If the genetic code we create at the moment of conception defines human potential, is abortion wrong?

Question

I do not think it is an issue of pain, sustainablity, or consciousness. All these answers are on a slippery slope and unresolvable. The only answer that seems to be on solid ground is not to destroy human potential. Whether you believe in a creator (moral), or not (legal).

When you have a child, just look in their eyes and tell them they are a random quirk of nature, and in the grand scheme of nature, their life is meaningless.

http://www.peace-purpose-prosperity.com/

Sperm cells and eggs are building blocks. Any one of the cells on my body can be cloned, and recreate me. I do not destroy human potential when I cut my hair. God can look at each of my cells and say, ok, I see your potential, what did you did with your life. The cell answers, I was a hair cell. The sperm answers, I was a sperm, the egg answers, I was an egg, and the combined egg and sperm says, I could be this human being. Thus human potential must be defined as the genetic code at the point of conception.

Answer 1

A sperm or egg by itself is only half of the necessary genetics...a fertilized egg, on the other hand, contains ALL necessary material to form a living human being. That being said it seems to make sense to define life as beginning at conception. As for the potential of a sperm or an egg alone, many Christian denominations forbid the use of birth control for that very reason. That those parts individually have potential and should be used for that purpose. I think that pushing the idea to that extreme is certainly best left to ones own religous beliefs but the pure scientific fact that a fertilized egg contains all the necessary genetics to create life should speak for itself.

Answer 2

No. It is certainly true that a fetus has, from the moment of conception, all the DNA information that it will ever have. But that does not mean -- either legally or morally -- that the fetus must be carried to term. Legally, the fetus cannot have unlimited rights as against the rights of the mother: compromise is necessary, and the Supreme Court decision in Rove v. Wade is at least a defensible (if not necessarily perfect) compromise. Morally, the reason that we protect human life is that it represents a huge capital investment: 50,000 calories to bring a fetus to term, and thousands of dollars more to raise a baby to adulthood. From the standpoint of evolution as applied to society, murder is properly decried as a waste of this investment. But if a pregnancy is terminated early, the waste is minimal and may be outweighed by other considerations.

Answer 3

You've defined "human potential" to begin at the point it suits your argument. Couldn't a sperm cell be human potential? Or an egg cell? In the latter case, is menstruation "wrong"?

Answer 4

There are a grand total of zero rights for human potential.

Potential is a made up thing, it actually does not exist. The story of the acorn and the tree, every acorn has the potential to become a mighty tree, but if they never become trees they are just acorns and that potential they had is meaningless.

Answer 5

i think that it depends on the situation.in most cases, yes, it is wrong to murder a person, and so if someone has an abortion, they are murdering a life and they will answer to God.but in some extreme situations, like if the mother was raped or something and she will die, then i think that it would be acceptable. but in that situation, it started in a very wrong way, so there is no right way to fix it.

Answer 6

Most fetus's are actually flushed out of a woman's body before they implant....Also some women miscarry. If we follow your logic both of those are wrong