It’s always a little strange what articles sometimes come up together. Today, I read both this and this. In the first, a British millionaire is accused of trying to cause his wife to miscarry with abortion drugs. In the second, a woman gave birth to a baby almost as tall as she is, in spite of being encouraged to abort by her doctors.
You might think it suspicious that the millionaire is being tried for his crime, considering abortion is legal. After all, how can we, on the one hand, allow women to kill their own unborn children, but call it a crime when someone else tries to do the same thing. The illogic is inherent in pro-abortion ideas, but it’s really not based on the status (human or non-human) of the baby. Rather, it really has to do with the desire of the woman. If she wants it, then killing it is wrong. If she doesn’t want it, killing it is okay.
Therein lies the problem for those who think murder is wrong in itself. We see the stupidity of such laws because we hold that murdering a human being, precisely because he or she is human, is always wrong. On the other hand, the pro-murder faction recognizes personhood based on some criteria other than whether a human simply belongs to the human family. But defining who belongs as a person and who does not will never be a successful enterprise for the bare fact that, despite even the best philosophical try, no definition of personhood that I have seen has yet been able to say why it is wrong to kill old people in nursing homes, or anyone in a coma, or your own grandmother when you tire of paying her bills. The current definitions of person, like the Nazi ones, sound eerily like the self-definition of the definer. The only question that needs to be asked is, who gets to draw the boundary lines of who is and is not a person? If it’s Ann Coulter, the Democrats are out of luck. Totalitarianism is only good as long as its my totality that reigns.