Because it’s that special Roe v. Wade anniversary time of year . . .
I once heard somebody refer to “a vegetarian pro-choicer” as a contradiction in terms. At the time, I chuckled appreciatively, since it made sense to me; how could you feel concerned over the lost lives of chickens, but not unborn human children? Since then, however, I’ve come to appreciate that there’s no contradiction there at all. In fact, I would argue that it is logically inconsistent for a pro-choice individual to not be vegetarian, or indeed fail to show what most of us would consider an inordinate concern for animal welfare.
In general, the pro-life stance is based on the idea that fetuses (and possibly embryos, blastocysts, etc., depending how one defines “pro-life”) are human and thus worthy of protection. In turn, the typical retort from the pro-choice side is that, while a fetus may be human, it has not acquired personhood prior to one particular point in development. There are other arguments–Post-Abortion Syndrome, the “famous violinist”–but these are largely peripheral.
Let us suppose that personhood is definitely acquired by the time of birth (again, I have read arguments to the effect that infanticide is morally permissible, but that’s thankfully a fringe position). The notion of personhood, in this context, is usually contingent on the entity in question having reached a certain level of mental sophistication–it has a mind, and is therefore a real person. So, the intellectual level of a newborn is definitely enough to make you a person. Continue reading