There were many scholarly essays that argued, in essence,

…What if, as many opponents of slavery hope, the court rules that the Negro has “personhood” rights under the Constitution? In that event,slavery would be illegal — even in states that overwhelmingly support a citizen’s rights to purchase and hold slaves. And the changes to American life would go deeper than that. A society that embraces a legal concept of Negro personhood would necessarily compromise existing ideals of individual freedom. Americans — even many who oppose slavery— have not considered the startling implications of this idea, even as it has steadily gained strength. If Negros are is granted equal rights, whites may find their most personal decisions governed by the opinions and decisions of blacks.

Will blacks be permitted to vote and run for office? Will they be able to marry and procreate with whites?

The obvious conclusion was, therefore, that blacks could not be determined to be fully and equally human because the consequences of that determination were too horrible to contemplate.

This same inside-out logic has always been part of the pro-abortion playbook, and abortion advocates are so inured to it that they no longer recognize its unethical nature. In debates here about abortion policy (here, for example), several commenters adopted the “fetuses aren’t persons because they are not self-aware and sentient” argument. They would respond to the obvious holes in this approach–sleepers? Adults in comas? Non-sentient infants?—by further refining the definitions of “sentience” and “self-awareness,” often using slices so thin that they could not be detected by the naked eye. It was painfully obvious—though not to the abortion defenders—that what was going on was the game “Let’s define persons so it won’t include the unborn and cause problems for women,” and not asking the question “What is a person?” to find an objective answer.

The Times’ intellectual dishonesty on behalf of the abortion movement is possible only because the current state of scientific knowledge makes substituting scihte for ethics simple. However, try this thought exercise. Imagine that technology is perfected that makes a fetus viable after at 12 weeks, and it is discovered that even at that early stage, a fetus has rudimentary awareness of itself and its environment. Would the abortion advocates then accept that fetuses were persons?

Of course not. They would just devise another definition of person that excluded them.

43 thoughts on ““The Future Of Personhood” Fallacy: Ethics Done Backwards Isn’t Ethical

    • My theory is that they are throwing a red herring to distract and outrage the more gullible among pro-life advocates. Such a position is virtually untenable within the US legal tradition (though I have heard a distressing rumor about an infant ‘euthanized’ in Holland….).

      Prompting advocacy against euthanizing unwanted infants has the dual benefit of directing resources from achievable pro-life goals, AND making the advocates look ridiculous!

      • Rich in CT wrote, “My theory is that they are throwing a red herring to distract and outrage the more gullible among pro-life advocates”

        They are throwing it out there to see if it can become mainstream, if it can become more mainstream then they will actively start rationalizing it.

        • It is a rediculous proposition on its face, with no possibility of it becoming main stream in the US. They are utterly deluded if they believe otherwise.

          • Rich in CT wrote, “It is a ridiculous proposition on its face, with no possibility of it becoming main stream in the US. They are utterly deluded if they believe otherwise.”


            Look back at other absurdities that progressives and social justice warriors have been pushing to the forefront of modern society! How about the absolute absurdity that someone is guilty if accused, or the absolute absurdity that emotion trumps critical thinking? The absurd claim that unborn babies are not humans until they’re born is just another in a long line of absurdities that progressives push to the forefront of society to demonize their opposition.

  1. Jack:

    “The real question is this: what if, under sound bioethical criteria and based on valid scientific research, it is objectively determined that a fetus IS a person under legal definitions?”

    That may be the fundamental question, but it is a question that is loaded beyond belief. Some thoughts:

    “What if…”. This is misleading. It suggests something is possible and requires one to consider whether what follows is possible.

    For example, from a logical standpoint, “what if every person on earth could speak English” is formally equivalent to the statement, “what if every hamster on earth could speak English.”

    Formally the same, but, substantively, they are worlds apart. One is possible; the other is not.

    “Sound bioethical criteria.” Bioethics is a human construct. Soundness is a logical concept that measures the criteria. A bioethical criterion could be (or is): “do no harm.” However, that criterion, along with others, could: 1) justify abortions; 2) justify euthanasia; 3) restrict abortions; 4) restrict euthanasia; or 5) any combination between abortion and euthanasia. Soundness depends on the criteria.

    “Valid scientific research.” This is presumably NOT a human construct, especially if it is “objectively determined.” However, it is “objectively determined … under legal definitions.” But, legal definitions are not objective. Valid scientific research may conflict with the legal definitions. You can’t presume they will agree. The analogy with slavery is quite apt, but it kind of begs the question as to whether a fetus will be considered a person; once it is, the dominoes may fall (though some feminist lines of thought rank Liberty of the mother over the Life of the child).

