Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" (re: pro-life advertisement)

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.htmlI 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. 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?)Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "(re: pro-life advertisement)" part to topic title.

Hi Gran I wasn't really intending my comments to be a direct argument, just thinking out loud to generate some ideas and opinions.I've never really been able to wrap my head around the subject of abortion. I find it a difficult subject to make precise judgements on. That's why I found the very clinical and dogmatic tone of Dawkins' article difficult to accept readily (on this occasion - normally I lap it up!).Thanks to you and the others for your comments and I'll ponder it over the next few days.

I agree to some extent with both of your comments.It seems to me that there is one clear biological "point" that stands out way above all others. And that is the moment of fertilisation. Going back to Dawkins argument about the trillions and trillions of potential humans who have never been born, and the extraordinary odds against any of us being born, surely the moment of fertilization is a dramatic cut-off point where you are no longer talking about extreme odds. At that moment, you actually have a new and unique human with it's own DNA "under construction".Although not yet "known", that individual has a relatively very high chance of being born. Yes, at that moment it doesn't have a nervous system, but a nervous system needs a basic "framework" on which to operate, and that framework is being developed.Anyway, having said that, I do agree to some extent with Onifre's view: "who cares?" At an individual level, nobody but the parents really care about their child (real or potential). The rest of us are only concerned with the type of society we live in, we are not truly concerned with the welfare of anything but a handful of individuals. It's a different matter with being concerned about murders, etc, where being concerned about the fate of a murderer is relevant to us, as we don't want murderers running loose. But the decision of parents as to whether or not they bear a child has no direct relevance on the rest of us.So, although I haven't quite settled my mind on this issue, my view is leaning towards allowing abortion before a nervous system is developed. If you're going to make a cut-off point for allowing abortion, that would seem like the most significant and least controversial point.

I agree with all your answers except number 4; having thought it through even more, I would say "a foetus is not a person", at least until a nervous system has developed.Straggler was right (at least from the moment of fertilization) there is no clear point at which you can say a foetus is a person. I made the point earlier that during the first few weeks, even though a foetus does not have a nervous system, it is developing the "framework" on which the nervous system will operate. Initially, I thought that gave some credibility to the argument against abortion at that point. But now I consider it is not a person.To use some crude analogies, you can have a blueprint for a house, and even build the foundations, but you don't yet have a house. Similarly, you can have a blueprint for a car, and even build the chassis, but you don't yet have a car. At what later point during the building process you can definitely say you have a house or a car is arguable, but you need to have certain fundamental features in place. You don't yet have such critical features in place in a foetus only a few weeks old.Damn and blast it, I have to agree with Dawkins again.

But you're missing Straggler's point. We care about car crash victims whether or not they were killed intentionally. We spend billions every year on accident prevention. Similarly, we spend billions every year on trying to cure diseases, etc.But nobody (to my knowledge) cares enough to spend anything on the majority of natural abortions that are so early even the mother is unaware she was pregant. We care no more for those foetuses that are unknowingly flushed away down the toilet than we care for the trillions and trillions of potential humans who have never even become foetuses. I now realise that is essentially the point Dawkins was making and his justification for allowing early abortions.