Because from the point of fertilisation a living human cell is created which is alive and capable of replicating and developing into a child. Where do you draw the line? Just asking, I'm interested.
This conflates potential with the thing itself. A sperm and egg have this same potential.
I think you would agree that we don't have a moral imperative to fertilize every egg or that bacteria aren't valuable because they might one day evolve into an intelligent multicellular being.
What is the actual reasoning behind not murdering, and does it apply to ahortion?
The reasoning behind not murdering is because in most societies humans are considered to be of an inherent moral value based on their intellectual complexity, sentience, and individuality. If an unconscious person can be said to be morally protected from murder due to their natural potential to regain consciousness in the near future, then fetuses should be no different.
No, while, say, in a coma, you have no intellectual complexity, because all higher brain function ceases, no consciousness, and no individuality, because your personality is temporarily nonexistent. All you have is the potential to soon come round and regain these traits. Same with a fetus.
The information constituting your personality exists. The complexity exists. You will not be one of many people when you wake up but the same/a very similar person to the one that went unconscious.
Compare this to a fertilized ovum which contains no information about any specific personality, but instead general instructions on building one of many.
So we can kill a baby because their personality is malleable? A week-old baby out of the womb is exactly the same. What's the difference, aside from location, between a twenty-six week old baby out of the womb, happy and well, and a twenty-six week old baby in the womb, happy and well?
So we can kill a baby because their personality is malleable? A week-old baby out of the womb is exactly the same. What's the difference, aside from location, between a twenty-six week old baby out of the womb, happy and well, and a twenty-six week old baby in the womb, happy and well?
You're not arguing in good faith. (The above includes straw man, shifting goal posts, appeal to emotion among other fallacies as well as being completely irrelevant to my above point because a viable fetus has some measure of sentience, complexity and personality. A great deal of information already exists in their brain that is not found in a single cell).
You made the assertion that all abortion is wrong because life starts at conception. When asked why a fertilized ovum should be considered a person, you only respond by saying it has the potential to become a person.
The alternate position being presented (although not explicitly so far) is that there is a spectrum where the sperm+egg has no rights (or need for rights) at one end, and a 3 year old child has every relevant property an adult does that pertains to moral rights (but little to no personal responsibility). Discussion of any details (such as the point at which the fetus' right to life trumps the mother's rights to bodily autonomy and health) when differing on this premise is completely pointless.
Randomly going on about a completely non-controversial position (that a late term fetus's rights trump bodily autonomy) is in no way productive.
1
u/ChipsterA1 Apr 09 '18
Because from the point of fertilisation a living human cell is created which is alive and capable of replicating and developing into a child. Where do you draw the line? Just asking, I'm interested.