The Notre Dame speech was Obama at his dissembling best. He asked for "dialog", as if that had not occurred to anyone else, and as if "dialog" had not been happening in the public square for 5 decades and more. He asked for "common ground" when he himself never has nor intends to give an inch of ground--and when, as accurately shown in the article, common ground does not exist between those who choose killing babes in the womb and those who oppose.

The truth is not in this evil man. Pray for his conversion, and even more for the failure of his programs.

Great piece, if you destroy the seed, it will not be long before the tree is also destroyed, in the name of the good of all.

TRhe continued assault on critical thinking is leading to our destruction. Wherever, the abilty to deal with logic, this view of the world prevails.

President Obama has not said that he wants to reduce abortions, but rather the "need for abortions". That's like saying we should reduce the need for slaves. We must all pray that the Holy Spirit works on the heart of our President, and removes his spiritual blinders.

An avid Baptist reader here. This is an excellent read -- especially the final two paragraphs.

"It is not faith that tells us that abortion kills an innocent life. It is science."

I imagine that most people would agree that a foetus is alive. What seems to me to be the point of contention is whether or not it is a living *human/person*, as opposed to merely a living *being* (after all, there are many living *beings* which most people do not mind killing, ranging from cows to viruses). By calling the foetus an *innocent* life - an appellation reserved almost exclusively for humans/people - Fr Coughlin clearly indicates that he considers the foetus to be a living *human/person*. And this is to be expected, given the anti-abortion position he is supporting. But then he says that "It is not faith that tells us that abortion kills an innocent life. It is science." - and I am wondering how *science* can tell us whether (and at what stage) a foetus is (or becomes) a human/person. Certainly, scientific investigation can tell us many things about foetuses (how they develop, what is good for them, and bad etc etc); but surely it cannot tell us whether or not they are humans/people. This is not an *empirical* question. Rather, it is a *conceptual* question. Or, perhaps it is even a directly *moral* (or religious) question (namely, regarding how we thing we ought to behave towards foetuses). How, then, can science tell us this kind of thing? I have long wondered how and why people think that science is relevant in this regard, and would genuinely appreciate it if someone could explain the thinking behind this kind of comment.

I'd like to try to answer "A Questioner" regarding "why people think that science is relevant in this matter [of abortion]." From the moment of conception, the foetus possesses the complete biological composition, DNA, and 23 chromosome pairs that constitute a living being of the human species. The foetus possess the internal capacity for growth and development. So from the moment of conception, the "being" is a human at the earliest stages of the developmental continuum: as every bit as human as the child who exits the womb, the toddler, the adolescent, the middle-aged person, etc.

To put the issue another way, what is it that makes a child a human the moment it exits the womb but not human the instant before? The answer is, nothing. The human person exists, therefore, at some stage of continual development from conception to death.

I am neither a scientist nor an ethicist, so others may wish to elaborate and/or refine this argument.

Incidentally, it would be insulting to suggest that our opposition to abortion represents an obstacle to working with people on other issues. Pro-life Catholics are perfectly happy and willing to work on all sorts of other projects with, say, pro-death atheists. But to say, in effect, this:

"Let's ignore the fact that slavery is legal and find the 'common ground' where we can work to reduce the number of slaves we legally import."

That is a shameful appeal, particularly coming from someone who is supposed to be concerned about civil rights, and their foundation.

Excellent piece.

As this article shows, there are clear parallels between the anti-slavery and anti-abortion movements. Attempts to refute this are not credible (for example, see the recent posting on "Abortion and Slavery" by Anthony Stevens-Arroyo of the "Catholic America" segment of the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog - although ostensibly pro-life, he mades some very shocking arguments, such as "no one is forced to undergo an abortion" - what about the unborn child?). These parallels are inconvenient for the left in this country, including liberal Catholics. I hope First Things contributors will continue to develop these arguments and break through the spurious rhetoric used by pro-abortion politicials at all levels.

Thank you, Carl, for addressing my question. A few comments on your answer (please excuse their length).

Scientists may well be able to tell us that from the moment of conception (or, at least very early on), a foetus possesses the same fundamental biological makeup as a human adult (e.g. the same DNA, chromosomes, etc). This observation alone, however, is not enough to arrive at an anti-abortion conclusion. Rather, you must add an extra premise, namely that: ‘Having a certain fundamental biological makeup (e.g. DNA, chromosomes, etc) is sufficient to make something a human/person (who therefore oughtn’t be [gratuitously] killed)’. It is this extra step which seems to be a conceptual (or moral, or religious) one, rather than an empirical-scientific one. It is a claim about what ‘humanness’ or ‘personhood’ *are*. Whether or not fundamental biological makeup is all it takes to make something a human/person is a question that cannot be answered by looking through ever-more-powerful microscopes, or the like. We can all agree about what the scientists claim: foetuses have such and such *biological* characteristics. But one will never be able to see *humanness* through a microscope, no matter how powerful – so the scientists are in no better a position than anyone else, to tell us whether or not a foetus with such and such biological characteristics *is* a human/person.

If scientists have defined ‘a member of the human species’ as something with a certain fundamental biological makeup, then that is their prerogative. But that stipulative definition of ‘a member of the human species’ is not relevant to the everyday, ordinary notions of ‘humanness’ or ‘personhood’, with all their enormous ethical weight. It is *our* notions of humanness and personhood that are relevant to the abortion argument – and these notions do not seem to depend on what scientists, in the last few decades or centuries, have discovered in their laboratories.

Furthermore, it seems to me that a religious person should not want to say that what it is to be a human/person is *solely* a matter of one’s fundamental biological makeup (which I think your argument entails). Does it not have anything to do with having a soul (or, a certain kind of soul)? And – whatever it may mean, exactly, to ‘have a soul’ – doesn’t this highlight that whether or not something is a human/person is *not* the kind of thing that a scientist is best qualified to answer.

