An argument against elective abortion

[The Omnissiunt One]

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). 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.

My point was that one can employ a reductio ad absurdum. A foetus at its least developed probably has the mental capacities of a bacterium. Is washing your hands therefore genocide? If not, why not? Questions about the wrongness of killing other species are therefore not inseparable from 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.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I meant that it possesses none of the qualities which we normally consider to make a life worth living. As I said, most of us recognise that a cat's life is worth more than a stone. This must be because of its characteristics e.g. sentience, which a foetus doesn't have.

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?

There's obviously a deep sense of abhorrence and stigma attached to such an act, and the idea seems pretty horrific to me, of course. But I'm struggling to see what could be wrong with it. From a Virtue Ethicist's point of view, it would be bad for the rapist's moral character, and that I think is something we ought to consider. Why do you believe it to be wrong, if no-one suffers?

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).

I said why self-awareness wasn't arbitrary from a utilitarian point of view: it is the pre-requisite to a desire to continue living. Also, I didn't say that self-awareness was the only consideration. The fact that the baby is out of the womb surely counts for something, as the mother's interests are no longer at stake in terms of giving birth to it.

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

Yes, I'm not denyng that. It is still an arbitrary criterion in a moral sense. Self-awareness is also a matter of scientific fact, though somewhat harder to demonstrate. Why, then, is species morally relevant?