The abortion debate

[Agnapostate]

Sorry that argument fails because of the fact you are preventing the fetus from developing into the person it will be.

The argument from potential fails because the usage of contraception or even the practice of celibacy also prevents the development of a potential person. Unless you're willing to condemn those also? Now, since your obvious "rebuttal" will be that abortion actively ends a life while contraception and celibacy merely prevent life from developing, you're back to square one. What is it about that life in itself that endows it with greater moral value than other nonhuman animals with a greater level of awareness and capacity to suffer?

Those arguments of yours could be used to end a babies life as it is not self aware either. About the only thing the new born baby has is the ability to feel pain, which in and of itself is unimportant to the argument.

No, it couldn't, because you forgot the critical element of extrinsic moral value. Once born, a baby's life matters to others, and killing a healthy baby will cause its parents and other family to suffer. Moreover, a baby can be adopted by others while a nonviable fetus cannot, so there is no utility maximization provided through the killing of a baby.

A human Fetus will never develop into anything BUT a human. It is not going to become a rat or any other life form. You prevent that from happening by aborting the fetus. You end the life of a person, no matter how early in the pregnancy you make the decision to abort.

This is mere repetition, but it still obfuscates the reality that different stages of development are morally meaningful if they endow differently developed beings with different capacities to suffer. For example, an egg containing an embryo will not suffer from being dropped into a pot of boiling water in the same manner that a chicken will, because it has not yet developed the sensory capacities that permit it to suffer on such a level. Similarly, a fetus will not suffer from its own death in the same way that a normal person will because it is not aware of its own existence and would not suffer from inhibition of denial of its preferences and interests in the same manner that a normal person would.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Simply wrong as usual. But do keep justifying the killing of Human life cause you say so.

You may want to do some research on the Intrinsic value of the embryo and the effect of termination on the mother. Even most women that do it for convenience sake.

And I notice you left out the father in your view of the value of the embryo.

Back to birth control. Since we do not KNOW that a human life was ever started to begin with the prevention of such is not killing at all. But you keep making that claim.

 

[HUGGY]

As the OP of this thread, I ask that everyone remain civil and shy away from using personal attacks on one another to make your point.

The conservative point of view, if I understand this correctly, is that a fetus or a pre-fetus is a life form with the potential to become a human.

The liberal point of view is that the fetus, up until a certain time period, is not complex enough to consider human. No matter what it has the potential to become, it is not that currently and a woman should have the right to abort the pregnancy if she so chooses.

My view - first and early-mid second term abortions are acceptable. Anything beyond 22 weeks is disgusting and should be banned. If a fetus can survive outside the womb, then the fetus must be kept alive until birth unless it's a case of the mother's life. A rape victim should know pretty early on if she wants to terminate the pregnancy and I highly doubt an incest victim is going to mull it over for 22 weeks.

We kill bacteria every day. We kill incests every day. Sometimes we kill animals when we hunt. These are far more complex life forms than a fetus and many conservatives find it just fine to kill these. I do not view human life as being superior to animal life - I view it equal. For the traits and qualities and intelligence we posses, animals posses different traits and qualities superior to ours. Additionally, man relies on the animal for nourishment and clothing to be kept warm as we could not do this on our own. I find this hypocritical of conservatives.

So, that's my view on abortion. 22 weeks or less.

As the OP of this thread, I ask that everyone remain civil and shy away from using personal attacks on one another to make your point.

deleted

 

[Agnapostate]

Simply wrong as usual. But do keep justifying the killing of Human life cause you say so.

You may want to do some research on the Intrinsic value of the embryo and the effect of termination on the mother. Even most women that do it for convenience sake.

Is this even a conceivable argument?

And I notice you left out the father in your view of the value of the embryo.

That's because extrinsic moral value as applied from a detached person is subordinate to the pregnant woman's own preferences and interests. Just as a spinster's greater love for her cats than her neighbors does not endow the cats with greater moral value, neither can external parties' desire for a fetus to live provide justification for creating an imposition on a pregnant woman.

Back to birth control. Since we do not KNOW that a human life was ever started to begin with the prevention of such is not killing at all. But you keep making that claim.

I already anticipated this claim; every simple-minded rightist tosses it out there sooner or later. But it operates on the premise that there's some intrinsic moral value in human life merely by virtue of its membership in the species homo sapiens. I'm challenging that premise, so it's incumbent upon you to provide an argument in order to uphold it rather than merely "beg the question."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Simply wrong as usual. But do keep justifying the killing of Human life cause you say so.

