Human Personhood and Abortion (Part 2)

In a previous post, I shared an article by Peter Kreeft, a Philosophy professor, who debunked the position held by pro-choice advocates by demonstrating that their arguments are not logically sound.

In another article, Nina Martin writes about Justice Tom Parker and how he's subverting the precedent established by the Roe vs. Wade case, which legalized abortion in the U.S. How he is doing it is based on a simple assumption: that, in order to illegalize abortion, the fetus must be considered a person in the eyes of the law.

In the Philippines, abortion is already illegal. The 1987 constitution protects both the life of the mother and the unborn from conception. The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (RPC) provides criminal penalties against women who undergo abortion and those who assist in such procedures.

In our country, most people recognize that unborn fetuses are indeed persons, as contemplated by law, and are to be accorded rights, including the right to life.

In the U.S., this assumption is still taking root several decades after the Roe vs. Wade case. What judge Tom Parker is doing is laying out the foundation, the jurisprudence necessary to overturn the current precedent. He is doing so by establishing in his opinions that fetuses already enjoy fetal rights, rights which show that existing statutes recognize fetuses as persons. From there, it can already be argued that fetuses also have a right to life or have the right to seek legal protection against abortion. 

As to whether Justice Tom Parker is successful in pushing this position if and when the right case comes along, we'll have to wait and see.

Here's the article: This Alabama Judge Has Figured Out How to Dismantle Roe v. Wade