    Now, that I think about it, this all reminds me of a proof by Archimedes where he conceived a right triangle where one side equaled the diameter of the circle and the other side opposite the hypotenuse had the ratio of the first side of pi to 1. I may have the details wrong, but the bottom line was that it was a wonderful proof that presumed such a triangle could be constructed.

    In other words, the trick of the proof is that he operated from the presumption that he could square the circle (though I am pretty sure he knew he was doing that; he did it for purposes of illustration).

    Of course, the circle can’t be squared, but Jack’s question seems to suffer from similar flaws. Law, ethics, and science may line up the same way on some questions, but need not do so.


    • The whole idea of thought experiments is to test opinions and beliefs with hypotheticals that involve the factors that address the holes in them. They don’t have to be possible at all.

      The point is, and remains, that no factors at all, no matter what they proved, almost proved, pointed to or strongly suggested would stop pro-abortion advocates from denying the humanity, personhood, or right to live of the inborn. If you disagree, I’d love to hear why.Quibbling about the hypothetical is ducking the issue.

  2. Always remember, the implications of the value-set of the pro-abortion crowd is that, you will be protected IF you are wanted.

    Eventually it is up to the government to do the protecting and the passionate masses with their fickle sense of who is likable or not deciding who is wanted.

    Good Lord.

  3. I don’t know about ‘scihte’ but I generally do my ethics backwards. Ok you may say that is ‘unethical’, but there is no point in being dishonest.

    I will resist getting involved in any discussion on ‘animal rights’ because I am not prepared to give up my roast pork dinner. I don’t therefore care whether you have data proving your porker has a consciousness of his inherent piggyness : I suspect you want to drive me to a beetroot salad and I’m not going.

    I think It is useful for us all to consider what we are prepared to ‘pay’. So when you’ve established how you can ‘grow’ my roast pork dinner without killing a pig, I’ll reconsider my position, but my trial dinner out of your cell factory better taste good.

    Not having a ‘God’ or holy writ, my ethics has to be pragmatic. Ethics are about the rules around the hive, and our hive can’t work without considerable consensus. Otherwise we all die. If you want different, go start your own hive.

    My core working rule is ‘Do as you would be done by’, which is clearly self serving for those intending, like me, to continue in the hive. It doesn’t appeal much for the abortion debate: I wasn’t aborted and I’m not at all clear what my attitude would have been if I had been. (I missed that philosophy class.)

    As per my attachment to my roast pork dinners, I am also deeply committed to my granddaughters. I’m pretty sure I’d support them in whatever they wanted to do. I don’t think you can ‘buy’ me out of that one.

    • But you are just demonstrating your resolution of an ethical dilemma, where non-ethical considerations–yum yum!—are weighed as more important to you than ethical ones. That’s an honest and ethical decision-making method. If you were practicing backwards ethics, you’d falsely validate your choice by defining animals as food for humans first and living creatures second, thus excusing your dining choice.

  4. It’s a mess and there are aspects of both sides I agree with. There are extreme conditions in both sides I detest. I think it’s going to stay a mess until something else enters the equation that today is only in the realms of SF, like a truly perfect birth control so people only become parents when they want to be, or a baby can be beamed out to an incubator if a mother doesn’t want or can’t safely give birth.

    • That only works IF people take the birth control which, outside of cases of rape and/or incest, seems to be an issue for a lot of people apparently. Cost shouldn’t be a factor because clinics provide it for free or low cost to lower income persons. Obama passed the bill for workplaces having to provide it whether it goes against their beliefs (i.e Hobby Lobby) or not and if I’m not mistaken the Supreme Court recently ruled to keep that in effect. So, it’s a matter of people just not taking it in the first place and a perfect one won’t help unless they do.

      Sadly I think abortion is far too often used as a form of birth control when someone isn’t responsible to begin with. There’s the morning after pill too. If someone thinks there’s a possibility they could have became pregnant, why not that option.

      • Abortion is too often last ditch result of a lack of planning on both ‘parents’ parts, with the physical and emotional costs hitting women more. I personally do not like its free use in place of fertilization prevenatives. but the costs when it was illegal I don’t like either. Rape, incest, along with certain identified medical issues should be allowed too. I don’t believe anything is 100% aside from total abstinence, med interactions weren’t always known. I maintain it is messy and necessarily incomplete with today’s society and technology.

    • It’s a mess

      This is a rationalization. The real world is inherently messing. Ethics is the art of navigating this mess. Pointing out that it is a mess is usually only done to destract from the lack of effort to minimize the ethical damage.

