Considering the legal framework for abortion

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Until we have encountered another specie considered just as smart as humans, we haven't really tried out moral dilemmas like that. I think the moral equation would have a different perspective then; and that's why I seek out creatures of similar intellectual capacity as foetus. It is what an abortion kills, only that it is part of the same specie as us.

Btw, 'eating' here implies 'killed'. What you do with the dead cow is not important in this aspect..

Well, a newborn has significantly lower mental abilities than a puppy, so I don't think there's a lot of milage in your attampt at analogy I'm afraid.

When did establishing a legal framework become a chance to throw morals and moralistic blackmail around?

Well, while we should not "legislate morality" in the sense that we should not tell people what to think our legislation should still be morallly robust.

PVC mentions brain activity and this seems to me a more relevant criterion, although given his pro-life premise I suspect he is may partly be using it as a debating point to constrain pro-choice advocates. I think there is an analogy here with the animal rights, another case where we consider the moral value of beings that are not as developed as ourselves in certain respects[2]. Whether a being can feel pain is relevant if we are considering an act that may harm them. The case of using anaesthetic in later abortions seems prima facie overwhelming. But for killing, rather than hurting, I would look at their capability for feeling pleasure and the value of their experiences. I know people talk of the unborn responding to music, their parents' voices and since newborns experience pleasure at feeding, can expect some later fetuses may also enjoy basic pleasures. Consequently, I think one can make case for regarding the unborn, at least beyond some stage of development, as having lives of some moral value that ought to be protected. Quite how many weeks this would be, I don't know but suspect it lies somewhere in the range from PVCs 12 weeks to BGs 24 weeks. Consequently, as I say, I incline to support BG and PVCs conclusions, albeit starting from a very different premise.

[1]I know that as potential parent one might be very grieved by this.
[2]I write that as a vegetarian.

For the record, I am not utterly convinced that it is an "ensouled", to use the Christian term, human being at conception, but as we don't know I would much rather err on the side of extreme caution.

[Viking]

Well, a newborn has significantly lower mental abilities than a puppy, so I don't think there's a lot of milage in your attampt at analogy I'm afraid.

It's a bit more than just an analogy. If animals were robots, we would have no moral responsibilities when it came to them - that would be absurd. The reason why carry moral responsibilities when it comes to animals, is because they have some sort of self-awareness (but how much? who knows).

A humanist point of view might say that all humans regardless of mental state should be granted the exact same rights, because they are humans. But I am by no means any humanist, so I seek no such position (by itself, anyhow; important point to be made)

I am sure you know that killing newborns is not viewed today as it was e.g. a millennium ago, in many (most?) places; so this is a moral view that is highly dependent on culture. Yes, obviously, a newborn would not score high by itself on the moraleometer, but there are other things to consider that could render killing a newborn illegal/immoral, regardless (as I explained wrt. abortion). But that is a different debate - you will for instance find that a newborn is sort of 'fully developed', while a foetus might not even as much as look like a human, depending on how far it has come.