I don't know if this is Singer's view or not. I just want to respond to the suggestion that the view "shows a progression of the pro-choice stance on abortion extending beyond the womb." Do not buy the facile and cynical "slippery slope" argument advanced by some unscrupulous people that holds that any principle that justifies abortion in any circumstances will lead inexorably to a validation of heinous practices like murder of unwanted children or elderly adults. The term "pro-choice" refers to a particular political position: it is the position that the decision whether to continue a pregnancy should be made the pregnant person, not the government. People who are pro-choice do not necessarily agree on the morality of abortion -- they do not all agree on the conditions in which abortion is morally permissible, and they may not even agree that abortion is ever morally permissible. (Many members of the organization Catholics for Free Choice believe on theological grounds that abortion...

You are absolutely right about the bumpersticker, and your analogy brings out precisely what's wrong with it. I am in favor liberal abortion laws. But I cringe every time I see that bit of rhetoric emblazoned on a car or button. Here, perhaps, is what the bumpersticker would say if one had a much, much larger bumper: "Reasonble people can disagree as to whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus ought to be accorded the same moral status as a mature human being. If they are not properly accorded that status, then killing them is not murder. Given that reasonable people can disagree about all this, the state ought not to legislate against abortion, but should rather leave it up to the conscience of each idividual whether to have one or not." It is a sign of the general degradation of our public political discourse that so much of it involves the mere trading of elliptical, misleading, and inflammatory bumpersticker-size slogans. The general trend against sober, reasonable discussion in the public realm...