I am greatly discontented over the abortion debate that has taken place on this editorial page over the past week. The arguments presented, in my view, are seriously confused. Josephson respects the view that fetuses have equal moral value to every human being, but can't respect pro-lifers who judge pro-choicers for their views. This is akin to the argument that one should respect abolitionists' opposition to slavery, but shouldn't judge slave owners for practicing it.
Bryna Mulcrone argues that women who have abortions have an increased rate of depression and suicide. This is not an argument against their right to bodily autonomy. If I choose to eat McDonald's every day, I may become obese (also positively correlated with depression and suicide). Does it follow that I don't have a right to decide what I eat?
Sean Stiennon argues that because fetuses are innocent human beings, abortion is a staggering offense against human rights."" While fetuses are genetically human and trivially innocent (they haven't done anything wrong), Mr. Stiennon equivocates. Being genetically human does not entail moral personhood. Moral innocence isn't only about a lack of wrongdoing; it's also about being capable of wrongdoing.
Brandon Biagioli argues that since there's no moment at which humans are given a right to life, they must always have one. But his argument is fallacious. There's no particular number of hairs at which a person goes from having a full head of hair to being bald; that doesn't mean no one has a full head of hair.
- Andrew Hanson
UW-Madison student
