Reply #172: A few more questions

[southerngirlwriter]

1. Why does that example cause "revulsion" ??

You are an advocate of mothers having the right to abort 22 week old fetuses. I questioned whether there was a moral difference between aborting a 22 week old fetus and cutting the heart of one out a few minutes after its birth. YOU said that the two acts were morally equivalent.

If one causes "revulsion" in you, why are you okay with the other one -- which YOU believe to be morally equivalent??

It seems that the only difference between a pro-lifer and you is that you find one act to be okay and the other one causes revulsion; pro-lifers simply find both acts to cause revulsion.

2. Your definition of "alive" or having the quality of "life" is based on brain function.

OK. How would you define the quality of "life in countries where women have no access to equipment that measures brain activity? Your definition is dependent on access to rather sophisticated equipment. In one of my earlier questions, you said "It depends. Is the cerebral cortex developed yet?" To really answer that, you need medical equipment that the VAST MAJORITY of this planet does not have access to. How would you define life for cases where a definition is required to base ethical decisions on in the absence of access to such equipment?

3. You have consistently said that the cerebral cortex functioning is the definition of "alive." So, are you prepared to accept regulation of abortion in cases where the cerebral cortex is functioning -- i.e., a late-term fetus? If not, why not?