In general, the fact that there is a continuous development of one thing to another does not mean that the original thing was, right from the start, already the thing it ended up being. Consider a block of wood, which is whittled into a statue. The statue was a continuous development from the block of wood – but the block of wood was still not a statue to begin with. Just because the foetus develops smoothly into a human/person, does not mean that it is one from the beginning. I agree that when, after nine months, the baby is born, it is a human/person. And I also agree that it is so just before it is born. And indeed, just before that. I have absolutely no idea how far back through the pregnancy I would go, before I began to have my doubts. I do know, however, that if we went back far enough, I would certainly not call the foetus a ‘person’, and probably not a ‘human’ – rather, it is a human… *foetus*. The concepts ‘human’ and ‘person’ seem to have fuzzy boundaries – but so do many concepts. (And saying that it become a human/person at the moment of conception does not make it an any less fuzzy beginning, because ‘conception’ is a fuzzy concept, and so is ‘moment’). When the foetus *does* begin to be the kind of thing that I think we oughtn’t [gratuitously] kill, I do not know. Neither do I know how I would go about forming an opinion on that question. But I *do* think that this lack of knowledge is not due to my ignorance of the kinds of thing a scientist could tell me.

The entire brouhaha over the president's address and the honor at Notre Dame was disheartening. As an alum, I received essentially a crackpot mailing from Randall Terry urging me to take the extreme position. Even this publication has noted that the abortion issue in the last few decades or so has become the lynchpin issue for Catholics the world over. To me it is like there has emerged some initiation rite for true Catholics to adopt the extreme position on abortion to become or continue to be a member of the Catholic Church.

I studied to be a priest and my Catholic credentials are substantial. But intellectually I am unable to reach the moral and theological certainty so many have achieved on this issue. I oppose abortion. I think there are many circumstances where the decision, as wrenching as it is, may be better to end a pregnancy, even late term. Medicine has reached a point where a prediction can be made that the fetus will not live. I have a friend whose son's wife was in her final term and doctors told her there were twins joined at the head and one brain and the children would not survive. In spite of horrible circumstances such as this, posturing moralists don't hesitate to offer their haughty opprobrium even to devastated folks who really don't deserve such judgments. Fortunately we live in a democracy and the majority do not take such a severe approach which is evidenced by the election of this president. He is not for abortion either, no matter how one wants to spin his views.

Pride (arrogance) is a deadly sin and theologically has been asserted as the worst of the deadly sins. The bulk of the "right to life" crowd are not lacking in this regard.

George Tiller was instructed as to "retroactive abortion". This form of post-partum genetic engineering is still available.

Does anyone still truly believe that "Notre Dame is a Catholic University" in accord with Church teaching in Ex Corde Ecclesiae?

I am pro-life, but there is common ground on abortion that is not present in slavery. If all pregnancies were "wanted,"there would be no demand for abortion. In 1765, there was no scenario where demand for slavery would be zero. Not saying that they aren't both evil, but they are different types of evil and should be attacked in different ways. The only way to get rid of abortion is to convince people all pregnancies should be "wanted" whether or not it was the conscious desire of the parents to create a child. Let's work on making mothers considering abortion feel like there are other options.

I will answer "the Questioner."

Dear Sir,

There is to all science the attempt to uncover or discover Truth. Much of Truth is available by using the workout machines for science which are mathematics and its parent, logic.
Therefore I will answer your apparent confusion relayed in your comment:

"How, then, can science tell us this kind of thing? I have long wondered how and why people think that science is relevant in this regard, and would genuinely appreciate it if someone could explain the thinking behind this kind of comment."

I answer, using the science of logic, in a question to you:

Have you ever seen a baby that wasn't first a fetus?

Questioner, What would your definition of a *person* be, and why would the fetus not fit that definition? If you do not posit that a living fetus, having all the features Carl points out, is a person from the beginning, then at what point does it "become" a person? And how? I'm interested in your answers here. Because it seems to me that it is positing a "magic moment" that a fetus makes some kind of mystical transition from being a "clump of cells" to being a "person" that requires an (at least) quasi-religious faith. Cows, viruses and cockroaches may indeed be living things, but they are not human and never will be. A fetus is a human at an early stage of development. It seems to me (and, again, I would be interested in your response) that there are far fewer logical or empirical problems with asserting that the fetus is "always already" a person than with asserting that it "becomes" a person at some specific point.

"The president says: 'We must find a way to live together.' All the while, the infant in the womb is answering: 'But first I have to live.'

This is a crystal clear truth. I do not believe it could be any more so. No one can "live together" if they do not live first.

On this, President Obama is completely unable to become what he fancies himself to be: a postpartisan wise man standing above fray.

With Fr. Coughlin's article, and with the majority of comments that I read here, I see an awful of negative commentary on Obama and rightful dissection of his arguments, and I personally side with most of it. But it is misplaced, as has been much of the opinion I've read since his appearance at Notre Dame.
Why I say that is this:
Obama was INVITED in. It cannot be over-emphasized. We all knew of his agenda, but Notre Dame, in some kind of blind political reverence to this man, ask him to come; let the Trojan Horse of one of the most liberal abortionist polititians in the country come through their gates. What did they expect? What did all of you expect would happen? He is what he is, and president or not, had no business speaking at that university with his well-documented record of partial-birth, etc..
Notre Dame gave this man a stage. DON'T BLAME HIM FOR TAKING IT. Rather than shunning such an invitation, Obama looked at this for exactly what it was: an unbelievable opportunity to strike. A huge, easy softball right over his plate.
For that, Notre Dame is severly diminished. Obama....not one bit.
"...and I heard Satan laughing with delight!..."

Thank you, Fr. Coughlin.

To add a further idea to the correct and concise answer of Carl to "A questioner".

What Carl says relates to "a human being". If a foetus is not a human being, then what is it? If killing the foetus is not killing a human being, then what (quid) is being killed? Science and metaphysics agree that it is a human being.

The concept of "person", defined by Boethius around AD 500 in a different context, but used in the West consistently until Kant, is "individua substantia rationalis naturae", and in Latin would typically be questioned as "who" (quis).

"Subtantia" is used in the definition to mean "nature" or "essence".