      I am reminded of the Brett Kavenough hearings. The Democrats wanted the public to believe it was, to put it technically, a “shitshow”, because this would imply equal blame on both sides. Instead, it was a”circus”, a carefully coordinated act to destroy Kavenough for banal political gain. A shitshow is messy, thereby excusing the Democrats from their conduct.

      Messiness does not excuse unethical conduct; ethics provides the tools to navigate “messy” situations.

  5. I am willing to discuss whether or not to bring more unwanted children into this world once we figure out the solution to the existing epidemic of unwanted, neglected, undernourished, and poorly educated children in this country. Lack of adequate medical care — especially for mental illness and spectrum disorders — also needs to be considered.

    “On any given day, there are nearly 438,000 children in foster care in the United States. In 2016, over 687,000 children spent time in U.S. foster care. On average, children remain in state care for nearly two years and six percent of children in foster care have languished there for five or more years.” https://www.childrensrights.org/newsroom/fact-sheets/foster-care/

    “In 2016, the federal poverty level was $24,300 for a family of four.
    Tragically, a huge number of Americans fall below this line. Over 40 million people (almost 13% of all Americans) lived in poverty in 2016. Of that number, 13 million were children. Of course, this number is a minimum. Families making twice that much are still considered low-income by most experts, and likely struggle to make ends meet.” https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts

    • As the parent of wonderful, brave and independent young man who was an abandoned, institutionalized, under-nourished and unwanted infant in Russia, I have an obvious bias on this topic. The odds of him being adopted were dauntingly low, and orphans in Russia were dumped out into the street as soon as they hit 18.

      Should I ask him if he wishes he were aborted to spare him the pain of life? I will if you think it will support your position.

      • Well, to quote you, “Bias makes you stupid.” We too have a life that was saved in our family. But we couldn’t save all of them, and neither could you. Until we get this under control, it is irresponsible and illogical to create an even larger problem. In any event, our positions do not contradict each other. No one is forcing people to get abortions. You would still have been able to adopt your son.

            • That a shot at life is better than no life at all? Every living person has that bias, except those trying to justify robbing someone else of that shot for their own, or a third party’s benefit. I know you are conflicted on this issue, and that means you avoid the dishonesty the Times exhibits, but you’tr digging a hole of your own. If the justification for killing the unborn isn’t “it’s just a wart,” “its’ not really alive,” “it’s a parasite,” “it’s not human,” or “It can’t think for another few weeks, so it doesn’t count,” but instead, “It’s not wanted,” then there’s no reason not to kill born infants, or born toddlers, or hell, teenagers on the same basis. Then you’re arguing for justifiable homicide, and the humanity of the victim has nothing to do with it.

              • I have said repeatedly here that abortion — in my view — is more akin to justifiable homicide.

                As for the life that was saved in my family, she started out as a pro-lifer but changed her position to pro-choice in her twenties. That was challenging for her, for the same reasons you articulated above.

                    • Jack Marshall wrote, “It is honest…

                      Sure it’s honest, brutally honest, and should inspire everyone to think critically about the statement, that’s what I did after I read it yesterday evening, and the result of that critical thinking should be an equally brutally honest scornful retort about the underlying lack of morality contained within the statement.

                      In my opinion a justifiable homicide is a homicide that can be justified if there is sufficient evidence to prove that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life of another, in other words, self-defense. In the case of abortion the offending party is an unborn human child doing nothing but growing, generally speaking, that unborn child is innocent of posing an imminent threat to anyone life. So without bastardizing the definition of life, as pro-abortion advocates constantly try to do, how is an unborn child an imminent threat to the life of another therefore justifying a homicide. Still Spartan’s agrees that abortion is a homicide only it’s squeezed into an ever broadening bastardized interpretation of justifiable homicide?

                      That said; I’m absolutely positive that there have been and will continue to be be actual instances where there’s reasonable proof that the mother will be killed if a pregnancy continues or continues through to giving birth but applying that “justifiable homicide” across the board to all abortions to justify killing an inconvenient innocent unborn human being, the offending party, is morally bankrupt.

                      It is my critically thinking opinion that the statement “abortion — in my view — is more akin to justifiable homicide” is morally bankrupt.

                  • It is not for us — and more importantly not for the State — to question when it is justified and why, beyond the viability of the fetus of course. We can only continue to educate both genders on the importance of birth control and family planning, and hope that they make the right decisions so that abortion rates continue to decline. I also think free birth control should be available to anyone who wants it. The cost of preventing pregnancies is a fraction of the cost of increasing assistance payments.

