I do not think that the widespread acceptance, practice and what I’ve seen as encouragement for women to get abortions because a pregnancy is inconvenient is not generally “good” for society.
I do NOT support any kind of legislation or law or amendment or anything else that would infringe on a woman’s right to have that abortion for any reason she chooses.
Your argument implies that murder is moral. See my post right before yours.
Either you think a fetus *is* a human, or not.
If human, then abortion is murder, and thus is immoral. Women should *never* do them.
If not human, then abortion is not murder, and thus is moral. Women should do them whenever they want.
> Well, considering that I was not making a argument but, simply stating an opinion, no such moral implication is being made.
I don’t see a difference. Arguments are also opinions and opinions are also arguments.
> I do however have an issue with your supposition that “Either you think a fetus *is* a human, or not.” Is a cat fetus a cat? Or a dog fetus a dog?
No. No. Consider this. Is a cell a cat if it has cat DNA? I guess you’ll say no. So at what stage does that entity become a cat? (I give an answer below for humans.)
> That’s a strange question to me. On the one hand it could be argued that since the bundle of cells, if left to natural processes and conditions, will potentially grow into a human so, it could therefore be called a human.
I think, that by that logic, you could say that same thing about sex. Since sex could potentially lead to conception and thus a human, then its bad to use contraception.
> However, to a point a human fetus is no different than a cat or dog fetus and all but an experienced embryologist could not tell the difference between the 2 for the first several weeks of development. So, is it a human? The question doesn’t make sense to ask at that stage.
I think the stage doesn’t matter. I think that what matters is what constitutes a human. Like a definition. And then we can use that definition in any stage and for any being. So for example, if dogs meet that definition, then its immoral to murder dogs. So, what makes humans humans? Humans are beings that create universal knowledge, meaning that we can create any type of knowledge. One of those types of knowledge is our preferences. So humans create their own preferences. Note that cows, for example, don’t create universal knowledge (like their own preferences), as their programming is coded by their DNA. Fetus also don’t (yet) create universal knowledge. They don’t (yet) create their own preferences.
Preferences matter in morality. When people interact with each other, its immoral to act against each other’s preferences. Doing something to someone against their will is immoral (unless its in self-defense). It violates their moral right to freedom. Note that I’m talking about human-like preferences, i.e. changeable preferences, i.e. preferences that we change using our universal knowledge creating ability.
One preference many people have is “I want to live.” Note that people can change that preference to, “I don’t want to live anymore (because my life sucks).” Fetuses and cows don’t have the mental faculty to create their own preferences. They only have preprogrammed ways of behaving in certain situations that have evolved (in their DNA). Its their DNA that determines their preferences.
> At any rate my opinion still is that the widespread practice of abortion is not healthy long term for society, but I will not oppose a woman’s right to choose.
What do you think would happen to society if women all over the world had abortions whenever they wanted to?