Richard Dawkins writes in his typical style in the Washington Post about Tim Tebow's pro-life advertisement.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...tim_tebow_fallacy.html
I understand and agree with Dawkins' assertions about how many people have never been born and how incredibly lucky we are to be born, etc. I understand the logic of potential lives being prevented every time someone refuses sex, for example. He's made this point many times before.
But I always find his subsequent justification for abortion falls somewhat short of being a satisfactorily comprehensive and logical conclusion.
You need a functioning nervous system in order to complain, or regret, or feel wistful, or feel pain, or miss the life that you could have had. Unconceived babies don't have a nervous system. Nor do aborted fetuses. As far as anything that matters is concerned, an aborted fetus has exactly the same mental and moral status as any of the countless trillions of unconceived babies. At least, that is true of early abortions, which means the vast majority.
A foetus may not (yet) have a nervous system, but it will usually develop one given a chance. So why is it acceptable to terminate it?
Couldn't a similar argument be put forward for someone in a coma? OK, they may technically have a nervous system in place, but it's not functioning properly - they are unlikely to be feeling pain, regret, etc. Yet, for as long as there is a reasonable chance someone may come out of a coma, we don't normally consider it acceptable to turn off their life support.
The average chances of a coma victim (re)gaining consciousness are surely a lot less, or no better, than that of a foetus developing a consciousness.
Is it acceptable to terminate a life just because it hasn't yet formed it's own consciousness?
Thoughts?
(Coffee House?)
™ Version 4.2