Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I am not saying that it is some religious thing, I use fate in a very open context. The main arguemt for pro-choice activists often seems to be that what is being aborted is not really a life. I am not saying what if it is the next president, I am merely wondering how one can say it is not a life when everyone who is here today and has been, has started there. Its not about fate, but to me its potential, that being, I will call it a baby (I might discuss the power of denotation and connotation in the future), deserves to be allowed to live, saying, but terminating it at that stage is not killing a baby sounds very weak to me, as the potential is there, it is on there verge of life like all us lucky devils who were allowed to live. And once again I say I am not saying it is the next Einstein, but pointing out that at some point Einstein was at that very same transistional stage. It is a remarkable double think that we can celebrate an unborn child as a knew life from 4months onwards, but just a day before it was nothing. It is life.
It IS just a bunch of cells, but you are correct, of course the potntial is there.
Now, I was born when my mother was(fortunately) stable, and I did not have too bad of a childhood. YET, if i were born when things weren't going as well as they could have been, and I was given up for adoption, or lived poorly in slums, or came out moderately to severely disabled and just had an overall shitty life, then yes, I'd have wanted my mother to abort me. I'd rather not exist than live through a life of pain and suffering. I'd rather not see a child experience the worst, when he could have died happy/ignorant.
That's my whole argument. Yours is "there is the potential for a great human there" and my argument is "there is potential for a lifetime of pain and suffering there". We basically cancel each other out.