"Individua", individual, should be self-evident, it merely distinguishes a single instance of the nature, rather than the genus or species, and "matter" is the principle of individuation. Matter is what is constituted originally by the DNA and chromosomes, and which is articulated further through development until maturity (not birth).

"Rationalis naturae", of a rational nature, means "endowed with a spirit", in the sense in which humans, angels, demons and the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are "spiritual".

If anything, the word "person" is a more properly theological term than "individual human being", in that this strict definition was coined by Boethius to provide a way of clarifying what the Church had anathematized at the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451).

One other thing that occurs to me, Questioner, in re-reading your exchange with Carl. You seem (and correct me if I'm wrong) to engage in a sort of Cartesian dualism in your assertion that body and soul are separate and distinct and that the soul as opposed to the body makes one a "person." Descartes' dualism has been shown to be philosophically untenable. As I understand it, the Christian position is that we are embodied souls. In Thomist/Aristotelian terms, the soul is the "form" to the body's "matter." Therefore, where there is a human body, there is a human soul. This position seems to me to present fewer philosophical problems than Cartesian dualism. In fact, the only alternatives to the Thomist/Aristotelian position that I can think of are dualism or materialism. Materialism presents even bigger problems for your position. If the soul is what makes one a "person" as opposed to a "human" and there is no soul, no one is ever a person.

With reference to the question of unborn children who will not live: These children can be delivered (by C-section if necessary). Their situation can then be medically evaluated. They can receive palliative care until they die as loved and cared for human children. The mother and father will have this consolation - that they chose to provide care and love for their child or children until death. Is this not preferable to a cold, surgical killing? What is gained by such an act?

With all due respect, the question of at what point does a fetus become a person is such an awful cop-out.

"If" all abortions took place so early that "all that was destroyed was a clump of cells", that clump of cells would be a person no less than at nine months.
Abortions are taking place at any time during the nine months. Clearly, you can see a "formed" baby with an ultrasound.

If a fetus is not a person, a child, a baby, a human being, why then are you bothering to destroy it? Why have an abortion? Why not just leave it alone - it's not human, right??? But, of course, it is human, it is a child, so you must destroy it, otherwise it will be born and cry and bother you and change your life. And so comes this awful "freedom to choose" - when a mother kills her own child.

Following Mr Devet's excellent point...The terms "Dialogue" and "Common ground" are euphemisms. Sophistry at its best... catchy little phrases that mean nothing and only seek to obfuscate and gloss instead of clearly stating the arguments. The unstated truth is that most political and ecclesial liberals think they own the truth. The words Dialogue and Common Ground and secret code words that mean the following:
Dialogue - "I, the educated and wise one, will speak the truth, and you will sit at my feet and listen, and perhaps eventually understand in a way that even a simple mind can understand and grasp."
Common Ground - "You need to come into the circle of truth, which I, again, possess in fullness, and you, the poor person who espouses a religious pro-life position, do not yet possess."

Here is a Jesuit and college administrator who supports the Church's position on abortion. Remarkable!

No one can blame Pres. Obama for going to Notre Dame. Democrats know they must have Catholic support and this was a way to attract it.

The President will continue to call for "dialogue" as he pushes his abortion agenda. Fr. Jenkins of ND fell right in line by declaring that ND intends to "listen," and has that in common with the President.

I don't know about Fr. Jenkins but I have been "listening" to pro-abortionists for 35 years and know their arguments inside and out. I wonder if Fr. Jenkins can point to a single instance of pro-abortionists "listening" to the opposition. If Fr. Jenkins has his way, Catholics will "listen" until abortion is enforced everywhere. And as if any "listening" occurred during the President's ND visit. Can Fr. Jenkins say he said anything about abortion to Obama or Obama to him? Of course not. They both studiously avoided the subject.

Questioner

"Just because the foetus develops smoothly into a human/person, does not mean that it is one from the beginning."

Yes, in fact it does. An egg, fertilized, is the start of a unique human life. Its development is put instantly in motion and is carried forward by its own internal biological inertia. You can be an atheist and acknowledge the truth of this.

Sometimes the biological process goes awry, leading to deformities, abnormalities, miscarriage. These are deeply troubling, and I've experienced them, but I have known women who have carried anencephalus children to term, delivered them, and held them weeping as they died. Those children were *loved*, and their parents got the chance to be loving.

That is why I think it is horrendous and inexcusable to call certain pro-lifers "extremist." What could possibly be more extremist than putting pre-born children to death? It turns doctors, mothers, and everyone supporting such deaths into abettors. Where is the "love" in that? Where is the "Christ" in that? It's as if to say, "There's a problem? Take it out on the kid." Tell me again where the "extremism" lies.

The Church's position is grounded in truth and love.

Richard: "Pride (arrogance) is a deadly sin and theologically has been asserted as the worst of the deadly sins. The bulk of the "right to life" crowd are not lacking in this regard. "

Wow! Take about the kettle calling the pot black! I will quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says quite clearly that abortion is ALWAYS wrong, always a grave evil. But hey, you did go to seminary, didn't you? So you must know better than the Bride of Christ. You can find His bride's teaching here (though I am sure you already knew it, and determined it was wrong, I await the pope's correction):
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
__________________________________

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:


You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

As for our President and his desire for "dialog" on abortion, there can be no effective dialog by the people or their elected representatives until Roe v. Wade is overturned. Harry Blackmun's whole point was to end the national argument on the subject. The questioner should check his footing as he is standing on slippery ground. If there is a magical moment where someone becomes human, any number of cut off criteria can also be used. Consciousness, IQ, terminal disease, societal usefulness, gender, or skin color could all be the measuring stick for ending the continuing right to life just as they are used now in abortions.

Richard writes:
"I think there are many circumstances where the decision, as wrenching as it is, may be better to end a pregnancy, even late term. Medicine has reached a point where a prediction can be made that the fetus will not live. I have a friend whose son's wife was in her final term and doctors told her there were twins joined at the head and one brain and the children would not survive. In spite of horrible circumstances such as this, posturing moralists don't hesitate to offer their haughty opprobrium even to devastated folks who really don't deserve such judgments".

