From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>I understand but disagree with the arguments that yield the "conservative"
>stance. It seems less a simple inconsistency than a skewed prioritizing
>of the lives of potential beings over existing ones. As for the corollary
>"liberal" inconsistency, notice that the whiff of paradox vanishes if the
>"liberal" permits abortions for both human and nonhuman animals, while
>also pooh-poohing the consumption of either human or nonhuman animals as
>food. Again, existing beings have priority over nonexisting ones. No
>inconsistency at all. Best, Dale
The basic argument is
Most people would go with statement 1, less people with statement 2.
The problem being that it's hard to define when a foetus becomes a person. For instance, my father is a neonatologist specialising in premature babies. I know his NICU has dealt with babies down to 22 weeks gestation and they have survived. This would seem to indicate higher personhood than the ball of 8 cells that they are a teensy bit earlier in their gestation. Only counting people as people when they are born seems a tad arbitrary.