http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/05/11/texas-to-require-sonograms-before-abortions/

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/01/21/the-internal-consistency-of-abortion-absolutist-logic/

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/01/21/abortion-and-the-argument-from-inhuman-sociopathy/

Hmmm seems to me there could be a case made that anyone is “not human”.

It depends entirely on who gets to define “human”, eh?

Whatever that person or group holds as valuable gets to define who is or is not “human”.

Thus, the phrase “all men are created equal” – the presumption upon which my nation was founded, and from which it derives its legitimacy – becomes “all men* are created equal”….

…

* see fine print for details; some exclusions may apply

….and that’s not the same thing at all, is it*?

…

*or maybe it depends on which side you’re on – the one defining, or the one being defined by someone else?

Even though you won’t allow me to consider every potential newborn baby Mamta might ever have had, the fact that you are allowing me to consider every zygote is enough for my point to stand. As you know, the ordinary birth control pill can work to prevent a zygote from implanting in the uterus, and yet is not the zygote a “baby”?. If Mamta has used the pill for many years, then there could very well be 10 other fetuses that we are completely excluding from this discussion. If every fetus is worthy of our moral concern, then there is no reason to cherry pick the 2 fetuses just because they’ve reached 8 weeks of development and we happen to know the exact moment of their termination. Why can’t we ask the “what if” questions about these zygote “babies” as well? How many were aborted? Would they have been boys or girls? What kind of lives would they have had? Would it have been better to abort them or not?

To object to kiling the baby humans when they are female is to show that killing them for any reason at all is wrong.

Not exactly. There is a case to be made that an early embryo with an undeveloped nervous system isn’t a person, a ‘baby human’, yet (which got hashed out here: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/04/07/fifteen-states-considering-banning-abortion-after-20-weeks-of-pregnancy/).

One can object to skewing sex ratios for invalid reasons (e.g. cultural stereotypes), no matter what the particular method used. That’s orthogonal to whether any particular method is wrong in itself.

She’d be excommunicated for having an abortion. That surgery is abortion and not permitted under Catholic teaching.

That’s why it’s done. The fallacy is argumentum ad misericordiam or appeal to pity.

But when evidence is submitted publically for consideration, you are entitled to consider it.

It can, however, demonstrate it. If farmers could check eggs and put only the female ones to brood because only those will lay eggs, no one would object because chicken eggs have no right to hatch, they can be prevented from hatching for any reason at all. To object to kiling the baby humans when they are female is to show that killing them for any reason at all is wrong.