This is the deadly appeal to sentiment, worthy of a soap opera. The same has been said of "anencephalic" children [I note the use of "fetus"]. Yet there have been anencephalic children who have survived and prospered.

There was a program on television showing twin sisters who were attached on the side - two heads, two arms, two legs. The kind of situation where our all knowing doctors would undoubtedly have pushed for abortion. The program showed them at age 16 - smiling and playful with many friends in school who were proud of them.

Yes it is difficult for parents. It is also difficult for grandparents, for siblings, for aunts and uncles. But it is not their lives. But it is the life of the child.

I suspect that John brown was as obnoxious as many pro-life demonstrators. Doen't make him ot yhem wrong.

Great post Fr. Coughlin! I thought your ending was quite strong and quite right. I concur with you as well as to common ground. What would that be like? Sounds like the President was playing both sides of the fence. Oh, that's right, reduce the number of abortions. By what number, Mr. President? Doesn't matter because it wasn't intended to be decisive but to placate.

How the Obama affair at Notre Dame plays out as it pertains to a Catholic university, I believe Joseph Bottum had an insightful blog a few months ago for those who care to revisit.

Both Linda and Antony are so right. It takes a great act of courage for a mother to continue a difficult pregnancy with a baby who has fatal abnormalities. My cousin and his wife did this, and were able to hold and love their severely ill daughter before she died shortly after birth. I don't think I've ever seen a more touching act of parental love. I believe God will bless them for this.

A good bit of writing correctly noting the parallels between slavery and abortion. I would not put the strongest expression of abolitionism in Lincoln's mouth, however. He famously would have allowed slavery if it meant preserving the union as, perhaps, a modern politician might permit abortions if it means . . . what? Getting elected?

Has the Church had anything to say about monozygotic twinning? I've read that most of this kind of twinning occurs before day nine. Therefore, for nine days, it's possible for a zygotic child to differentiate into two zygotic children.

It seems to me that this doesn't change anything about the nature and value of human life, or when it begins, but there might be arguments out there that suggest it does.

The Catechism states: "2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception."

I've read also that the professional society for obstetrics defines conception, however, as occuring at the implantation of a blastocyst (i.e., a child at the blastocystic stage of development), not at fertilization. Does the Church differ, here?

Presumably the society's reasoning is that a blastocyst which doesn't implant cannot develop any further. With current technology, that's true. It's likely to remain true for quite a while. But it's a mistake for anyone to conclude from this that a blastocyst can thus be considered a lesser being, with less value. Implantation has to do with environment and development, not human ontology per se.

With zygotic mitosis, you have human being. That deserves protection, the right to further development. This right is logically (and practically) anterior to every other right. It's the precondition for all other human rights. No?

I know the catechism. I know the absolute nature of what the Church teaches. Does this motivate your every notion? Then you are against the Iraq war because it was hardly a just war and I am just as certain of this as you are certain of the zygote being fully human. And if you are indeed pro life, you are also concerned about the thousands, hundreds of thousands, of children dying every day from: Diahrrea, infection and bad water. None of these really require a doctor to fix. So "right to lifers" how are you out there crusading to end this travesty?? These are not morally ambiguous situations. They are often caused by the actions of the Industrialized World of which the U. S. is pre-eminent. That's life just as certain as the child forming in the womb. Yet death is always and inevitable, and one chooses one's causes. I have chosen mine and am comfortable with it.

If the mother does not has the right to kill the child in her womb, that poses some very difficult situations for her life as a modern, autonomous human being.....

If she does not consent to the pregnancy does that make her a slave, indentured by her own body to the child in her womb and to a faith community that treasures that child's rights? Is there a just compensation for that mother, because she, being a mother, cannot reconfigure her future to its original plan just as she cannot 'undo' her unbidden new relationships to a new son or daughter, and the assumed man, now the father, she conceived (perhaps unknowingly) that child with?.......

The Sexual Revolution and Free Love instigated much of this mess, all well and good, and that abortion always kills an innocent child, also all well and good; but have we considered what happened the last time we had an intractable situation where no 'common ground' was possible? We had the Civil War and before the fate of slavery could finally be decided, hundreds of thousands lay dead. And so, the final question; though it is hoped that in the end men's (and women's) hearts can be changed, there still remains the spectre that death will attend the resolution of this intractable question. I won't state it explicitly, it is just too horrible to ask......

Thank you all for your responses. I will try to pick on a few salient points, and reply to them (in great haste).

John Cooper: I asked what science has to do with the question of whether and when a foetus is a human/person. You replied that the 'science of logic' is the relevant one. My question was on Fr Coughlin's article, and it seemed to me that he was referring to 'the empirical sciences' – and that is what I was talking about. But in any case, it seems to me that logic couldn't decide this question either (apart, perhaps, from in Wittgenstein's very much extended sense of logic ['the logic of our language' etc]).

