The now viral five-minute segment with James Franco’s Philosophy Time took a turn for the worst when Princeton Professor Liz Harman attempted to articulate a rationale for abortion. She summarizes:a
But, what I think is actually among early fetuses there are two very different kinds of beings. So, James, when you were an early fetus, and Eliot, when you were an early fetus, all of us I think we already did have moral status then. But we had moral status in virtue of our futures. And future of fact that we were beginning stages of persons. But some early fetuses will die in early pregnancy due to abortion or miscarriage. And in my view that is a very different kind of entity. That’s something that doesn’t have a future as a person and it doesn’t have moral status.
The segment highlighted that the abortion logic is bankrupt. The argument is that morality is only endowed to a fetus if we allow the baby to have a future. The if is determined by the mother’s choice to grant the fetus life outside the womb. Over the years, pro-choice advocates have worked hard to establish the right of the woman to not choose life. Of course, the benefits of allowing the fetus to grow all 40 weeks, the benefits of life itself and by what authority a woman’s decision can determine the moral status of a fetus are not discussed. Philosophizing about such ideas would be self-defeating.
In essence, abortion’s logic is insane. For all the talk about morality and status, the abortion academia now proclaims a rationale devoid of morality to prove the morality of killing an unborn human being. This is insane! And I like to think James Franco’s befuddled reaction means he knows it also.Like