The Death of all Political Philosophy

[Foramen Magnum]

Then prove it. When the zygote first forms, why does it have rights? It can't even voice an opinion, so how does giving it rights mean anything? Even if it does have rights, doesn't the pregnant mother also have rights? What if her rights conflict with the zygote's? Whose rights are given greater weight, and why? Does the potential father have any rights? If so, how, and what weight is he given in the issue? What about potential grandparents? Do they have a say?

I'm not religious, but I'll play god's advocate:

Couldn't you say abortion assumes the fetus will mature into a person with rights? Otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for the abortion. This is a negative right -- namely, the right not to be killed. The mother has this right as well. If the fetus' life imposes on the negative right of the mother (i.e., the outcome of birth would likely result in the mother's death), you might argue the mother's life trumps the fetus' life. Otherwise, why is it justified to terminate a fetus whose potential for person hood is assumed by the very act of abortion?

[SecularCauses]

Then prove it. When the zygote first forms, why does it have rights? It can't even voice an opinion, so how does giving it rights mean anything? Even if it does have rights, doesn't the pregnant mother also have rights? What if her rights conflict with the zygote's? Whose rights are given greater weight, and why? Does the potential father have any rights? If so, how, and what weight is he given in the issue? What about potential grandparents? Do they have a say?

I'm not religious, but I'll play god's advocate:

Couldn't you say abortion assumes the fetus will mature into a person with rights? Otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for the abortion. This is a negative right -- namely, the right not to be killed. The mother has this right as well. If the fetus' life imposes on the negative right of the mother (i.e., the outcome of birth would likely result in the mother's death), you might argue the mother's life trumps the fetus' life. Otherwise, why is it justified to terminate a fetus whose potential for person hood is assumed by the very act of abortion?

You can argue that crap till you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean anything. Logic and reason has virtually nothing to do with morality. That's why philosophy has never been able to solve a single moral question and never will. Couldn't we also argue that we assume 2 year-olds will not grow up to be serial killers? Otherwise, why not murder them off to avoid a messy future?

[Foramen Magnum]

You can argue that crap till you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean anything. Logic and reason has virtually nothing to do with morality. That's why philosophy has never been able to solve a single moral question and never will. Couldn't we also argue that we assume 2 year-olds will not grow up to be serial killers? Otherwise, why not murder them off to avoid a messy future?

Logic and reason are used to understand the intuition behind morality. Intuitively, killing someone is 'wrong'. This principle does get mired in some cases (e.g., war or execution), but generally you'll find a consensus that killing an innocent person (especially a child) is wrong. This principle doesn't need to be grounded in religion -- murder is disruptive to any society, and even more so devastating to a family unit. My point earlier was that if killing a toddler is considered wrong, why is killing a fetus not equally wrong. Again, abortion assumes the fetus will grow into a toddler. You really didn't address the argument at all; in fact, you made a statement about moral philosophy completely irrelevant to the argument.

As to your second point, killing off potential serial killers is a silly challenge. We don't assume anything about how children will turn out. Even if we did, the child still has the negative right not to be killed. Further, killing is active; not aborting a fetus is passive. Passively allowing something to live doesn't have any moral implications.

[SecularCauses]

You can argue that crap till you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean anything. Logic and reason has virtually nothing to do with morality. That's why philosophy has never been able to solve a single moral question and never will. Couldn't we also argue that we assume 2 year-olds will not grow up to be serial killers? Otherwise, why not murder them off to avoid a messy future?

Logic and reason are used to understand the intuition behind morality. Intuitively, killing someone is 'wrong'. This principle does get mired in some cases (e.g., war or execution), but generally you'll find a consensus that killing an innocent person (especially a child) is wrong. This principle doesn't need to be grounded in religion -- murder is disruptive to any society, and even more so devastating to a family unit. My point earlier was that if killing a toddler is considered wrong, why is killing a fetus not equally wrong. Again, abortion assumes the fetus will grow into a toddler. You really didn't address the argument at all; in fact, you made a statement about moral philosophy completely irrelevant to the argument.

As to your second point, killing off potential serial killers is a silly challenge. We don't assume anything about how children will turn out. Even if we did, the child still has the negative right not to be killed. Further, killing is active; not aborting a fetus is passive. Passively allowing something to live doesn't have any moral implications.

The difference is that a fetus is not a child. You are begging the question, just claiming that the child has some right. From where? And how does such a right, assuming it oes exist, exist for a fetus?

Look, if someone broke into a bank holding frozen embryos trying to catch a robber, and the robber grabbed a frozen embryo off a shelf and pointed a gun at it, threatening to "blow its brains out" if the cops come any closer, I doubt the police would be as concerned as if the robber were holding a real child. An embryo is not a living child, just like a seed is not a real tree.