You may want to do some research on the Intrinsic value of the embryo and the effect of termination on the mother. Even most women that do it for convenience sake.

Is this even a conceivable argument?

And I notice you left out the father in your view of the value of the embryo.

That's because extrinsic moral value as applied from a detached person is subordinate to the pregnant woman's own preferences and interests. Just as a spinster's greater love for her cats than her neighbors does not endow the cats with greater moral value, neither can external parties' desire for a fetus to live provide justification for creating an imposition on a pregnant woman.

Back to birth control. Since we do not KNOW that a human life was ever started to begin with the prevention of such is not killing at all. But you keep making that claim.

I already anticipated this claim; every simple-minded rightist tosses it out there sooner or later. But it operates on the premise that there's some intrinsic moral value in human life merely by virtue of its membership in the species homo sapiens. I'm challenging that premise, so it's incumbent upon you to provide an argument in order to uphold it rather than merely "beg the question."

Let me get this right? You argue Intrinisic value and then dismiss the obvious value that the mother that aborts feels after the abortion? Thanks for proving the point you are not an honest person.

Once again the prevention of something is not the same as the ending of something. One , the ending, destroys a known life, the other simply prevents a life from ever forming. A life we have no idea that it would have formed absent the prevention.

Hate to break it to ya, but Human LIFE IS intrinsically of Moral VALUE simply because it is HUMAN. One can not find any other reason that it has moral value. The fact it is Human GIVES it it's value. Just as the simple fact an chicken is NOT a human denies it the same value.

 

[We Are They]

Let me see if I got this straight, a guy who's job it was to kill others (Retired Gay Sgt) is arguing that an embryo, which btw isn't a "human life" yet, is worthy of protection? LOL, pretty funny, dude.

 

[code1211]

As the OP of this thread, I ask that everyone remain civil and shy away from using personal attacks on one another to make your point.

The conservative point of view, if I understand this correctly, is that a fetus or a pre-fetus is a life form with the potential to become a human.

The liberal point of view is that the fetus, up until a certain time period, is not complex enough to consider human. No matter what it has the potential to become, it is not that currently and a woman should have the right to abort the pregnancy if she so chooses.

My view - first and early-mid second term abortions are acceptable. Anything beyond 22 weeks is disgusting and should be banned. If a fetus can survive outside the womb, then the fetus must be kept alive until birth unless it's a case of the mother's life. A rape victim should know pretty early on if she wants to terminate the pregnancy and I highly doubt an incest victim is going to mull it over for 22 weeks.

We kill bacteria every day. We kill incests every day. Sometimes we kill animals when we hunt. These are far more complex life forms than a fetus and many conservatives find it just fine to kill these. I do not view human life as being superior to animal life - I view it equal. For the traits and qualities and intelligence we posses, animals posses different traits and qualities superior to ours. Additionally, man relies on the animal for nourishment and clothing to be kept warm as we could not do this on our own. I find this hypocritical of conservatives.

So, that's my view on abortion. 22 weeks or less.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'll stiulate that your statement of the positions is accurate if incomplete.

Drawing a time line to mark the border of acceptable and disgusting is a little arbitrary even in this kind of a debate. 22 weks + 1 day = disgusting. 22 weeks - 1 day = acceptable. Do you live your life reading freshness codes and living by them? I've poured out milk that was within the freshness code but turned bad, let's call it disgusting, and happily consumed milk past the code that was perfectly acceptable.

Was the milk alive? By my understanding, no. Was the stuff that made the milk disgusting alive? By my understanding, yes.

Life rarely functions according to the applied schedules of Man.

Qualities superior to ours? A seed can lie dormant in a desert for years and when rained upon grows into a plant. This is a quality superior to ours. If I lie dormant in a desert for years, it's likely I'll lie there a good deal longer rained on or not. Any plant is more complex than any single celled animal or bacteria. Does this complexity rule out our using these plants as food or shelter? I assume that you are alive and that you have taken nourishment in some form.

If you do not eat anything that is or was alive, welcome to our planet.

You need to re-examine your definitions and the resulting rationalizations.

In our society today, the debate about abortion is one of convenience vs morality. The argument that a woman has the right to choose must ignor the possibiity that a life grows within the woman. If the "growth" within is considered to be human life, then an abortion is murder. Period.

