Here is the lede from the above-title article by Akhil Rajasekar about the logic of abortion supporters:
While both camps make their fair share of arguments, their reluctance to directly engage the other side makes it unlikely that society will progress towards a better understanding of this highly divisive issue.
Here is the first pull-quote used:
If biological development can be used to arbitrarily determine how human one is and how deserving of rights, why can’t any other parameter be substituted?
Here is an excerpt from this interesting article by Rajasekar at The Federalist — this, he begins this section by saying, is his “central question”:
[I]f a movement can devalue humans on the basis of biological development, why can others not do so on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, disability, race, ethnicity, or national origin?
This question applies just as well to arguments that seek to make bold rational strides but fall disastrously short. Take, for instance, what Smith at First Things calls “a blunt premise” by Mary Elizabeth Williams at Salon: “All life is not equal…A fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”
This is as morally decrepit and rationally inconsistent a concept as it is bold. Cross-apply her reasoning to a situation from the 1830s, and you get this: “A black person can be a human life without having the same rights as the man on whose plantation he resides. He’s the boss. The owner’s life and what is right for his economic circumstances and his health should automatically trump the rights of the inferior entity on his land. Always.”
Now apply this reasoning to the other parameters above and one will quickly notice how well Williams’ logic can be rationally extended to justify just about every moral atrocity in human history. This is the sort of moral poverty we embrace when human life is qualified by artificial factors and not afforded independent, freestanding respect.
Read more: The Federalist
Image credit: www.thefederalist.com.