To abort or not to abort

[Heywood]

I'm afraid I am a little bit lost, yes. One would not hesitate to assume a certain posture if it would increase the chances of a baby's survival were it to be unwell. If I read your argument correctly, you consider the potential of an entity the critical factor in what moral obligations one has towards it. So what I'm not getting is why you consider a zygote and a baby, who have the same potential, to be worthy of different degrees of intervention for their protection.

Moral protection means society has an obligation to protect that being from deliberately being harmed by another being. Abortion is an act which deliberately harms another being. Its black and white.

The obligation to protect a being from unintentional harm is not black and white. You don't have an obligation to save the child that fell into the path of an on coming train if doing so means sacrificing your own life. Now you may choose to put your life in jeopardy to save your son and not choose to put your life in jeopardy to save a zygote. The reason is because you value your son more than a zygote.

---

And why do you value the 3 month old more than the zygote? They both have potential for consciousness.

3 month olds are more cute.