If the thought of devoting ones life to raising a child is considered to be too inconvenient and the "growth"is NOT life, then that inconvenience should rightly be avoided. In this debate, the inconvenience has caused many to jump through hoops to rationalize the life out of acceptable "growths" in order to justify the indefensible.

The logic that says that a pre-natal life is human is not assailable. That is not the basis of the law. Law is not, by definition, morality.

In our society, if the mother is not going to care for the born child, then someone else or some group must be pulled into this service or the child will die. This true 22 AFTER birth. As a society, we have determined that this is too inconvenient for either the individual or the "pulled in" group and so the law is enacted.

This not a moral argument in terms of our law. It is a comprimise of convenience. All of the pretense at rationalizing the act is a cheapening exercise in the disingenuous. We as a society have determined that abortion is the solution to a very inconvenient expenditure of time. The 22 week definition is another step in the exercise.

If we cannot call something what it is, we will never be able to discuss it.

 

[Agnapostate]

Let me get this right? You argue Intrinisic value and then dismiss the obvious value that the mother that aborts feels after the abortion? Thanks for proving the point you are not an honest person.

"The obvious value"? You don't exactly have a way with words, do you? You'll have to specify precisely what you're referring to; if it's some form of "post-abortion trauma," evidence of that is decidedly mixed, though leaning in the direction of it generally not existing or being an especially strong element. At any rate, is it the role of the state to prevent individuals from feeling unhappy if they deliberately take action that results in that condition?

Once again the prevention of something is not the same as the ending of something. One , the ending, destroys a known life, the other simply prevents a life from ever forming. A life we have no idea that it would have formed absent the prevention.

For the third time, I anticipated that reply and therefore challenged you to support the premise. For you to draw a meaningful distinction between the two presumes that there's some greater moral value present in the existing life. That may be the case, but you're then faced with the initial dilemma of proving that this human life is somehow superior to various nonhuman animals with greater levels of awareness, and thus, greater capacities to suffer.

Hate to break it to ya, but Human LIFE IS intrinsically of Moral VALUE simply because it is HUMAN. One can not find any other reason that it has moral value. The fact it is Human GIVES it it's value. Just as the simple fact an chicken is NOT a human denies it the same value.

That assertion constitutes a logical fallacy known as a petitio principii fallacy, or "begging the question." Now, a far more plausible reason for considering humans in general to be of greater moral value than animals is because humans possess a greater level of various types of awareness than animals (most importantly, self-awareness), and thus a capacity to form rational preferences and suffer from their denial. However, human fetuses are obviously not among the normal persons who possess such a level of awareness. Hence, this awareness level is a far more rational criterion of measurement than species distinction, because it directly relates to a being's ability to suffer, the avoidance of which is a primary imperative of all beings capable of it.

 

[DavidS]

"because they do not possess immortal souls as humans do."

proof please.

Where is your proof that full grown human beings do have immortal souls?

 

[Agnapostate]

Holy shit, this is becoming a retarded misinterpretation. I mentioned the concept of "immortal souls" as an explicitly religious doctrine often referred to by anti-choice Christian rightists when comparisons to animals came into the debate. We Are They then misinterpreted that statement as my own...and you just misinterpreted it as his own.

 

[DavidS]

Sorry that argument fails because of the fact you are preventing the fetus from developing into the person it will be.

So if a woman is under a lot of stress in her life and the stress causes a miscarriage, should she be arrested for murder? You cannot simply say "from developing into the person it will be" because you have no idea if it will be a person or if something will happen that causes a miscarriage. And I reject the narrative that only God can determine the outcome of the fetuses life. If God was indeed so intricately involved with our lives, don't you think he'd be focused on more important issues such as war, poverty, infadelity, murder of living, adult human beings, etc.?

 

[JW Frogen]

Aggie’s forensic language concerning the killing of a conceived life with abortion is actually a condemnation of his conviction, just like the Nazi phrase at Auschwitz "work makes one free."

If one has to kill, and I believe many abortions are justifiable killing, at least give the life the dignity of admitting you are killing.

Don't be a Nazi.

 

[Agnapostate]

Aggies ferensic launge concering the killing of a concieved life with abortion is actually a condemnation of his conviction, just like the Nazi phrase at Auschwitz "work makes one free."

If one has to kill, and I believe many abortions are justifiable killing, at least give the life the dignity of admitting you are killing.

Don't be a Nazi.

