Arthur's piece shows how complacent abortion advocates in Canada have become. She starts by accusing Woodworth of begging the question by claiming he assumes the unborn are human beings as his premise when he has actually asked for a commission to study the medical evidence as to whether they are or aren't. Woodworth's piece also makes a number of arguments for why the unborn should be considered human beings. Arthur's piece admits the unborn are biologically human (hmmm.... isn't a biologically human organism a human being?) but then asserts they aren't persons. Here's her argument for personhood:
Personhood is a socially and legally constructed concept, and it is bestowed upon birth for very practical and obvious reasons.Yup, that's it. No argument for "sentience" or "self-awareness" just an assertion that personhood is at birth and that's that.
Here's the core of Arthur's position:
It is impossible for two beings in the same body to exercise competing rights in any meaningful or just way. The biological or medical status of the fetus is irrelevant anyway, because women need abortions and always have.
Bingo. She doesn't care if the unborn are human beings or persons. Not one iota. Women "need" abortions and that's the end of the story. She starts with the position that women "need" abortions and everything else follows from there. There's no serious thought about what the unborn are, if they have value or rights and if they should be provided any type of protection.
Here's Arthur argument in a nutshell: Women need abortion so abortion should be legal. Abortion should be legal because women need abortion.