>>In other words, you wouldn't have given a damn if she had never existed<<

Not if he's of sound mind. When did we start caring about people that don't exist? For heaven's sake man there are billions of people suffering in this world from poverty, malnutrition, lack of sanitation, human rights abuses, war, famine, pestilence etc.

Aren't they just a little bit more important than people that don't exist? I think so. And not just them: even fat rich American wànkers are more important than people that don't exist. Even hippies are more important than people that don't exist. And I think nearly every ethicist in the known universe will agree that real people matter more than the imaginary ones. Imaginary ones like david's hypothetical cousin who was aborted as opposed to real ones like david's cousin.

Cheers,

Tony

A human zygote is a human being from the moment of conception by every scientific definition. A very young, very immature, very small human being but a human being nevertheless.

What is debatable is whether a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person so can any of you who claim an embryo (most babies are aborted in the embryonic stage not as zygotes) is not a person tell me when personhood begins? What logical rule can we apply to the whole human race that separates the persons (who are worthy of life) from the nonpersons (who may be killed)?

Kyles, we have been though this before in earlier posts. A human
sperm too is a being with human dna. But neither the sperm, zygote or fetus have what can be called a human brain. No human brain equals no person.You will have to wait until about week 22 to achieve that. Given that most abortions take place before 12 weeks, its not an issue.

Dear Kyles,

"personhood" is indeed irrelevant since it's all about performance: one day perhaps, a computer may pass the Turing test and thus be regarded as a person. Will it then become immoral to unplug it? how ridiculous!

There is no solid binary rule that separates those "worthy of life" from those who aren't. As difficult as this may be for the legal professions, "worthiness to live" is a full sliding scale, with some more worthy of life than others. A prerequisite is that some individual soul is attached to the body in question and the level of worthiness varies according to the level of suffering and loss which that soul will incur if its associated body is rendered biologically lifeless.

The biggest loss is the loss of education - both formal and informal. A baby learns so much, so intensively, about his/her body, how to operate it, how to interact with the environment, how to understand the sensory input, etc. Then come years of learning by play, by trial and error before formal education has even begun, then experience is continuously gained throughout life. Losing all this is tragic and painful, hence killing an adult human is such a sin. Animals too learn, though they miss the formal/abstract part of it, hence their life is also to be valued. On this scale, fetuses still have the least amount of studies to lose, hence killing them is a lesser sin than killing an animal (for fun or for food, as opposed to killing in self-defense).

A fetus has a brain, it is not fully developed but it is fully human. A babies brain is not fully developed either and nor is a teenagers brain.

A fetus has a lifetime of potential for learning, and it begins in the womb. I think all human life is of equal value no matter age, skin colour, intelligence, or wealth.

*A fetus has a brain, it is not fully developed but it is fully human*

Kyles, a baby has a brain that has the structures in place to let it
function as a human brain. A fetus brain is still a brain under
construction. It cannot yet function as a human brain, because those
bits that make it a human brain, are not yet there. A brain stem does
not constitute a human brain. Even crocodiles have them.