Contraception vs. abortion

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Pro-lifers unless they're catholic don't have a problem with contraption in principal.

Preventing the sperm from meeting the egg is fine. But once the sperm meets the egg, there's no turning back. I'm not sure I see the ultimate difference however.

Many pro-lifers from my observations recognize the fetus as a potential individual not an actual individual. Sort of like an undeveloped poloroid photo. When you take the picture, what the camera spits out isn't a photo. It's just a black square but after a minute it turns into a photo. The fetus then is like the undeveloped photo. It's not an individual yet but it will be soon. (Other prolifers think of the fetus as an individual already and I'm not addressing their particular view here. )

Say you have one couple who in a unprotected sex act could produce 9 months later an individual named Brian.

Let's say they use protection which stops the sperm from meeting the egg that would have become Brian.

However, lets rewind a bit and change it to where they didn't use protection and conception occurs. The woman then has an abortion which stops Brian from existing.

In these two different scenarios you have the same result: Brian being prevented from existing. The only difference is the time at which the preventive measure occurred.

Why define conception then as the no turning back point if contraception has the same result? Every single sperm and egg is a potential individual so if pro-lifers were consistent I'd think they should be trying to have as many pregnancies as is possible to reduce the amount of genocide we're all commiting.

[Something completely different]

they dont see the fetus as a "potential" individual.

they atualy see that underdeveloped parcel of tissue as an individual.

[fr0d0]

With contraception you have no Brian. You have constituent parts that would make a person if combined.

With abortion Brian is realised. His person has begun it's path of life that could be no other person. We choose to end that persons existence.

[Darwinian]

But does that brain have consciousness? Does it yet lay host to a personality or is that still potential, just like the sperm that never made it to the egg?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

they dont see the fetus as a "potential" individual.

they atualy see that underdeveloped parcel of tissue as an individual.

I have actually heard prolifers make this distinction. They don't all think alike.

[CapnAwesome]

With contraception you have no Brian. You have constituent parts that would make a person if combined.

With abortion Brian is realised. His person has begun it's path of life that could be no other person. We choose to end that persons existence.

Meh. I don't think you can put any value on someone's future existence.

[jstrodel]

Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that a fetus is merely a "parcel of tissue"?

[Darkstar]

Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that a fetus is merely a "parcel of tissue"?

What kind of evidence would we look for?
It depends on the stage of the pregnancy. Do you mean this:

---

---

This:

---

---

Or this:

---

---

[jstrodel]

How are the last two a parcel of tissue?

The first is still different, in that it is the potential for life and not a piece of hair flakes or something like that.

I don't see how someone can say a grown fetus is even remotely similar to a piece of tissue unless they are just lying.

[Minimalist]

Nothing but a gob of goo.

Some people...like strudel...never grow out of that phase.