As that cluster of cells develops, it grows in its ability to express sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. It grows in its entitlement to be treated with dignity. — Banno

So on your moral code murdering an adult is less acceptable that murdering a new born baby?

If someone "simply" doesn't wan't a child what will it benefit the child to be born?

(which is no simply situation).

Like I said life and nature is destructive and not a gift or inevitable joy.

If you are a Christian or some other religious person then the idea of an innocent human is problematic but I think you are using it in a purely emotive way.

The aborted fetus could be the next Hitler, or simply a chronic depressive or an anonymous mediocre person with few friends. But at least you know if they are aborted they had no desires or goals and will not suffer.

I think it is nearly evil to create life especially unwanted life in an overcrowded, polluted planet exposing them to disease, struggle and anxiety.

If you think someone should be punished for an accidental pregnancy by being forced to bear the child to full term knowing there is someone in the world they are responsible for who could produce many more clones I think that is a bit sadistic.

I don't think the child in the womb has a right to life because of its lack of independent existence.

It cannot survive without its mothers body and is therefore not individually viable.

It's right to life would interfere with the mothers right to life and many women in history have died in pregnancy.

The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sake or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake — Rank Amateur

My older brother developed primary progressive Multiple sclerosis in his mid 20's .He has now had the illness for over 20 years and it has left him fully paralyzed for at least the last 10 years and he has had to communicate by blinking. He is fed by a tube in the stomach and has a catheter and a tracheotomy to breath through.

This was biologies fate for him.

A lot of people live perfectly good lives. The majority of people love their children, planned or not.

On a moral code of any worth, destroying an innocent human life because you find it convenient to do so is wrong, even if life isn’t always great.

Any discussion on abortion needs to start with some theoretical account of the wrongness of killing. — Rank Amateur

Let's do some deconstruction.

Removing a cyst is not killing. A cyst is not a living thing, not a plant, animal or mushroom, and hence cannot be killed.

But more obvious is who is not included in the argument. The account hardly mentions the pregnant woman, and then only to say we will talk about her later. That alone ought give us pause, and wonder as to the attitude towards women that stands behind this argument.

So on your moral code murdering an adult is less acceptable that murdering a new born baby? — AJJ

I don't have a moral code. That's for those with invisible friends. I make it up as I go along.

Funny thing is, so do those with moral codes; only they probably won't admit it. Ever at the point of choosing what to do, they choose to follow their code or not.

There is considerably more difference between a newborn and an embryo than between a newborn and an adult.

You’re outlining a moral code that favours the strong and healthy over the weak and defenceless, and your response to opposition is an accusation of misogyny?

You’re outlining moral codes that favour the strong and healthy over the weak and defenceless, — AJJ

Actually, if you take a look at the capabilities approach offered by Nussbaum, you will find it provides very strong defences for the rights of the disabled, for women, the poor, and social justice in general.

If you say so. I’m going off what you’ve been saying.

Let's be clear then. A person has dignity in virtue of their sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. It does not admit of degrees; there is no scale of dignity.

And a blastocyst is not a person.

Just noticed the story at . Andrew's brother is a person with dignity, and has moral standing.

On a moral code of any worth, destroying an innocent human life because you find it convenient to do so is wrong, even if life isn’t always great. — AJJ

I don't know what you mean by "because it is convenient to do so". I think creating suffering is worse than terminating an unborn child.
You keep on calling it a innocent human life. But it is someone who has not been born into the world, has no hopes dreams and aspirations and is not even aware that they exist.

I don't think anyone has a coherent justifiable moral code. Creating a child that will have a poor quality a of life and is unwanted, is no basis for a moral code.

A child has no interests in the womb because they can express no desires and do not exhibit waking states of consciousness. They do not need to continue to exist.

I think life for everyone is substandard personally and I think people who think this world and life is acceptable are delusional.

Comparing killing a fetus to killing a child or adult independent of their mother is disingenuous and dishonest.

You may as well just keep parroting "destroying an innocent apple's life when you eat it" or "Destroying the innocent pigs precious life" when you have a bacon sandwich It is just trite.

I have no idea what AJJ mean by "innocent".

In the bible it says:

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one."

I’m not talking about pigs or apples. I’m talking about innocent, defenceless, human life. Innocent because it has done no wrong; defenceless because it cannot defend itself against violence; human because it is human; a life because it is alive. Destroying such a life because you’d rather not take care of it (which would be an inconvenience) is wrong. Destroying it because Andrew4Handel thinks it would be better off dead, is also wrong.

Let's be clear then. A person has dignity in virtue of their sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. It does not admit of degrees; there is no scale of dignity.

And a blastocyst is not a person. — Banno

OK, so how many of those attributes and to what degree does someone need them before they get their Dignity Card? And what about those without theirs? Are they fair game?

It’s not self-conscious and rational if that’s what you mean, but will become so unless interrupted by violence.