Fred's first comment: I don't know how to define a 'person', and think that there probably is no definition (in the sense of having necessary and sufficient conditions, with no indeterminate or hazy cases). Now, just because a foetus is not a person to begin with, and later develops into one, does *not* mean that there is a some one.\, precise, 'magic' moment at which it suddenly gains some relevant property, and becomes a person. I would think that there is a large-ish hazy period (whose duration is itself hazy on either end), during which it is indeterminate whether or not we have only a foetus, or a human/person. In any case, what might bring about the change? I'm not sure. Maybe it is precisely our moral attitude towards it? (Though that may put the order the wrong way round, I'm not sure). Maybe better: it is the foetus's degree of resemblance to a healthy, recognizable, born, human baby. – When the foetus does not resemble (in all kinds of respects – say it looks more like a blob) a healthy born human baby, we do not consider it to be a person, and when it has come to resemble a healthy born human baby, we do consider it to be a person – and it changed by degree, hazily, in between. (I think that this kind of consideration informs our moral views about many animals: people generally tend to be more morally concerned about them, the more they resemble human beings in certain respects: have facial features, seem to be able to be in pain, etc. people are often more morally concerned with animals than with fish – and I suspect that it is for this reason).
You say that there are far fewer logical or empirical problems with asserting that the foetus is 'always already' a person, than that it becomes such at some point (I have already denied the implications of: '*specific* point'). I suppose my whole point has been to ask: what *empirical problems*? There haven't been any *empirical* problems raised, here, as far as I understand. And as to logical problems, I also fail to see what they might be. The very concept of one thing developing into another (changing into, or whatever) is a very ordinary one, and doesn't raise any special 'logical problems'. Consider, again, the block of wood, that becomes a statue. It certainly wasn't a statue to begin with – it was a log, or a chunk etc. At the end, we definite did have a statue (was *it* a statue… I don't know). It has the same fundamental physical/chemical/biological makeup all the way through. It developed smoothly from one to the other, over, say, a million tiny changes (both it and the foetus needed some extra outside help: the mother, the sculptor). Do we say that the chunk of wood was a statue to begin with, because otherwise there would need to be some precise 'magical' moment at which it 'becomes' a statue suddenly? No! – It becomes a statue some time or other, in the middle. Of course, this transition is not loaded with as much moral and religious weight, as becoming human… - but the 'logic' seems the same.

Fred's second comment: I certainly wasn't *intending* to commit myself to any kind of philosophical dualism in my comments about the soul – but you gave me pause for thought. But consider the following thought: if someone (God forbid) chopped my hand off, it would have the same fundamental biological makeup as a foetus and as an adult human/person – i.e. it would have all the same DNA, and chromosomes, etc. But it wouldn't be a human or a person. Rather, it would be a human… hand (as I said of the foetus, that early on, it is a human… foetus). So certainly, it would seem that to be a human/person involves more than simply fundamental biological makeup – but something more: soul, or form. If we take form very broadly (as I think Aristotle intended), which includes, over and above 'shape', function as well. But in these terms, a foetus may well lack what it takes to be a *full* human person (note also that having a certain form, could possibly be a thing that comes in degrees – which makes for degrees of humanity/personhood, which makes things even more complicated).
I would generally tend to lean in a Wittgensteinian direction when talking about the soul – rather than in a Cartesian or Aristotelian/Thomistic one. I'm not sure *exactly* what that would involve. But I think it's closely connected to the things I've said about the question of when a foetus is a human/person being a *moral* question – namely a question about the moral attitude that we take up towards it/him. We say of people to whom we have a certain kind of attitude of moral responsibility and beholdenness, that they are *people*, that they have *souls*. And this is not only a matter of their fundamental biological makeup, but is certainly very closely related to the body – and their behaviour, etc.

Isabella: There seems to me to be something extremely fishy (to say the least) about your last points! You say: "If a fetus is not a person, a child, a baby, a human being, why then are you bothering to destroy it? Why have an abortion? Why not just leave it alone - it's not human, right??? But, of course, it is human, it is a child, so you must destroy it, otherwise it will be born and cry and bother you and change your life." First of all, there are many reasons to destroy things that are growing inside of one, even though they are not human! – Cancers are one example. Non-human things which grow inside a person can 'ruin a life' just as much as fetuses/humans growing inside of one. Secondly, I obviously do not deny that a foetus *becomes* a human – and if things go well, it will develop into a human baby which has enormous moral demands on its parents. And probably, many people abort their fetuses/babies *because* of their concern about that eventuality. But none of that means that the foetus has been a human/person all along.

Mpm: " If a foetus is not a human being, then what is it?" It is precisely that: a foetus. A human foetus, I suppose, as opposed to a human *being*, or a *person*. What is so inadmissible about that answer?
" Science and metaphysics agree that it is a human being." – that is *precisely* the kind of comment that I wrote my original question/comment about! – What has 'science' told us about this? Well, I won't make my comment all over again! But you are not explaining *what* science says that is relevant here, or *how* it is possible that an empirical investigation could speak to such conceptual matters – you are simply stating the opposite of what I said. That's fine – but doesn't help. As to 'metaphysics' – from what I can tell, there is no one monolithic body of teaching called 'metaphysics'. *Whose* metaphysics? And based on *what*?
As to your comments about/from Boethius. You say: " The concept of "person", defined by Boethius… is "individua substantia rationalis naturae"… "Rationalis naturae", of a rational nature, means "endowed with a spirit", in the sense in which humans, angels, demons and the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are "spiritual"." I won't claim to fully understand this, and do not know anything about Boethius – but it seems to me that if part of what it is to be a person is to be 'endowed with a spirit', in the sense that human, angels, the persons of the Trinity are – then *surely* science is not the right discipline to tell us when something is or is not a person! And I do not mean to commit myself to dualism in saying so. But contemporary scientists do not seem to talk about 'spirits' at all. So, if you, Mpm, think that Boethius's definition is right, why do you then also seek to claim that science agrees? What could scientists know of what is and what is not endowed with a spirit? Rather, it is *perceisley* FAITH or RELIGION which might tell us these things. But this is precisely what Fr Coughlin was not satisfied with… 'It isn't faith that tells us this, it is science'!

Antony: Certainly you can be an atheist and acknowledge the truth of the claim that " An egg, fertilized, is the start of a unique human life. Its development is put instantly in motion and is carried forward by its own internal biological inertia." (And I don't think that anything I said in my previous comments revealed whether I am religious, a theist, and atheist, or whatever). However, you have not argued against what I said, you have simply stated that I am wrong. That is fine! But your position, and your denial of mine, have nothing to do with science. And – more to the point: they do not *need* to have anything to do with it. They lack nothing for not having to do with it. When I say that it is not science, that is not a *criticism* of the position. In fact, the main thing that disturbs me is that such a comment should be taken as a criticism… but more of this in the following paragraph.

