Abortion is Immoral

"So, chippedcup will need to respond to these three things: the chicken/egg analogy, his/her thoughts on fetal development, and will comment, I imagine, on the rights of the born children vs. unborn. I am open to any conjecture, whether from chipedcup or comments and voters; my mind is not yet made up on this topic."In response to your chicken and egg analogy, I have a couple of points.The first is that the analogy is a little muddy because, assuming Con's argument is based on smashing a chicken egg you get out of a carton from the grocery store, I absolutely agree that this is not 'chicken murder'. However, this is not because the chick inside is at an earlier stage of development. The reason do not take issue with smashing a chicken egg is due to the fact that eggs which are sold for food are almost always unfertilized by roosters. This makes them the equivalent of the product of human menstruation, or for males, human ejaculation. An unfertilized egg equates to only half of the puzzle which, when fit together, creates an autonomous living organism. Essentially, an unfertilized egg does not hold an unfertilized chick and never ever will. Similarly, a sperm if implanted in a woman's uterus without the presence of an egg, is not a developing baby, and never will be.Now, assuming that Con is actually talking about a fertilized chicken egg, I disagree with their assertion. A chicken embryo is still a chicken. Given enough time, it will develop to the point where it can survive outside of its eggshell and it will continue to develop and change throughout its lifetime. For that reason, I would never condone smashing a fertilized chicken egg for fear of killing the baby chick inside.Just as a chicken embryo is still a chicken, a human embryo is definitely a human. If size and level of development determine whether someone is a live human being, should an adult be considered more of a human than a child, or a teen more human than a toddler? Absolutely not. I believe that I have already addressed Con's question about my take on fetal development, but to put it briefly, the stage of development a human is at is not an indication of how human they are. There are adults who live without the sense of sight, or hearing due to their eyes or ears being undeveloped or underdeveloped. Are they less human than fully sighted people or people who can hear a full range of sounds? Would you be more likely to morally condone the killing of one over the other?Finally, regarding rights, I believe that our duty as a moral society is to protect those among us who are most vulnerable. Whether we are sick, elderly, dying, young, or unborn, we all deserve the same rights.Which brings me to the point I would like to add to this discussion. As it is not contended that a fetus dies during an abortion, ending their life permanently and taking away any liberty or choice they would have in the future, does Con consider this more moral than compelling a woman to live through her pregnancy of nine months, after which her life and liberty are completely unchallenged should she decide she doesn't want to keep the baby?I say that taking a life permanently is much more immoral than compelling a woman to provide use of her body's resources for a fixed amount of time, after which she can do what she likes.