Dear Editor,
I wish to provide some perspective on the article written, entitled “Reasons to think a human fetus is a person” by Tom Oberle. Mr. Oberle has expressed many valid points within this piece that I would like to address. Now, I am not one to protest the rights or wrongs against abortion, or to discriminate against those who have chosen to have taken part in one. I am just trying to set some facts straight based on my understanding of this situation. You mentioned that as a fact you can legally abort a child while it is three months old, but it is shamed upon to abort a newborn child. Which is where the question is raised, what really is the difference between the two? Based on the knowledge that I have received while attending Catholic schools throughout my life, I have learned that at the moment of conception is where a fetus becomes a person. From that moment on, that child is looked at no longer as an egg and sperm cell, but as a human being. You say that the fetus is constantly changing throughout the womb, where as a newborn has all of the necessary components to be considered a human and no longer has to go through these physical changes. That is where you have over looked some minor details. As a newborn you are physically put together, but without the help from our mothers and family members we would never be able to become the human beings we are. We are constantly going through changes, from the moment we become fetus to the moment we pass away. Try looking at the bigger picture in the future, in this situation, from the start until the end of life. Life is constantly changing and so are human beings, and so will future fetuses of this generation.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Zordan
Student
University of Guelph
Stephanie, thank-you for engaging with my article.
A few points: My argument is that a new born child, lets say from the moment it is born to a few months old, is considered a person, legally and morally. What I mean by this, is that that new born child has moral status, i.e. to kill, harm, or abuse that child would be a morally wrong action, and would be condemned under Canadian law. I know some people argue for abortion after birth, known as infanticide, but I think it’s pretty clear such a practice is atrocious.
Now, if a new born is a person, and roughly six months earlier it was not, what accounts for this change? What is it that occurs during gestation that makes that fetus a moral person once it leaves the womb? If you refer back to my paper, I argued nothing physical can account for this.
I am not defining personhood by how we grow, mature, acquire beliefs, knowledge of culture, as influenced by the people around us. As you have correctly pointed out, these things turn us into the people we are now, but my analysis of personhood is much more fundamental. What IS a person? How do we define personhood? When does it begin? Hopefully that clarifies my position a bit.
Cheers
Ps. I meant that after-ablrtion or infanticide would be a morally reprehensible act if it was practiced for the same reasons that most abortions occur. But as far as I know it is only done in extremely rare health cases. I think there may be some very rare cases when abortion or after abortion is ethical. So I apologize for that hasty comment.