And so, finally… We have all, just now, been engaging in a debate about whether or not a foetus is a human/person right from the start. I have next to no specialist scientific knowledge about these issues. No-one who has replied to me has done so in the capacity of a particularly knowledgeable scientists. And yet, we have been touching on all the fundamental points. This is really all I wanted to say from the beginning: this is nothing to do with science. In this discussion we have got along just fine without being scientists, or having much scientific knowledge, and I can't see how such would have helped us. What could help here? Perhaps strong moral feeling can help. Strong moral knowledge. Perhaps religious feeling, or knowledge, or authority – the authority of the Pope, or the Bible, or the Talmud etc. All these things, might, perhaps, be relevant to answering the question (or at least providing answerS to the question) of whether and when a foetus is a human/person. But not scientists. My only real point was that it seemed to me that science was being idolized in Fr Coughlin's (almost throw-away) comment that 'science tells us that a foetus is an innocent human' (and the comment played almost no further role in his essay). Science is not the final arbiter of all things. Why could Fr Coughlin not be satisfied by saying that *faith* tell us that it is wrong to have abortions? Had he said that, I would have been happy. Why did he need the back-up of science, which seems to me to have so little to do with any of this? Science has become almost synonymous with 'truth' - and *this* is what I object to. It is a *Dawkins-ising* of religion. Nothing about these questions depends on the fact that *I* am personally unsure about the status of fetuses, or about the rightness/wrongness of early abortion. Even if I agreed with most of you about the status of the fioetus as a human/person right from the earliest point, and about the inherent wrongness/evil of abortion – I would still think that science has nothing to do with it. Let religion stand on its own two feet – it is strong enough that it needn't go begging.

Please forgive this comment – its unfinishnedness, its possibly repetativeness, its un-consideredness, and its length!. It was written extremely rushedly. Thank you all, again, for your interesting and generous responses. And finally – seeing as this is my first time writing comment on 'On the Square', and 'First Thing', I just want to say 'thank you', to both, for producing and providing such wonderful essays and articles for us all to read and ponder.

Richard says:
"I know the catechism. I know the absolute nature of what the Church teaches. Does this motivate your every notion? Then you are against the Iraq war because it was hardly a just war and I am just as certain of this as you are certain of the zygote being fully human. And if you are indeed pro life, you are also concerned about the thousands, hundreds of thousands, of children dying every day from: Diahrrea, infection and bad water. None of these really require a doctor to fix. So "right to lifers" how are you out there crusading to end this travesty?? These are not morally ambiguous situations. They are often caused by the actions of the Industrialized World of which the U. S. is pre-eminent. That's life just as certain as the child forming in the womb. Yet death is always and inevitable, and one chooses one's causes. I have chosen mine and am comfortable with it."

Where, oh where, does one start? I reckon at the beginning. You ask if the absolute nature of what the Church teaches motivates my every notion; well, yes, it does. If it doesn’t motivate yours (assuming you’re Catholic), then be afraid, be very afraid. Christ said, when speaking to the leaders of the Church, “He who hears you hears me.” So if Christ, speaking through his church, tells me that abortion is always, always wrong, then I better let that motivate me. Now if you don’t believe Christ speaks through the Church then I suggest you reconsider that idea, and if you still don’t believe it, then quite simply you should not be Catholic. It’s one of the most basic tenets of the Church.

You bring up the Iraq war, yet that has nothing to do with this discussion. Though I will note that the Church leaves those decisions up to the judgment of the leaders of nations, and I believe that regardless of my position, Mr. Bush sincerely thought he did the right thing. Still, this has nothing to do with abortion.

You then bring up dying children. My first thought is, well, at least they were allowed to be born! At least they weren’t aborted. My second thought was, of course I and other pro-lifers care about this. I get mailings throughout the year asking for money to help these people and others, and I contribute as I can. If I could, I would sincerely consider personally helping, but I am not in a situation where I can do that.

And finally, you bring up us mean old folks born into an industrialized nation, and blame us for killing innocent children. Well, you’re using a PC or some other high tech device to post here, so I assume you can say the same. When will you start living in an un-industrialized manner? Maybe you can create and setoff an E-bomb (look it up on your high tech device if you do not know what it is) that will destroy the electrical grid in the US and send it back to the early 19th century. Would that please you? This industrialized nation may have things that sadly take away life, but I would argue that it has much more that extends and improves life.

Now, finally, for me that is, I’d like to re-iterate that this is a Christian discussion, more specifically a Catholic one. And like I said earlier, Catholics are to listen to the Church, especially when she tells us something very specific, such as abortion is wrong. At the end of the day, I think Jesus’ teaching that we love our neighbors as ourselves, is the guiding principle. A mother, no matter how she comes to be pregnant, should love her baby as she loves herself. When pondering abortion I always think of the words of Christ at the Last Supper. He said, “This is my body, given up for you.” Then I think, I, yes I, and all Catholics, are called to imitate him, and this is THE best way to do it, give up our bodies for another. He also said that there is no greater love than to lay one’s life down for another. Well, the mom, in 99.9999% of the abortions that take place in this country (or probably something close to it), is not being asked to lay down her life, not by the Church, that is. She’s being asked to disrupt it, usually for less than nine months. If that isn’t a wonderful opportunity to imitate Christ, then what is? You can argue that the Church has no right to ask this of non-Catholics, but you can’t argue that for a Catholics the Church is wrong. And you are quite clear that you believe she is wrong. And to circle back to the reason for this discussion, ND has created confusion about this by granting the president an honorary degree. A president who clearly believes abortion is not wrong.

The central theme in both abortion and slavery is this: full human rights and moral sentiments denied to one class of human beings (slaves and the unborn) in order to further the supposed rights of others (slave owners' property rights and the right to privacy/reproductive autonomy of mothers or those who use mothers as pawns in a misguided ideological struggle). There are, of course, differences, but this parallel is too strong too ignore.

Questioner wrote:

"Antony: Certainly you can be an atheist and acknowledge the truth of the claim that "'An egg, fertilized, is the start of a unique human life. Its development is put instantly in motion and is carried forward by its own internal biological inertia.' ... However, you have not argued against what I said, you have simply stated that I am wrong."

Then slow down and read it again. I'll put in an extra word to make the argument clearer for you: An egg, fertilized, is the start of a unique human being *because* its development is put instantly in motion and carried forward by its own internal biological inertia.

