(June 1, 2014 at 9:57 am)Jason_ab Wrote: 1) Does anyone here underastands that killing animals is ALSO moraly debateable?
2) My personal opinion is that at this specific topic is very difficult to get to a morally safe conclusion.
We can try to come up with a specific point in the life of a baby-to-be that we will grand it with human rights. Since that is not scientifically possible (because the factor that determines personhood is purely subjective) all we can do is let everyone decide at their own?
Maybe I believe that a baby-to-be is a human being on the 1st day. My friend believes it is at the 21 weeks, and someone else believes that a day before birth a baby is not a human person. So? Should she terminate the pregnancy one day before birth? Should she do such a thing two days before death? How about three?
If the 21week is our mark, what about 11 o'clock of the last day of the 20th week? Should a pregnant woman do an exam to see if there is brain function at the baby-to-be and if not, it's ok to abort?
And of course, how on earth is it different than killing animals?
Furthermore... if we decide that "superior mental development" is what seperates people from non-people, then I should point out that a one year old dog is quite "mentally superior" to an infant that is one day old... so where does this lead us?
Again, since the pain factor is the only reason that might come close to being compelling enough to trump women's rights to abort, and it's too minimal and fleeting anyway if fetuses truly do experience the psychology of pain (which they most likely don't), then it would be unethical to force a woman to keep an unwanted baby in her womb till birth.
So to be fair to the woman (who should have the right not to suffer if it is possible not to suffer), it should be her choice to decide whether she wishes to abort or not.
What happens after birth is a different issue and has nothing to do with abortion. Same with animals. They are both nothing but red herrings.