Voted pro-choice, but the picture of the baby on the other page and the thought of it being aborted, makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.

Not something I'm that arsed about though.

Here's why I think it's a problem. If you propose that abortion isn't wrong because it doesn't involve suffering, then it should follow that any killing without suffering isn't wrong. If that isn't true, then it undermines your whole premise.

There's no consistent standard being applied, in such a case. To apply the moral theory in such a way is to arbitrarily override the theory with gut morality whenever you feel the situation calls for it. The question then arises: why bother with the moral theory at all? I'm not really sure how you can not see this as a problem. The idea that people fundamentally value human life, thus possibly contradicting the utilitarian arguments for something like abortion.

Actually, what I proposed is that when deciding whose interests you should protect, the fetus or the mothers, you should protect the interests of the mother because she is the one most capable of being affected by the decision (she is the one who potentially suffers the most for it). In other words, the mother should get to choose. I added that basing a decision on what the fetus could become is basing a decision on an assumption, something I think of as a weakness.

So, it's a utilitarian sort of idea, but it is also good for non-utilitarian reasons. It has good consequences which further validates it. I believe mothers, members of our society, will appreciate the freedom to make the decision and I believe it will lead to slightly happier, healthier families. It is good for society. So unlike you I actually do think it makes sense, even if utilitarianism isn't flawless in every instance. If you still disagree with that, then that's fine with me.

Actually, if people fundamentally value a human life, they will suffer more when a human life is taken. Imagine a chicken getting killed and a human getting killed. Both suffer equally. But the death of the human likely causes more suffering in others and so the death of the human is worse. For the death of a chicken to be as bad as the death of a human, you have to get a little creative.

Either way, I still don't think it matters much :p:

To say it is an "assumption" is a weakness in itself. It is not an "assumption" but a scientific fact that a human embryo will mature and develop as human being. Science provide us with knowledge to know what a human fetus "could" become ... a human.

My point is the embryo might die naturally in the womb, or the person it becomes might be mentally retarded to the point where he or she won't ever have the rights of a healthy adult. Basically, a number of scenarios can play out and so the point is you shouldn't have to morally treat the fetus as if it is a healthy adult human being when you don't know if it ever will become one. Assuming the embryo will one day become, unless aborted, a healthy adult human being; that is the assumption I'm talking about.

Given the odds, the counter assumption to that seems to be of even less value...

That doesn't just apply to a foetus. There are any number of things that can go wrong between birth and adulthood. It doesn't lessen the value of the young child's life does it? Why should this lessen the value of the foetus's life?

I'm not suggesting we lessen the value of anything. I am suggesting we treat things for what they are. Children are generally treated as children. They are not allowed to drive, they have to be home at certain times, they don't get to watch certain movies and so on. They are not treated like adults, not even from a moral point of view.

So, treat a fetus like a fetus and not f.ex as a healthy, young child - just like you don't treat a kid like a healthy adult.

Is this so confusing? All in all, this was a minor point, but I now feel it detracts from the major one because people seem to misunderstand.

There is a difference between "what some one does" and "who some one is." Driving a car is an action that some one does, child is a human being. A elderly person, a young adult, a teenage, a child, a toddler, a baby, fetus can divided into groups depending on age, gender, developmental skill, physical development etc... but one thing is always constant they are human beings.

the argument i hear a lot is that an acorn isnt yet a tree, what do u feel about that