LETTER: Abortion by an other name …
A recent letter to the editor (“Abortion debate,” Saturday) reminds me of something I learned in a philosophy class several decades ago. Changing the name or definition of something does not change its inherent nature. Defining a child in the womb as a “nonviable fetus,” a “mass of cells” or a “parasitic cancer” does not change what it actually is. We could call cannibalism “recycling organic material,” but that shouldn’t change our reaction to it.
The letter goes on to make three points that are all concerned with costs. Well, babies are not issued a credit card at conception, so I don’t expect them to pay their own way. They are helpless and innocent, and people who are disgusted at midterm or late abortions are not going to be influenced by a change in terminology.
