I think reasonable, scientific people should agree that there is no harm no foul in “killing” something that is not sentient because it is not “alive” in any ways that actually matter. How can you harm something that has no awareness?
Inflicting death is a severe and permanent harm... this isn’t really arguable by the definition of the plain English words we are using here.
A fetus doesn’t have any capacity for sentience until 20-25 weeks on the low end estimates and 30 weeks on the higher end. In between there is effectively brain activity but it’s extremely limited.
But at 2 weeks, there is absolutely no moral reason to ban abortion apart from magic men in the sky.
Protecting human rights is a moral reason one can adhere to regardless of religious beliefs.
Furthermore a young human in the process of producing the organs and nerves you value so much is very much alive and you are devaluing them for what is a temporary state.
Most unlike brain death, where someone has no further potential. Like Dandy, for whom the release of death would be a mercy, should anyone erroneously evaluate such mercy as worth the effort or expense of a bullet.
You’re making a religious argument, really but just pretending it’s based in something else.
If the fetus is incapable of having any sense of self, and the mother doesn’t want the fetus, and there is no sly man that has arbitrary moral laws that we must follow for some reason, then nobody is harmed in an abortion tha this early enough.
It’s like saying the sanctity of human life requires us to keep people on life support indefinitely.
Saying the fetus is cruelty harmed is nonsense, because at that point it is not capable of feeling any sense of loss, hopes, feelings, or emotions, so how can it be harmed? Any “harm” is just you projecting fully developed human traits into something that doesn’t have those traits. It’s like if someone tells their spouse that committing adultery hurt their dog. It didn’t, because the dog can’t understand it.
