[Samseau]

(06-19-2013 02:08 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:50 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 12:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

If it's not a human being, then why do you need to abort it?

To prevent it from becoming a human being. A human being is a thing of value that needs to be respected, cared for, and parented. A human being can't be aborted but a clump of cells can.

And as for your other question, let's assume an unconscious man isn't sentient. He's still a human being capable of sentience, a 2 week clump of cells isn't.

These two statements contradict each other. If capability of sentience is all that matters, then a 2 week clump of cells must be respected because you just said you need to "prevent" it from becoming a human being, which implies that the 2 week clump of cells are capable of becoming sentient.

The 2 week clump of cells will never become sentient. What is being aborted at that stage isn't sentient and in and of itself will never develop sentience.

If it will never develop sentience, then why do you need to abort it?

Quote:

This argument tends to be X has the potential to become Y, Y is of undeniable value, therefore X is of undeniable value. My argument is that X needs to be of value in and of itself, particularly because of Z, which is the self determination and bodily autonomy of a woman, something that also has value in and of itself (but shouldn't be a blank cheque either).

My argument thus far is you cannot give a legitimate moral difference between X (fetus) and Y (baby).