Ah...we can add Godwin's Law to our list of fallacies committed today. There's an obvious distinction in that Nazi victims were normal persons capable of suffering; human fetuses are not.

 

[code1211]

My own justification for abortion is a fairly conventional utilitarian one that I've elaborated on elsewhere, including here. As I recall, the thread went down in flames when soggy decided to invade and scream. Regardless, here it is again if you want to have a look:

There is a rarely mentioned justification for abortion that I would like to bring up in this thread.

The justification is one of interests. Most liberal arguments fall short when it comes to addressing conservative opposition to abortion. But the justification based on interests is remarkably successful in this regard.

The typical opposition to abortion is that it destroys innocent human life. Liberals usually object that the fetus is not "human life." I think this is the wrong issue to be addressing. We can establish that the fetus is human life, just as multitudes of cells throughout the human body are "human life." We cannot, however, establish that the fetus is human life of significant moral value as easily. The embryo lacks moral value entirely because it does not have a single trait of personhood. It is not self-aware, (meaning that it does not have the capacity to view itself as a distinct entity existing over time), it does not have the capability to form rational moral preferences about its future, and it lacks the capacity to feel pain. It does not possess the capacity to feel pain until it is a late fetus.

Hence, the reason that the killing of an embryo or fetus is not morally equivalent to the murder of an older human is because the embryo or fetus (I’ll say fetus for convenience) is not a self-aware being, and does not possess certain necessary traits of personhood, such as the aforementioned self-consciousness, rationality, and for a long time, the capacity to feel pleasure and pain. A fetus does not have the same claim to life as a being that possesses those characteristics, and a fetus lacks personhood. Many nonhuman animals possess greater traits of personhood than a fetus does, and it is considered morally acceptable to kill those animals because they taste good.

As for the common claim that a fetus is a potential person, a potential person does not possess the same moral rights as an actual person. It does not hold that a potential X is equivalent to a current X. While a being is a fetus, it does not possess self-consciousness, that is, the capacity to view itself as a distinct entity over time. It may someday possess self-consciousness and other traits of personhood, such as rationality and the capacity to feel pleasure and pain, but at the moment, it does not. Hence, killing a fetus that lacks the capacity to make rational preferences, (such as the desire to live) is not morally equivalent to killing a being which does possess the capacity to make rational preferences, because killing the latter would deny and prevent the satisfaction of such preferences, which is antithetical to Enlightenment values of liberty and self-determination.

It is more wrong to drop a chicken into a pot of boiling water than it would be an egg. It is more wrong to chop down a venerable oak tree than to pull out an acorn. Recall that just about every cell on your body is a potential person. Recall that the existence of “potential persons” is thwarted by celibacy and contraception, and you do not consider those things to be morally wrong. (Presumably.) The argument regarding the potential personhood of a fetus certainly does not get you very far.

The feminist author Judith Jarvis Thomson has used the following analogy to justify abortion. A famous violinist is stricken with a disease, and requires an extremely rare blood type to survive. You have the blood type, and so a society of music lovers kidnaps you, and attaches your circulatory system to that of the violinist. You could get up and leave if you want to, but if you do, the violinist will die. However, if you remain connected to the violinist for nine months, he will fully recover. Is it morally acceptable for you to disconnect yourself from the violinist? Thomson holds that it is.

To me, this is the wrong example to be using becase the fetus lacks personhood. A better example would be if your circulatory system were attached to that of a rat, and the rat would die if you got up and disconnected yourself. Would disconnecting yourself be acceptable in this instance? I suspect that most conservatives would agree, and the only morally relevant difference between the fetus and the rat is that the rat possesses more traits of personhood than the fetus does.

Most conservatives consider it acceptable to place rat traps in a rat infested area to prevent the rodents from gnawing through food and other supplies. A single rat can probably incur damage of a few dollars, whereas an inconveniently timed pregnancy can incur damages of thousands of dollars. Conservatives may argue that the two situations are not comparable, and to some extent this is true, as a rat is a more advanced being than an early embryo or even a late fetus. It possesses a rudimentary level of self-consciousness and is capable of feeling pain.

Ultimately, we must consider the interests of a woman in not going through nine months of disability and a painful childbirth, as well as whatever economic difficulties an inconveniently timed childbirth may bring outweigh whatever rudimentary interests a fetus that is not a self-aware or rational being has.

