Danny ChaiThis article discusses the philosophical case for “after-birth abortion”, i.e. infanticide. It sounds barbaric, and it is, but in my opinion, it’s a reflection of the philosophical weakness of the extreme pro-choice side. And that is, they simply refuse to consider when human life begins.
I’m pretty sure I posted this before, but this exchange between Rick Santorum and Barbara Boxer on the floor of the Senate in 1999 forever shaped my view (negatively) of Boxer. She absolutely refused to consider when human life begins. And she has to avoid the questions, because the implications otherwise are difficult for her particular pro-choice position. The problem is, if you avoid that question, the logical implications really are infanticide. Not that Boxer (or most pro-choice advocates) support infanticide – they all rightly think it abhorrent. It’s just that their philosophical stance logically supports that extreme.
The only way to avoid that logical extreme is to really consider when human life begins. To me, that’s the critical issue in the abortion debate. The general refusal of the pro-choice camp to even consider it puts them at a philosophical quandary.
I’m actually more liberal about abortion than you might think. But to me, when human life begins matters. It’s everything.