Wed Mar 30/05
Delusional, but at least mature

Stuart Reid has a terrific memo (see: Ambler) for all the reasonable people out there pining for an abortion debate. First of all he is baffled, as am I, at Conservative Party leader Michael Howard's motives for reopening the issue in Britain:

In the present case it is not easy to understand why Mr Howard believes that abortion is wrong at 24 weeks but right at 20. What moral difference does a month make? None: a 20-week-old foetus and a 24-week-old foetus are both alive, and both human.

Alright, so forget the "alive" and "human" part. (They may well be, but that's too sore a spot to poke at if you want to get anywhere.) Suffice to say that a 20-week-old fetus and a 24-week-old fetus are both fetuses, no matter what a fetus is. In the same way, a newborn is just as much a human being as an eight-year-old. So here we are again: why base protective laws on age for one entity (fetuses) but not for another (human beings)? 

Because, in Reid's words, "it will make us feel good about ourselves, make us feel that we are caring, responsible and mature." To paraphrase Coyne, it will convince us that we are a mature democracy that can bring itself to discuss issues of fundamental importance. I'll take no comfort in that: abortion may not be murder, but surely if murder is murder then abortion is abortion. I'd much rather see the abortion-on-demand principle applied excessively liberally (for example, with no requirement for counselling) than a delusional "maturity" in which clearly humanoid fetuses are afforded greater protection than the lumpen masses from which they grew.