I'm in full agreement with the point made about human fetuses possessing lower awareness of their existence and surroundings and a lesser capacity to suffer than various nonhuman animals. As noted by Peter Singer, "mere membership of our species doesn't settle the moral issue of whether it is wrong to end a life. As long as the abortion is carried out at less than 20 weeks of gestation – as almost all abortions are – the brain of the fetus has not developed to the point of making consciousness possible...In that respect, the fetus is less developed, and less aware of its circumstances, than the animals that we routinely kill and eat for dinner...[e]ven when the fetus does develop a capacity to feel pain – probably in the last third of the pregnancy – it still does not have the self-awareness of a chimpanzee, or even a dog."

Deviation is often explicitly religious in nature; opponents will admit that they believe that other animals are not suitable for comparison because they do not possess immortal souls as humans do.

First, this was a very nicely stated position and I appreciate your logic.

However, the lynch pin of the discussion seems to me to be wrong on its face. If this pin is removed, the reaminder of the chain falls to the floor in a heap.

The definition you present as being the decider of life is just wrong. Being able to consciously strive for human type goals is hardly a good marker of human life. When I am unconscious or asleep, do I cease to be human? If I do, then I am a potential human only. Neither alive nor dead and a candidate for termination without regret. No capacity for making rational preferance is not a satisfactory definition for me. If the potential to make a rational preferance is the definition, then a fetus is as human as a sleeping man.

If the demonstrated capability to make a rational preferance choice is the decider, then a corpse is as human as a sleeping man.

For the sake of argument, let's look at the use of fetuses for stem cells. These aborted non-people cells are compatable with people who can make rational preferance decisions. I am not a doctor, but the hew and cry from those who seem to understand these things seemed to indicate that these were the only sources for the research to continue. As such, this would seem to undermine the thought that that a fetus is a non person.

So, a sleeping or unconscious adult is as much a non person as is the fetus in your defintion. Both are potentially human by your definitions. Both are uniquely human biologically, or so say the stem cell researchers.

As always, justifying abortion by the use of morality is an empty pursuit. It is at best an ammoral proceedure. The various rationalizations to define away the humanity of a fetus are just so many words.

Abortion is an exercise in convenience and cannot be justified in terms of morality.

 

[JW Frogen]

Ah...we can add Godwin's Law to our list of fallacies committed today. There's an obvious distinction in that Nazi victims were normal persons capable of suffering; human fetuses are not.

At what point does human suffering start? At what point does humanity start?

Good luck God.

 

[Agnapostate]

First, this was a very nicely stated position and I appreciate your logic.

However, the lynch pin of the discussion seems to me to be wrong on its face. If this pin is removed, the reaminder of the chain falls to the floor in a heap.

The definition you present as being the decider of life is just wrong. Being able to consciously strive for human type goals is hardly a good marker of human life. When I am unconscious or asleep, do I cease to be human? If I do, then I am a potential human only. Neither alive nor dead and a candidate for termination without regret. No capacity for making rational preferance is not a satisfactory definition for me. If the potential to make a rational preferance is the definition, then a fetus is as human as a sleeping man.

If the demonstrated capability to make a rational preferance choice is the decider, then a corpse is as human as a sleeping man.

For the sake of argument, let's look at the use of fetuses for stem cells. These aborted non-people cells are compatable with people who can make rational preferance decisions. I am not a doctor, but the hew and cry from those who seem to understand these things seemed to indicate that these were the only sources for the research to continue. As such, this would seem to undermine the thought that that a fetus is a non person.

So, a sleeping or unconscious adult is as much a non person as is the fetus in your defintion. Both are potentially human by your definitions. Both are uniquely human biologically, or so say the stem cell researchers.

As always, justifying abortion by the use of morality is an empty pursuit. It is at best an ammoral proceedure. The various rationalizations to define away the humanity of a fetus are just so many words.

Abortion is an exercise in convenience and cannot be justified in terms of morality.

Yes, I've certainly encountered that objection before. However, killing a person in his sleep would still constitute a utility minimization since his death whilst sleeping had the consequence of inhibiting the satisfaction of his future preferences and desires, a necessary staple of preference utilitarianism. The fact that he is not actively focused on these preferences whilst asleep does not consign them to nonexistence any more than focusing on a desire to go to the cinema during the weekend consigns a desire to go to the beach during the weekend to nonexistence; it's merely not actively focused on.

At what point does human suffering start? At what point does humanity start?

Good luck God.