(This is not to denigrate the crucial environment of the mother and her body in supporting that process. The changes are massive and breathtaking.)

Q, you go on to insist: "That is fine! But your position, and your denial of mine, have nothing to do with science."

You can insist on this all you want, but the scientific fact remains: scientific inquity will demonstrate definitively that the quiddity in question is a) human, b) genetically unique, and c) "being," since it is undergoing mitosis and cytokinesis. If you were to discover this process occurring on Mars, you would instantly win a Nobel Prize for discovering extraterrestrial "human life." Wouldn't you, Questioner?

Then why not on good old terra firma?

If you still defer answering this honestly for yourself, then you are no longer "Questioner" but more like "Tourist," wandering in a parenthesis. Good luck with that.

Antony, two (longish) points:

First of all, you say: “An egg, fertilized, is the start of a unique human being *because* its development is put instantly in motion and carried forward by its own internal biological inertia.” It seems to me that by the same argument-form we would arrive at the conclusion that an accord is an oak tree – because its development into an oak tree is carried forward by its own internal biological inertia (and just as the acorn needs the environment of the soil, in which to become a tree, similarly, the fertilized egg needs the environment of the womb, in order to become a human being/person). But – acorns are not trees! They are things which will – under the right circumstances – *become* trees. (Consider: if I said that I had an oak tree in my pocket, you might be astonished and wonder how it was possible. If I then went on to take out an acorn – you would rightly think that I was either confused or making a joke). Just because one thing develops into another in a smooth process, carried forward by its own internal biological inertia, does not mean that it was, right from the beginning, what it became in the end. We see that this is true with the acorn and the tree, and with countless other things. So, there is no *logical* need to say that the fertilized egg must be a human/person right from the start just because it develops into one. This is really the same point as I have made before with the chunk of wood and the statue. Now, when does the accord become a tree? Is it some magical single moment? No. There’s a period when it definitely isn’t a tree, and a later period when it definitely is one – and over some hazy period in-between it became a tree. Why did it become a tree? What changed? Presumably not its fundamental biological makeup (let’s assume, at least)? Well, perhaps because it came to resemble a tree, far more than a seed. Resemblance is a hazy matter, so the point of changeover is hazy too.
. So that this doesn’t just become a case of each of us repeating the same points over and over – I would ask you: what is the difference between the case of the fertilized egg and that of the acorn? What stops your argument about the egg from applying to the acorn, and providing the unwanted conclusion that the acorn is a tree?

Secondly, you go on to say: “the scientific fact remains: scientific inquiry will demonstrate definitively that the quiddity in question is a) human, b) genetically unique, and c) "being," since it is undergoing mitosis and cytokinesis.” I suppose that given the notion that I have of what ‘science’ (empirical science) is, I just can’t envisage what kind of “scientific inquiry” would be able to tell us that a fertilized egg is a human being. I grant that scientific enquiry can tell us a lot about fertilized eggs – such as what their fundamental biological makeup is. But whether or not such things are what count as humans/people, as far as their ethical status is concerned - how is that a scientifically observable-testable fact? It just seems to be the wring kind of fact to be of relevance to scientific enquiry, as I understand it (perhaps I have too narrow a conception of science?). I suppose my thinking is something like this: the concept of a human/person, which is internally bound up with a certain moral status, was in use long before the modern scientific discoveries of DNA and the like. People got on fine with it – much as they do today. It had a certain meaning which would seem, therefore, to have been independent of those scientific discoveries. After all, non-scientists have always been just as competent in using the words ‘human’ and ‘person’ as scientists have been. There seems to be so much more to our concept of the a ‘human being’ – and certainly to our concept of a ‘person’ – than the kind of characteristics that scientists generally tend to investigate. Unless, perhaps, you included under that heading, social scientists, and psychologists etc.
. Imagine that scientists, somewhere, discovered a bizarre life-form: little clumps of flesh, covered in hair (they have a heart and circulatory system etc, and they grow from being very small, to their full-size). The scientists observe them, and investigate them. They do DNA tests and the like – and, much to their astonishment, they discover that these bizarre creatures have exactly the same fundamental biological makeup as human beings! Now, are the scientists qualified in now proclaiming these things to either *be* or *not be* human beings? I do not think so. They can tell us lots of things about these creatures. Are they human beings? Well, it depends on whether that phrase, as it is in common usage, would cover them, or not. I think that we would hardly be inclined to call them so! Other people may lean in the other direction. However, the scientists, once he has told us things about their biology and physiology, and life-habits, is no more qualified that you or I to decide whether or not they are humans or people… What would our moral attitude to such creatures be? I’m not sure. I expect that it would depend on many things about them (do they wince when we prick them? do they ever develop into people very similar to ourselves? [note this last question. It is certainly relevant – but, give what I said above about smooth development, this would not be a be-all-and-end-all question, only another very important and relevant one]. Do they share our concerns? Could they even be said to *have* concerns in the way that we do?). Anyway – the point of the example is that the scientist can help us, but not take us all the way.
. What if the spiritual leader of certain religion claimed to have been told by God – or derived, in the traditional means, from Scripture – that these creatures were human beings, were people just like you and me – albeit very different in many ways. What then? Then that would be a fine pronouncement to make, and a fine conclusion to come to. It would have many ethical and religious ramifications. It would be a religious pronouncement, and it would not be backed up by science. That would be fine. There are many such – and they are none the worse for it.
. I feel that we are in a parallel kind of situation with fertilized eggs: they have the same biological makeup as us people, and they are closely related to us in extremely significant ways (they develop into us, with a little help); but they are also very different from us: they look very different, they are far less capable than us, they live in an extremely different environment to us, and live in a very different way to us, they lack many of the essential internal organs that we have (the last few of which is not true of most born babies) etc etc. Scientists are indispensable I telling us about a lot of these characteristics of fertilized eggs and foetuses. But do they have a special authority to got that extra step, and tell us that such a thing (with such similarities, and such differences to us) are what we call ‘human beings’, or ‘people’? Well, insofar as the scientists is a speaker of our language, an d a member of our shared moral community, he can. But insofar as I am a speaker of the language as well, and also a member of our shared moral community, I can also speak with as much authority as he can, on this matter. It is not a scientific questions (whether or not the foetus is a human/person); rather, it seems to me to be a conceptual, cultural, moral, religious question. (Which, of course is not to say that there will ever be agreement over it; or that there is one clear answer).
. Science is not what I’d call a *conceptual* investigation, but rather an empirical one. What we have been engaging in, in these comments, is *philosophy*, not science (as these subjects have become separate over the last few centuries – though I don’t mean to imply that they always have clear and sharp boundaries).

