Random Jottings

One of the first issues that need clarifying when thinking about abortion is the idea of what we mean when we talk about 'human life.'

When people talk about 'human life' they may mean:

* a member of the biological human species - having the human genetic code

But they may mean something very different:

* a being that possesses certain human characteristics in addition to the human genetic code
o characteristics often suggested might be the ability to think, to imagine, to communicate
o but the lists of characteristics put forward may be designed to limit the definition of human in the way the speaker wants
* a being that is a 'moral person', i.e. one that has rights, and probably duties too

And the time at which a foetus gets the right to life because it's achieved the relevant list of characteristics can vary from the moment of conception to the time the baby is born.

(In fact for some philosophers, very young babies don't really qualify as having earned the right to life by possessing the right characteristics. Fortunately for young children, these philosophers concede that young babies do have the right to life as a result of tradition and law instead.)
Does it matter?

Yes of course it does, because without getting the point sorted out people can find themselves arguing about completely different things, even though they're both using words like 'human being'.

But it may not matter in terms of pure moral philosophy, since there are cases when most people agree that even if the foetus is a person, abortion may be morally justified.

And some philosophers have argued that abortion can be morally justified even where there is no risk to the physical or mental health of the mother.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/moralperson_print.html