[Yardstick]

Okay, she was wrong on abortion apparently. But if she were still alive, I’ll bet she would be susceptible to arguments based on the personhood of the unborn baby now that we know — thanks to science — that a fetus is a lot more like a person than a blob of tissue. She had an open, honorable mind and would grapple with contrary evidence, I think.

[MrEdd]

No she would not.

She was a sexual hedonist, and the responsibility of child rearing would have harshed her buzz.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Funny, I was muted on an o’ist board just yesterday for (among other things) besmirching the name of Leonard Piekoff by making note of his recent struggles with that very issue, the diminishing deniability of the notion that personhood occurs before birth. But IMO the potential vs. actualized argument is weak (the biological function of procreation and its purpose, and nature's intended destiny of the human embryo is axiomatic, so by what principle does that unique yet dependent individual not have the right to see that nature fulfill that destiny unhindered by the force of man?). So the issue really boils down to competing rights and the capacity of the respective adversaries to possess and exercise them. While they hang on to the claim that the “critical event” of birth is the point at which rightful personhood occurs, it disagrees with other o’ist principles related to rights and how they apply to different individuals with different capacities. The capacity of a normal healthy near term unborn person exceeds that of other more mature individuals in certain circumstances where they would claim those people have an undeniable right to life, at least.