An argument against elective abortion

[Ryft]

Why are Homo sapiens so important, then?

They are not "so important," I said. They are simply the relevant subject vis-à-vis abortion.

---

---

In that case, to avoid being arbitrary you would have to say that it's wrong to kill any being with the same attributes ...

Only if the argument aims to conclude such a thing. (It is not an argument against wrongful killing in and of itself).

You must show the moral significance of Homo sapiens.

The argument assumes the moral significance of Homo sapiens (first premise). But again, one cannot validly take that to mean other species have less or no moral significance; other species simply are not the relevant subject vis-à-vis abortion. Do other species have equal, less, or no moral significance? Is it morally wrong to deliberately kill other innocent creatures? These are interesting but different arguments outside the subject of this one.

[A 28-week old fetus] is not a human in a moral sense ...

With regard to this argument, that simply begs the question and is invalid.

[Whether or not sexually molesting a coma patient is a moral issue] would depend on the reactions of those close to the patient, the chances of recovery of the patient, and that he or she would find out. Otherwise, no, from my view, not particularly.

The coma patient is a 12-year old child rating a 3 on the Glasgow Coma Scale; those close to the patient are not aware of the act; the patient has a good chance of recovery; the patient would not find out, being deeply unconscious (GCS-3) when it took place. On your view, it is not particularly a moral issue?

Because self-awareness provides a being with the desire to continue living, and with the capacity to make plans for the future which would be thwarted if it were killed. That's from a utilitarian perspective.

First, I did not ask about the relevance of self-awareness. I do not see how 'species' is more arbitrary than 'self-awareness'. Second, my criteria incorporates newborn infants while yours does not (as self-awareness does not develop until at least three months of age).

Species, however, is entirely arbitrary. If you disagree, you must show why.

Because 'species' is not a matter of personal whim or prejudice, but a matter of scientific fact.

---

---

Seeds aren't flowers. Eggs aren't chickens. Fetuses (fetusi?) aren't humans. Clear?

A fertilized egg is not a developed chicken, but it is a developing chicken; it is of the species Gallus gallus domesticus. A fetus is not a developed human, but it is a developing human; it is of the species Homo sapiens. Biological references describe human development (biological life cycle of Homo sapiens) as beginning inside the womb; i.e., zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, and adult are all development stages that members of the species Homo sapiens go through. On your view, a 28-week old fetus is not of the Homo sapiens species if it is inside the womb, but is if outside the womb. Does that strike anyone as a biological criterion, or an arbitrary one?

---

---

When you addressed [euthanasia], you changed your original assertion from "The killing of innocent people is morally wrong" to "The killing of innocent people is morally wrong in certain situations."

No, I did not change my first premise. It remains unchanged, "The deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong," with the acknowledgment that exceptions might exist, which I listed and addressed, pointing out that an exception is relevant if and only if elective abortions qualify under it (i.e., an exception that does not incorporate elective abortions, like euthanasia, leaves the argument unaffected).