“My thinking on the matter is that we must discern between “potential life” and “existing life” and we must follow the tenet that no human being should ever be used as an ends to another’s means. Sperm, ovum, zygotes, embroyos, fetuses are all “potential life”. It would be immoral to sacrifice an existing life for a potential one. For this reason, abortion must be allowed and, per the thesis of the article, if it is allowed sometimes, it must be allowed all times.”
Where people get this “potential life” nonsense is beyond me, as there certainly doesn’t seem to be any disagreement in modern medicine that conception marks the beginning of human life. Why stop at fetuses, we might as well extend the “potential life” concept to infants and adolescents, seeing as we already regard them as having a different status under that law than adults? The fact that some people think that “it’s not a person, it’s a fetus” is any more logical than “it’s not a person, it’s an infant” shows that we may well be on the way to an idiocracy(last year’s american idol presidential election goes along with that hypothesis).
