According to this article, a paper has argued that “newborn
babies are not ‘actual persons’ and do not have a ‘moral right to life’”. Their
line of argument appears to be that babies are not appreciably different from foetuses,
and therefore since it is acceptable to abort foetuses, it is similarly morally
acceptable to kill babies.
The argument is interesting, though not particularly novel.
Often there is no clear distinction between a state where an action is morally tolerable,
and another state where the same action is clearly immoral. At what point does
a baby acquire sufficient relevant properties such that becomes a human
(which is immoral for us to terminate)?
However, I think that there are morally relevant
characteristics between a baby and a foetus. Consider the “bodily rights”
argument, where the right to abort is justified by the mother’s rights over her
body; the foetus does not have a right to force the mother to carry it.
However, we should note that this particular argument does not apply to
the baby! The right to abortion should not be interpreted as the right to kill
the foetus; the death of the foetus occurs as an undesirable side-effect. Therefore,
a strict equivalence would not be to kill a baby, but instead to leave it
unattended (and presumably perish).
However, one important distinction still exists. Most people
find the death of the foetus to be regrettable, even those in support of
abortion. The key is that abortion inevitably results in the death of the
foetus. Abortion may be morally justifiable if the rights of the woman to her
body are adjudged to be of greater importance than the foetus’ right to life. In
the case of an infant, though, no such counterbalancing right exists to justify
the taking of the infant’s right to life.
No comments:
Post a Comment