> If a fetus is going to be aborted, then the negative affects of this chemical are moot. The affects of the chemical only become a problem if the fetus becomes

> If a fetus is going to be aborted, then the negative affects of this chemical are moot. The affects of the chemical only become a problem if the fetus becomes a baby. Without getting into value judgements or supporting a particular position: I think the GP is implying that when the fetus "becomes a baby" is the 'divisive' part. For some folks think the fetus (zygote, whatever) is a baby/human/person at (e.g.) the moment of conception, while other folks pick a different moment of time for this. The (philosophical?) question is why should the entity in the uterus sometimes be considered a (unborn) baby, while other times not a human/person/baby but rather just a bunch of cells? Even if you concede that the fetus is a person (which is a position that some disagree with), that still does not necessarily settle things: > It is possible, of course, to acknowledge the personhood of the fetus and still defend abortion. Half a century ago the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson, conceding that the fetus becomes a person well before birth, famously argued that the personhood of the fetus does not make the mother’s decision to kill it unjust. Killing the fetus is unjust, Thomson argued, only if the mother first agrees to carry it. But this, again, is a philosophical question. Do we owe others only what we agree to owe them? > Some philosophers, like Thomson, think so, but very many philosophers disagree. If I live alone in the woods and wake one day to find an infant on my doorstep, am I obligated to care for it? Or may I simply step over it and go on about my day, until it dies from exposure and neglect? To think I am obligated in justice to help it, as a great many people (philosophers and non-philosophers alike) do, is to think we owe things to other people simply because they are people. And if we can owe things to other people simply because they are people, then Thomson’s argument falls apart. […] * https://archive.is/https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/philosophy-not-religion-is-at-the-heart-of-the-abortion-debate/ https://archive.is/https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commen... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Jarvis_Thomson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Jarvis_Thomson IMHO this is central question in the abortion debate, and I find it hard to believe it will ever be resolved or 'universally' agreed upon as it involves all kind personal value judgements.