On abortion philosophy

G. Crum

American Journal of Public Health, 1978, vol. 68, issue 3, 272

Abstract: The journal's reply to Mr. Fischer accurately pointed out that the journal had been misquoted but the addition of the word "human" to the journal's statement fails to alter the comments unless it is incorrectly maintained that the unborn child is not a biologically distinct entity or he or she is a member of another species. Consequently, Fischer's conclusions remain valid and unaddressed by the journal's response. The only exception that this writer would take to Fischer is his assertion that the pro-abortion-on-demand movement claims to have an internally consistent philosophy. In the final analysis, the crux of the matter is neither biological accuracy nor internal consistency. The basic question is whether 1 human being ever has the right to define and the inherent ability to discern the personhood of another human being. If the response is affirmative, then everyone, rather than the pregnant female only, should be permitted the right to determine whether another live human being is a "subperson" eligible for euthanasia. All individual human beings have an unalienable right to life and must be granted personhood until a scientific technique which can measure the abstract qualities of humanity is developed.

Date: 1978
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1978:68:3:272_0

Access Statistics for this article

American Journal of Public Health is currently edited by Alfredo Morabia

More articles in American Journal of Public Health from American Public Health Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Christopher F Baum ().