Sir: Philip Kestelman's attempt to dis tinguish between "abortionists ' and ' proponents of legal abortion '
plays the combination of verbal sooty istry and moral innocence typical of a bankrupt cause. I am too squeamish t° make a good abbatoir-worker, but as a meat-eater, I raise no such moral distinctions between myself and an honest butcher.
The paradox is not resolved by an' swering the question of who is qualified to decide for or against abortion in particular cases. It can only be resolved if you are prepared to admit, continuity between ' non-persons ' and 'persons.' Once this is done, the abortionist's moral position becomes vulnerable to attack from a variant on the old hair and beard question. " Ho'S many hairs are required to make a beard?"/" How much time is required to make a foetus into a person?" I ant prepared to pursue this question into nanoseconds if necessary, but I suspect Mr Kestelman wil make the usual appeal to subjectivity rather earlier in the game. In either case, the idea ol non-persons falls to the ground. As a proponent of euthanasia and capital punishment, I will condone the destruction of human life where that life is hopelessly wrecked by coil. genital defects, devotion to wickedness, or the assaults of time, disease, physical catastrophe. Only the first of these criteria is applicable to the unborn, and in such cases the decision is better made after the foetus has come to term, and can be examined with a view to partial or total repair. If such an examination reveals nn worthwhile hope, then Mr Kestehnan's arbiter can make his decision to kill. 1 am too squeamish for this sort of work, but I will not shrink from the abbatoir-worker who implements the decision.
C. N. Gilmore 334 Banbury Road, Oxford
Previous page
