Abortion

"I think you will be surprised to know that livestock animals are only bred and kept for the purposes of their products. They do not exist but to feed us." The method for abortion was made for abortion. Without it, there would be no abortion. Why not promote cannibalism then? Most humans do not exist for your benefit. Kill them all. Abortion is necessary as it is pre-determined that the foetus will not benefit the family. "Really? A foetus does not function? The function of a foetus is to develop his characteristics as to be able to perform the functions of a prenatal being." That function serves no purpose for us. If the child isn't helpful, why does it live? "Of course, but do animals and plants, in their mature, yea, even their developing stages possess even a fraction of the potential for greatness, a fraction of the potential beneficial impact on the world as a foetus? The answer is no. " You continue on to say that a sperm and an ovum are unique cells, and we are unique. Yet you forget that many animals reproduce sexually as well. Also, we have more of a potential of harming this world than achieving so called greatness. Before the humans rapid development, animals could roam freely, global warming, waste disposal and pollution weren't major problems. But now, they are big problems, and we are proving harmful for everyone but our own species. "The probability of your mother meeting your father is 1 in 20,000, the probability of them reproducing is thereafter 1 in 2000." Where's your source? Ted talks are usually more expressing of opinions than facts. "There are multiple viable alternatives to this, in the first instance: condoms. In later instances, adoption. No one should be killed for the irresponsibility of his parents." It could be possible the parents at first wanted the child but later the situation changed and they didn't want it. As for adoption, all parents feel a certain kinship to their own blood, and would feel distressed to send their own child down such a hard part. Who knows whether anyone would adopt the child or not? What if he dies anyway? If he dies due to ill-treatment from foster parents or lack of resources, the parents would be haunted for their entire lives, knowing they killed a fully sentient being. Yet a foetus isn't sentient, and is easy to think of like a disposable seed than a growing crop. Get the idea? You can throw fruit seeds, but you wouldn't want a plant that grew because of you to die because of you. "I think we should give him or her the best life he or she could possibly hope for. I think we should provide the utmost in palliative care. I mean, by your Hitleresque logic, Stephen Hawking should have been shown mercy and killed as soon as he showed symptoms of motor neurone disease." Might as well, I don't think there was such a high probability of him being a genius. Not every child turns into a genius, you know. He didn't even make any inventions but just gave some theories. If he is later proved wrong, wouldn't your argument fall? What if it had some sort of contagious disease? Then you are eliminating a threat to society. "You are incredibly mistaken, the reason we kill these organisms is because their products are very valuable. Vegetables and wood are valuable commodities. Humans, however early in development, are valuable in their own right." Yet when they fail to be valuable, they must be killed. It works the opposite way for humans, does it not? Kill the baby if you don't need it. Let it live if you need it. "If you were to crack open an unfertilized chicken egg, you would notice." There are some eggs that have a faster expiry date than other due to being fertilized. Day 1, 2, and 3 eggs are still sold in some markets. You just killed a potential life for your own pleasure/food. Adoption A parent suffering so many months just to give away the baby seems rather a waste of effort. Plus, foster homes aren't always the best of homes. If the real parents just see the child suffering again, they would feel extremely bad that the doomed it to this fate. It is easier to kill a foetus than allowing a living child to suffer. You may say that parents shouldn't track their child, but natural instinct and blood binds takeover. If the child dies due to ill-treatment, they will surely be reported about it, and that would be sad. Furthermore, adoption is a discreet method, while giving a child to a foster home will attract unwanted attention and call for social retribution and inquisition. "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" prime sentient- able to see, hear, taste, smell, feel http://www.merriam-webster.com... Foetus don't have the 5 senses fully activated yet, therefore freedom is not within their rights. Optimus Prime says so.