                    I will add that I do have numerous friends who became pregnant while on long term birth control — IUDs, implants, husbands had vasectomies that did not work, etc. Most of those friends kept their babies, but a few did not for a variety of reasons — financial, husband refused to have another child, age of the mother, etc. I mention this only because I think most people imagine young people having unprotected sex and getting pregnant, but there are many reasons why people seek abortions.

                    But I digress. As I said in my initial point, until we make a dent in the epidemic of unwanted, neglected, and malnourished children in this country, I am not willing to engage in a debate that will further impoverish our most vulnerable demographic.

    • Still Spartan wrote, “I am willing to discuss whether or not to bring more unwanted children into this world once we figure out the solution to the existing epidemic of unwanted, neglected, undernourished, and poorly educated children in this country.”


      That sounds a little like the border security “logic” I’ve been hearing. I won’t discuss promoting the use of a condom (wall) to prevent unwanted children (illegal immigration), let’s just endlessly argue about the problem and do nothing to change it.

      Spartan do you seriously not see anything wrong with your approach of refusing to discuss the real problem while the consequences of the real problem is actively getting worse every single day?

        • Still Spartan wrote, “You’re wrong on the numbers. Abortion rates have been going steadily down for the last decade.”

          I didn’t quote any numbers I simply said “worse”. I see based on the numbers I just looked up that you’re not completely accurate that it’s steady but correct that the number of abortions have gone down in the last decade.

          SOURCE: https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/health/abortion-fast-facts/index.html

          2008 Abortions roughly 825,564
          2018 Abortions roughly 567,896 (based on average decrease per year)
          Decrease of 257,668 (based on average decrease per year)

          The problem is that there were still roughly 568,000 abortion homicides (your word) in 2018 that are immorally “justified” and I’m guessing that a HUGE percentage of those had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the unborn human being posing an imminent threat to the life of the mother.

          At will abortion is literally an imminent threat to the lives of unborn human beings. If those unprotected by law 567,896 unborn human beings had the physical ability to protect themselves against imminent death by using a weapon to kill the person that is going to physically kill them (abortion doctor) it would be justifiable homicide. I bet the unborn human beings would choose life over death.

          • The point is that they continue to decline. I hope that we reach the point where the only abortions are due to extreme circumstances, but we’re not there yet. Save your energy for the children who are alive and suffering now, before you create millions more unwanted and neglected children.

            • Still Spartan wrong, “I hope that we reach the point where the only abortions are due to extreme circumstances”

              That’s a reasonable goal. How do you propose we get there?

              Still Spartan wrong, “Save your energy for the children who are alive and suffering now, before you create millions more unwanted and neglected children.”

              Is ignoring the problem how we fix it?

              Knowingly allow preventable homicides against human beings within the United States to continue just because there are some others human beings that are unwanted and neglected? Interesting but immoral I think.

              I’m being completely serious here; don’t you see the terrible cost of life that you’re basically ignoring? I know it’s a lot of human lives to add to the population but that’s the point, we are knowingly allowing those human lives to be destroyed.

              Let’s compare this to ongoing current events. If 567,896 illegal immigrants were knowingly killed 2018 and those homicides were ignored because they were inconvenient intrusions into others lives, expensive for individuals and/or society to take care of, causes lots of lost sleep, or simply unwanted and you knew that another roughly equal number would be killed in 2019, would you honestly be promoting to ignore those deaths saying save your energy for the illegal immigrants that are here and haven’t been taken care of yet?

              Spartan, The use of our intellect is not limited to only victims that we can touch and/or those that we can publicly use to jerk tears from the public by plastering their photos and videos in emotional propaganda like viral kitten and puppy videos. Why the hell can’t we actively do something to curb all the unwanted pregnancies and take care of the “children who are alive and suffering now”. By the way, that statement I just quoted is hypocritical emotional propaganda and unethically rationalizing that unborn human beings are not human beings worthy of protection because they are not born yet. Why Spartan, why can’t we do both and do it better than we’re doing now?

            • Still Spartan wrote, “Save your energy for the children who are alive…”

              Something about that statement just sunk in. Whether you intended to do so or not, you implied that unborn children are not alive.

              You stated quite clearly that your view is that an abortion is “akin to justifiable homicide”; a homicide means that a human life has been ended, killed, murdered, snuffed out, whatever you want to call it. Now you imply that unborn human beings are not alive? I sounds to me that you may be a bit confused and you may not know it. You can’t kill (homicide) anything unless life exist, so that leads me to believe that you (like so many abortion advocates) don’t understand what life is. You might have missed this one; please read the information about what is life contained in this blog post; there’s also a lengthy discussion thread that you weren’t part of.

