Religion & Law

Following up on Rob's post, it seems to me that Naomi Cahn's proposed "redefin[ition]", at Prawfsblawg, of the abortion debate is one that involves excising from that debate precisely the matter in controversy, i.e., whether or not a human being in the womb is entitled, by virtue of his or her human dignity (or something else), to the same legal protections against violence (even violence that is purportedly done for the victim's own good) that human beings enjoy after birth. 

We do not regard it as constitutionally protected, let alone "profoundly moral", for a parent to kill his two-year-old daughter, on the ground that the world is not arranged in such a way that the daughter is going to enjoy, going forward, a "decent opportunity to flourish."  If the suggestion is that we *should* so regard the decision to have an abortion, then the question has to be considered -- it cannot be defined out of the debate -- *why* it is sensible, or justifiable, for us to regard these two decisions differently.