The slippery slope. What keeps abortion from slipping into eugenics? Parents find the fetus when advanced has genes that are not necessarily debilitating or limiting, but undesirable? Brown Eyes instead of blue. Gees that may be statistically corelated to violence and so on.
First, that has not happened where abortion, contraception and sex education is freely available, as far as I am aware, and in all honesty, I don't see it necessarily happening. Having an abortion is not something that women tend to take lightly. Have an abortion because of brown eyes instead of blue? Why? And then what, get pregnant again to see if they'll be blue? And again if necessary, with all the bodily upset that that entails? I do not know what it's like to get pregnant, but I know second hand from my wife.
As for a hypothetical scenario where something arguably more important is at stake, what do you mean statistically correlated to violence? If, hypothetically, something was identified that was
strongly correlated to violence, to the extent that violence was very likely, I would, yes, allow a woman or a couple to abort, early term. But then I would allow anyone to abort early term, whatever their reasons, or at least I would not prevent them. It wouldn't be my business really, imo.
The slippery slope argument is fine, as far as it goes, but unless there is good reason to think that things will slide down it into a mess, then it's difficult to assess. Note that a slippery slope argument can be a form of fallacy if not warranted (if there is not good evidence that the suggested negative consequences of the initial action are likely to occur). In those cases it can effectively be fear-mongering.
As to abortion itself far from any religious concern I find late term abortion grotesque. At some [pint the fetus is functioning and sensing.
I wasn't even talking about late term abortion though.
Do we sterilize people who have a risk of bad parenting or drug addiction or have a high probability of birth defects? Why not prevent the need for abortion in the first place?
Slightly separate question. I would not say that it is inevitable, no.
The height of cynicism is viewing a fetus as noting but a bunch of cells and chemicals.
Do you mean fetus or embryo? Usually embryo is used for 1st term. Certainly it is a bunch of cells early on. It isn't by any reasonable definition a person in 1st term.
By the way, I don't think you've addressed
my points. For example, what gives you the right to foist life in the world (and an inevitable mix of happiness and suffering and certain death, probably an unpleasant or painful death) on a future/potential person who never asked for it or consented to it? It's an honest question. What gives you the right to do that? I would genuinely like to know.
Note that this is a question that could in the first instance be asked about all pregnancies, before we ask it when the situation is that you and/or your partner do not want a child (the pregnancy being unintended) because in that instance an anti-abortionist is effectively forcing people, who don't want to have a child, to foist a life in the world on that future person. Not forgetting forcing the woman to go through with what is mostly a traumatic process in order to have it. A related question might be, why do you think that is the best approach?
ps why do you think I'm cynical?