<First, this argument is fundamentally about a difference in perception. He's talking about the removal of a (to quote Nathanson) "perfectly formed" fetus. What he neglects to mention is that the fetus has no forebrain for the first part of its gestation, and certainly nothing resembling a human brain until the third trimester. To appeal to the idea of human pain suffered by a human-shaped creature with less ability to form a thought than a bird has is deceitful.


Well with that logic lets not forget all of the unwanted severely retarded children who managed to make it through the birth canal. They can't think any better than a bird, so lets lop them on the back of the head. Do it just right and they won't feel a thing either.

To compare the prerogatives of the potential human to those of the actual one is ridiculous.

no more rediculous in my perception to comparing a perfectly formed (yes even without its forebrain it is perfectly formed, just because it hasn't formed a forebrain doesn't make it deformed) fetus to a bird.

If Nathanson doesn't want to perform any more abortions, no one is twisting his arm. But he doesn't want freedom of conscience for himself, he wants the spotlight. He's an activist. He's moving his focus to a new and more exciting group, one that will praise and pet him as his former constituency did when they were struggling for legitimacy.

I can't really comment on this because I don't know Nathanson or his history. You are probably right though. What you describe is a despicable behavior in many activists.

-Steve G.