Abortion: Why so serious?

[OldTrees]

How does that refute the argument that anything that would prevent a sentient person from existing is wrong?

Based on that argument (unless I misread it), it would be morally wrong to convince a close friend not to have children.

Correct the argument says that preventing a valuable future (that would have existed without interference) is immoral prima facie.

It was not a direct response to a prior comment. Just an additional voice to add.

[doublecross]

Ah. Ok.

[BluePriest]

I personally am pro abortion.
Seriously, you are not killing something that is capable of thought.

Ill give a direct response for you. If someone is in a coma, but somehow you know that in 9 months they will come out of that coma. Would it be ok to kill them even if you know they are going to make a complete recovery?

[doublecross]

If braindead, I would do it myself.

If coma, and likely to recover, I would not do it, because it would be destroying an established mind.

[OldTrees]

I personally am pro abortion.
Seriously, you are not killing something that is capable of thought.

If braindead, I would do it myself.

If coma, and likely to recover, I would not do it, because it would be destroying an established mind.

A comatose person is currently incapable of thought and therefore an "acceptable target" under your definition.

[doublecross]

That was an error or wording in my first statement then.

If someone had previously shown thought, and was likely to do so again, they are not a target.

[Neopergoss]

nija'd me, doublecross

A comatose person can be dreaming. More importantly, a comatose person has a personality, a sense of self, has been conscious, and could return to an already existing life/personhood. A zygote is not a person yet.

As for the idea that it might be morally wrong to convince a close friend not to have children, I would take it a step further. If it is wrong to prevent a future life from becoming realized, what about making the decision not to constantly have sex at every possible opportunity? After all, this violate the biblical commandment "be fruitful and multiply." That would also be morally wrong if we accept that argument.

[BluePriest]

That was an error or wording in my first statement then.

If someone had previously shown thought, and was likely to do so again, they are not a target.

Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care.

so at this point, would it be wrong to have an abortion?What do you define as conciosness? If my brain can make out visual images does that count? What do you consider?

[doublecross]

Honestly, I would still allow it.

That is not to say that I encourage it, or would be supportive of it in every case.

All I am saying is that I do not feel that it is unambiguously morally wrong in this scenario.

[OldTrees]

As for the idea that it might be morally wrong to convince a close friend not to have children, I would take it a step further. If it is wrong to prevent a future life from becoming realized, what about making the decision not to constantly have sex at every possible opportunity? After all, this violate the biblical commandment "be fruitful and multiply." That would also be morally wrong if we accept that argument.

Marquis' argument says that if you prevent a future like ours that was going to occur then it is immoral prima facie

If someone is prone to having sex at every opportunity then stopping them would be immoral however since you were not prone to having sex at every opportunity it does not obligate you to start.

[BluePriest]

Honestly, I would still allow it.

That is not to say that I encourage it, or would be supportive of it in every case.

All I am saying is that I do not feel that it is unambiguously morally wrong in this scenario.

you never answered rest of my questions.