CrAz3d, wtf? You're batting 0.000 right now.
The point is:
The argument (introduced in Rule's post, and extended in my post) is that aborting a pre-sentient fetus is morally analogous to a woman not giving birth to a child in her lifetime, because the potential for life in both cases is the same. Since it is fine for a woman to live her life without giving birth, it must be fine to abort a pre-sentient fetus.
You have to approach an argument like a mathematical proof. You can't just spew your stream-of-conscious emotions all over the thread. I will delineate the above argument in step form:
Proof by contradiction:
1. We suppose for the sake of contradiction that abortion is morally wrong.
2. By its nature, a pre-sentient fetus (e.g. a single-celled fetus) cannot think, or feel pain, or feel emotion, or be aware of its surroundings, etc. Thus a pre-sentient fetus is no more human than a woman's unfertilized eggs.
3. By their nature, a woman's unfertilized eggs have the same potential for giving birth to a human as a pre-sentient fetus.
4. By (2) and (3), a pre-sentient fetus (e.g. a single-celled fetus) is isomorphic to unfertilized eggs (same humanity, same potential for humanity).
5. By our hypothesis, and our result from (4), it follows that is morally wrong for a woman to live her life without giving child.
6. (5) is a contradiction (reductio ad absurdum), hence abortion is not morally wrong.
Which of these steps is wrong? Why? I am addressing this question to everyone, not just CrAz3d.
N.B. I made a conscious decision to use "ovaries" instead of "egg" in my other post because the former avoids confusion (namely the assumption that eggs are necessarily fertile). But CrAz3d, to my chagrin, caused me to have to type the annoying phrase "unfertilized egg".