Finally, please do not assume that just because I have remained unconvinced of your position, after a brief exchange of a few paragraphs, that I am therefore somehow prejudiced, dishonest, or blinkered in this regard. That seems a rather unfair, and hasty, on your part (if I am right in interpreting the tone of your final line – if not, then apologies!).

Questioner

One more, and let’s move on.

The acorn analogy does not do what you want it to do.

First, the acorn and the tree are not, as you would have them, different things at all: they are both “oak.” In the same way, the zygote and the three-year-old child are both the same thing: “human being.” Difference in stage is not difference in kind.

“Just because one thing develops into another in a smooth process, carried forward by its own internal biological inertia, does not mean that it was, right from the beginning, what it became in the end.”

In fact, it does. The genetic information is the same, the developmental process is the same. That particular acorn X will result in that particular tree X – it will not become, say, an orchid.

“I just can’t envisage what kind of “scientific inquiry” would be able to tell us that a fertilized egg is a human being.”

Observation and comparison. Human DNA. Observable cytokinesis. Hence, a particular instance of “homo sapiens” plus “being” = “a particular human being.”

“Whether or not such things are what count as humans/people, as far as their ethical status is concerned - how is that a scientifically observable-testable fact?”

I never said “ethical status” is observable. What I’m saying is that science proves what is common sense: a fertilized human egg undergoing cytokinesis is a unique human being.

We agree that science can’t tell us what value to assign to this unique human being. For that, we need to make a decision, and we’re agreed it’s a moral decision. But based on what? The fact that “human being” is, in fact, what occurs at fertilization.

You, Questioner, once passed through the blastocystic stage. Should we have regarded you then as having no more value than an acorn in a field? If you say no, then you are saying that “human being” has no value per se. You’re welcome to believe this, though I think you would be unjust and a demonstrable danger to humanity. You would be more likely to justify and support anti-human policies, for example, or judicial decisions, etc. (I think you should not do this, hence my continuing to write to you on this blog.)

“Imagine that scientists, somewhere, discovered a bizarre life-form”

This example proves nothing because it is a tautology. You’re saying “suppose scientists discovered something essentially human that wasn’t human.” As an example, it grossly underestimates the significance of scientifically established facts.

Science tells us that what we have here is a unique and developing instance of human being. People shouldn’t dispute this fact because doing so would be unjustified and irrational. What this all comes down to – and all it ever came down to – is pitting mothers against their children, and trying to make us all believe that health and happiness sometimes depends on the annihilation of human beings.

We will never consent to that, and neither should you.

“To add to the plethora of comments on Fr. Coughlin’s article, I submit my own:

1. Several of the commentators on the article are trying to base their decision on the right to abort based on when the ‘person’ comes into being in the pre-born fetus. The natural sciences have proven that at conception a new ‘human being’ has come into existence. What has been conceived is not a tumor, nor will it mature into a dog, cat or some being other than a human being, a homo sapiens. Trying to parse the ‘physical’ being from a ‘personal’ being smacks of Cartesian dualism. Moreover, the people who attempt to do this are confusing the actual exercise of rational thinking with the inherent capacity of the being to exercise intelligent thought. To determine whether a physical human being is also a person based on actual exercise of rational thinking can lead to the absurd. Is an unconscious person no longer a ‘person’? Other examples abound.

2. The natural sciences cannot prove or disprove the existence of some thing or characteristic that is not measurable in space and time. Such non-material objects are beyond the object and scope of the natural sciences. But unless you are a crass materialist (including those psychologists who define person in terms of self consciousness), that lack of physical proof avails nothing. That is why there is such a science as meta-physics (beyond physics). That is where the nature and existence of form and matter, of act and potency and of soul and body can be examined using the tools appropriate to philosophical analysis that are not subject to the limitations of the physical sciences.

3. Even for those who are still not convinced that the fetus is a person who has an inalienable right to life, can they prove that the fetus is not a person entitled to that right? I think not. In the civil/criminal law no person is convicted and executed unless he has been proven ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ of his guilt. Ignoring for the moment the question of the absence of guilt of the fetus for living, why should we adopt a standard for execution of the pre-born child in the womb (or in the research laboratory) that is less stringent than for a criminally guilty convict? In case of doubt, we should err on the side of saving life, not destroying it. In this regard, one should read footnote 19 of Donum Vitae.

4. On a separate issue, the comments on the analogy of abortion to slavery are not apropos, and only confuse the discussion. Moreover, the assertion that Lincoln opposed slavery as such is not supported by the facts of history. For a good discussion I suggest reading Judge Napolitano’s recent book “Dred Scott’s Revenge”.”

Yes, a fetus is a person. A member of the Human Family. But that does not matter.

What matters is not WHAT it is, but WHERE it is. In one word: location.

I say if something is inside my body, then I'm entitled to have it killed NO MATTER WHAT IT IS. Even if it's a person. Even if it's an INNOCENT person. If you were inside my body, I'd be entitled to kill you. If I were inside your body, you'd be entitled to kill me. In fact if ALL the people in the WHOLE WORLD, including the innocent ones and the unborn ones, were assembled somewhere inside my body, then I'd be entitled to holocaust them. Or, to just kill SOME of them (right-to-lifers!) That's part of the meaning of the word "my" in the phrase "my body".

Abortion kills a person. Doing an abortion on an UNWILLING patient is baby-murder. But abortion on demand is JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.