I’m not talking about pigs or apples. I’m talking about innocent, defenceless, human life. Innocent because it has done no wrong; defenceless because it cannot defend itself against violence; human because it is human; a life because it is alive. Destroying such a life because you’d rather not take care of it (which would be an inconvenience) is wrong. Destroying it because Andrew4Handel thinks it would be better off dead, is also wrong. — AJJ

You are using emotive language that could be applied to anything. if you watch crime documentaries you will notice they don't use terms like "destroying." When someone is murdered. They tend to say killed or brutally killed if the murder was particular drawn out. The majority of time something is killed people do not use the word destroyed.

As I mentioned and you just do not respond to like most points is that there are lots of miscarriages and unsuccessful pregnancies and mothers can die giving birth. There is no benevolent natural of spiritual plan for us a children. The species most successful at breeding are things like plankton. Being able to reproduce is no award winning profound feat.

If you believe humans have a soul then you cannot destroy a person only their body.

The killing of unborn children is an emotive issue. So what if there are unsuccessful pregnancies? How does that make any difference to the fact that it is wrong to kill (as if using the word ‘kill’ makes it any better) children? The answer, so that you don’t have to think about it, is it doesn’t. It’s not about souls and spirits; it’s about valuing and having respect for the lives of others, especially if they’re weak and defenceless.

A lot of people live perfectly good lives. — AJJ

I would contest that, however even if this were true it doesn't justify creating the millions of people who have poor quality lives.

So what if there are unsuccessful pregnancies? How does that make any difference to the fact that it is wrong to kill (as if using the word ‘kill’ makes it any better) children? The answer, so that you don’t have to think about it, is it doesn’t. It’s not about souls and spirit — AJJ

Souls and spirits are entirely relevant to the nature fate of a life.

Now you are using the word child which is manipulative also because the unborn does not have identical status to someone born. It is not a fact that it is wrong to kill you are stating your opinion as a fact.

Children can have their life support machine turned off because they have a poor quality of life and can even have an assisted suicide now in some countries. We don't just assume every life is valuable and must be preserved at all costs.

Look, I’m bored now, so I’ll just state the obvious one more time and leave it at that.

My language is blunt; it’s no wonder you don’t like it, because what you’re doing is justifying the killing of unborn children, so it helps you to veil this fact with softer words. The reasons for your belief seem crude: life sucks, what’s the point?, etc.

I’d say a society which values and respects the lives of its members, especially the weak and defenceless, is better than one which does not. It will be safer, kinder, and happier - at least in my view; doesn’t seem too controversial to me. But you, of course, can believe what you want.

I’d say a society which values and respects the lives of its members, especially the weak and defenceless, is better than one which does not. It will be safer, kinder, and happier - at least in my view; doesn’t seem too controversial to me. — AJJ

That is extremely controversial if you read a history book or newspaper about what actually happens in reality.

In what way is an unborn child, entirely dependent on its mother, a member of society? In What way does it contribute?

Societies with limited access to abortion have the worst quality of life on earth anyway.

Your language is not blunt it is simply deceptive, inaccurate and emotive. You have offered absolute zero argument and 110% emotional manipulation. Well Done!

Again, it’s an emotive issue mate, and requires a modicum of moral intelligence to consider properly. But as I said, believe what you want.

There is no excuses for causing protracted suffering.

Reproduction causes protractive suffering. Abortion causes no suffering.

Consider it this way, we can only exist and do something once at a time. At the moment you can only do one thing even though you are capable of doing many things. When you abort a foetus, or a baby, or killing anything for the matter - it won't be as dramatic as everyone seems to make it. The real horror is taking a life, my thoughts are that although life is a great gift and so many wonderful opportunities arise, the death of a human will not stop the world going around.

Killing it will only last a second, it is not cruel, especially since the baby won't really go to hell for it. Whether it dies or it lives it doesn't matter. Our conscious or state of being is what is important, not existing physically. I don't think the baby will fully die. It just won't exist to us.

At the point of conception it becomes the parents' responsibility. If they were not ready for that responsibility then they should have used contraception. Now a future person must die because of their complacency.

I'm not anti-abortion, mainly because a lack of such an option potentially creates worse alternatives, but if a child is terminated for reasons other than medical, I think that is an extremely questionable act.

Is it wrong to kill aliens if it's to our advantage? I think abortion is wrong if the child can live on it's own (that is, could be a premie). That seems obvious. Just because it's in the mother, that doesn't change the ontology. The alien question is interesting though. They have life, consciousness, and reason perhaps. But what if they are running around our towns causing fear? I bet Christians will get their guns out

Just because it's in the mother, that doesn't change the ontology — Gregory

Ontologically, isn't inside of/connected to the mother different than outside of/disconnected from the mother?

No

It's spatiality doesn't matter. It's nature matters. Abortion after the child can be a premie is murder, plain and simple.

The fate of fetuses before that is very analogous to the fate of aliens at our hands. So far every species we know is lower than us intelligence. Aliens change all that

What is the difference between ending a premature state of life other than a fully developed one. — EpicTyrant

What's the difference between a developing tumor and a developing fertilized egg - those are indistinguishable according to abstract & broad 'life' definition.

If you say "necessary" genetic material, then I imagine you'd be offended by women removing their ovaries & male masturbation (as sperms/eggs) only carry necessary 'genetic material - to it's fullest capacity necessary -' for commencing human life - I suppose the Xtians are recklessly consistent in that way.