Experts Rebuke Pro-Abort Prof. Claim that “a Fetus is Not a Person”

Experts Rebuke Pro-Abort Prof. Claim that “a Fetus is Not a Person”

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, May 7, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A philosophy professor at Saint Mary’s University (SMU) in Halifax is drawing rebuke from experts in bioethics, medicine, and philosophy for a Monday column in which he advocates abortion based on the notion that “a fetus is not a person.”

If pro-abortion advocates can show that the unborn child is not a person, argues Dr. Mark Mercer in an op-ed for the Ottawa Citizen, then a woman’s reason for aborting him or her “cannot be outweighed by the fetus’s right to life, for, not being a person, the fetus has no such right.”

But according to bioethicist Dianne Irving, who ripped into Mercer’s column in a Tuesday essay, Mercer’s science is “grossly objectively erroneous” and his concept of “delayed personhood” is “deceptively achieved by means of using academically indefensible ‘philosophy’.”

Mercer admits in his article that “abortion involves the deliberate killing of a human being,” but maintains that that is “no reason for abortion to be illegal,” and that one should not be “morally troubled by it.”

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10050709.html

Well, Professor Singer carries the idea somewhat further. To paraphrase Dr. Mercer, Prof. Singer would say: 'the newborn child is not a person, then a woman’s reason for aborting him or her “cannot be outweighed by the infant’s right to life, for, not being a person, the infant has no such right,” and may be terminated up until 3 months post-birth or perhaps later.

God help us and HAVE MERCY on him

There is a logic to Dr. Mercer’s argument. The same one the Greeks used. That if humanness doesn’t begin at conception, the next logical place is to say that it begins with full self awareness, the ability to understand and communicate an argument. (The notion of viability has always been a logically silly one, and one that has changed dramatically since Roe v. Wade). Fortunately, most of us can intuitively see, and are abhorred by the logical conclusion to this argument. Children of 2-4 and adults with dimentia or retardation could then be killed for convenience’s sake. At least Dr. Mercer is intellectually honest, even if he is morally and logically wrong.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.