I would have been somewhat more tolerant of your post being in my way had it presented a coherent argument.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, I've certainly encountered that objection before. However, killing a person in his sleep would still constitute a utility minimization since his death whilst sleeping had the consequence of inhibiting the satisfaction of his future preferences and desires, a necessary staple of preference utilitarianism. The fact that he is not actively focused on these preferences whilst asleep does not consign them to nonexistence any more than focusing on a desire to go to the cinema during the weekend consigns a desire to go to the beach during the weekend to nonexistence; it's merely not actively focused on.

That applies to a fetus as well, Since it WILL be a human and WILL have plans and thoughts.

And again you just put babies on the chopping block since they neither have plans or desires except the very basic of desires.

 

[JW Frogen]

However, killing a person in his sleep would still constitute a utility minimization since his death whilst sleeping had the consequence of inhibiting the satisfaction of his future preferences and desires, a necessary staple of preference utilitarianism. .

And a conceived life would never have any future, preferences, or desires?


Welcome to the world where political convenience and bureaucracy becomes God.

Where those who kill are so self-righteous they will not admit they are killing. They are so sure of of the justice of their cause they must pretend they are not doing what they are doing.

The most dangerous world in the world.

 

[Agnapostate]

That applies to a fetus as well, Since it WILL be a human and WILL have plans and thoughts.

And were contraception not used, the formation of a being that would also have plans and thoughts would occur. Since you haven't advanced arguments to defend the premise that there's some intrinsic moral value that a human fetus possesses, you're still challenged by that argument.

And again you just put babies on the chopping block since they neither have plans or desires except the very basic of desires.

I already rebutted that by noting the existence of extrinsic moral value and noting that killing babies would constitute a utility minimization because they can be adopted by others.

 

[code1211]

First, this was a very nicely stated position and I appreciate your logic.

However, the lynch pin of the discussion seems to me to be wrong on its face. If this pin is removed, the reaminder of the chain falls to the floor in a heap.

The definition you present as being the decider of life is just wrong. Being able to consciously strive for human type goals is hardly a good marker of human life. When I am unconscious or asleep, do I cease to be human? If I do, then I am a potential human only. Neither alive nor dead and a candidate for termination without regret. No capacity for making rational preferance is not a satisfactory definition for me. If the potential to make a rational preferance is the definition, then a fetus is as human as a sleeping man.

If the demonstrated capability to make a rational preferance choice is the decider, then a corpse is as human as a sleeping man.

For the sake of argument, let's look at the use of fetuses for stem cells. These aborted non-people cells are compatable with people who can make rational preferance decisions. I am not a doctor, but the hew and cry from those who seem to understand these things seemed to indicate that these were the only sources for the research to continue. As such, this would seem to undermine the thought that that a fetus is a non person.

So, a sleeping or unconscious adult is as much a non person as is the fetus in your defintion. Both are potentially human by your definitions. Both are uniquely human biologically, or so say the stem cell researchers.

As always, justifying abortion by the use of morality is an empty pursuit. It is at best an ammoral proceedure. The various rationalizations to define away the humanity of a fetus are just so many words.

Abortion is an exercise in convenience and cannot be justified in terms of morality.

Yes, I've certainly encountered that objection before. However, killing a person in his sleep would still constitute a utility minimization since his death whilst sleeping had the consequence of inhibiting the satisfaction of his future preferences and desires, a necessary staple of preference utilitarianism. The fact that he is not actively focused on these preferences whilst asleep does not consign them to nonexistence any more than focusing on a desire to go to the cinema during the weekend consigns a desire to go to the beach during the weekend to nonexistence; it's merely not actively focused on.

At what point does human suffering start? At what point does humanity start?

Good luck God.

I would have been somewhat more tolerant of your post being in my way had it presented a coherent argument.

"Inhibiting the satisfaction of his future preferances and desires". Is it any more possible to predict that a fetus will not have these preferances and desires in the future than that a sleeping man will not have these preferances and desires?

The fetus may miscarry and the man may die in his sleep. Without doing the research, I would suppose that there are many instances in which people die before they wake as the prayer states.

Again, disallowing the possibility of attaining potential is not a satisfyer of the argument. A fetus is growing at a phenomenal rate in the womb, showing far more potential minute to minute of future capabilities than the sleeping man, and therefore, by the measure of potential alone, has a greater right to continued existance than does the man.

This is an argument of convenience vs morality. If you are arguing in favor of abortion, your only argument is convenience. Morality has no place here.