              Does not thinking about unborn human beings as alive make it easier to publicly and privately rationalize away and ignore their deaths?

              The answer is yes.

              A little more on the numbers above. That 567,896 abortions per year number I used above in 2018 calculates to an average of 1,556 abortions a day in the United States, again that’s 1,556 per day, which in-turn calculates to about one utterly defenseless human life being intentionally ended every minute of every day. I’ve seen and heard massive outcry from the political left when a single illegal immigrant child, a human being, dies of some illness while in the custody of ICE but I see and hear absolutely no outcry to an average of 1,500+ human beings that are intentionally put to death every day, most of which are just because they are unwanted. This is legalized genocide (the deliberate killing of a large group of human beings) of over 500,000 human beings every year that likely could have been prevented by a “wall” (condom) and you want to basically ignore the homicides and save our energy for other human beings who are somehow more deserving.

              The political left is all about using emotional driven words to smear those they oppose; there are words to smear those that are intolerant of other races, those that are intolerant of other genders, those that are intolerant of others choices of sexual preference, those that are intolerant of others opinions, etc, etc.; why don’t we have an emotional driven smear word for those that are so intolerant of unborn human beings that they take their intolerance to the ultimate extreme of homicide? How about murderous fetusphobia.

              Abortion is legalized premeditated killing of one human being by another; supporting abortion is morally bankrupt.

  6. You’ve highlighted something something I’ve had trouble articulating in the past. In the most fruitful life debates I’ve ever been party to, the opponent somehow shuffles the burden of proof onto me regarding the life and humanity of the fetus (Latin: offspring) thinking they’ll be able to use nihilist trickery to keep me away from an obvious conclusion. They expect, however, to hear a passionate assertion of a religious dogma that life begins at conception – as though a quaint Pope promulgated infallibly on this topic in the Middle Ages before we knew about nucleic acid chains and ultrasonic imaging and that modern science paints a more complex picture prone to various interpretations. Contrary to how this is portrayed popularly, the ‘act’ has been interpreted differently through history due to limited knowledge, being universally condemned as either child murder per se or a particularly odious form of contraception depending on whether signs of life were detectable or the state of human developmental theory at the time in question. The firm religious belief in play was always that it is morally objectionable to take an innocent human life. Thus, the modern framing is an artful dodge. Providing this true framework and the plain reality that modern doodads make the Biological status of ‘alive’ and ‘human’ non-debatable, the conclusion simply follows the now crystallized premises. No matter how amazed or horrified my hearers are at these things, I can still catch them parroting the same position in other rooms when they believe I’m not in earshot. We can front some non-biological arbitrary position about when we ‘call’ someone human, but everyone – including the ones fronting them – know with full knowledge that this is an ad hoc rationalization. Vast segments of the human population are unwilling to have honest discussions about what they think because they’re afraid they might have to think something else. This is simply the nature of everything wrong with human societies. We have the freedom to simply call anything we want good or evil and have been temporarily shielded from the constantly-amassing consequences. A civilization rises with the determination to pursue the plain truth and falls by eschewing those truths after the hard-won benefits of previous generations make presumption of prosperity a standard position. The pattern continues, and the cycle repeats. Those of us that see it will have to live in the midst of the same consequences as those who don’t.

    Bitterness is an easy response, but it’ll have no more productive an effect on our inevitable future than having a glass of cognac. We should play a dignified piece as the ship sinks. Maybe dignity and grace will be a better argument than an argument. I’m pointing the muzzle of this one at myself, should anyone think I’m lecturing him. I’ll think it out loud, though, should the inescapable conclusions haunt anyone else as much as they do me. Should we accept good from God and not adversity?

  7. There is no smokescreen now. Under New York law, it now appears that as the baby is being born, you can decide to abort it. At that instant, the doctor can grab the infant and pull it out a person, or stab it in the head and suck its brains out. A woman’s choice. The governor of Virginia just stated that if the baby is born alive, but the mother wants to abort it, she can consult with the doctors and they can decide to terminate the infant. The ‘its not a person’ argument is a mystery religion, insisting the person’s soul enters the body the instant the umbilical cord is cut, but before that, the fetus is just a blob of cells.

    • The governor of Virginia just stated that if the baby is born alive, but the mother wants to abort it, she can consult with the doctors and they can decide to terminate the infant.

      I am disgusted, if better informed.

      Thanks. I think.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.