A fetus' good is its object, which is to be born.
So, its "will" is its "good" and its "good" is its "object" and its "object" is its birth. Rebuttal:
Pathetic fallacy. A fetus does not have any "will", "good", or "object".
You did not explain.
Murder is the intentional and malicious killing of a legal person. Abortion is the legal destruction of an undeveloped cluster of cells. You are trying to argue that any instance of killing a thing that can develop into a human is murder, which is false. Fetuses, like tumors, are not legal persons and aborting them is not an act of malice.
A tumor's object is not consciousness, a fetus' is.
1
Pathetic fallacy. A fetus does not have any "object".
2 If consciousness is an objective for which a fetus can strive, it stands to reason that that fetus does not already have consciousness.
That does not make them creatures of instinct.
That's right. The human dependency on instinct is what makes them creatures of instinct. Being primates is only what makes them animals.
Instinct implies acting upon pre-defined scenarios alone, [...]
No it doesn't. Instinct is simply having an innate, rather than learned, behaviour. Take laughing and crying, for example: No one needs to be taught to laugh when amused or cry when upset because those are instinctual behaviours based on our emotions.
[...] whereas sentience impliese the ability to think in the abstract.
No it doesn't. I gave you the definition. You're conflating sentience with
sapience, but even sapience is arguable.
And a fetus does not posess all that?
Correct.
They are not a reliable source, [...]
Correct.
[...] besides, they cite reliable sources.
They
quotemined reliable sources, apparently just so they can say either "hay, he doesn't think evolution is proven, so it must be wrong" (inflation of conflict) or "look, he thinks evolution is proven, that means its a religion" (tu quoque). Also, as near as I recall, the official Catholic stance on the origin of species is
theistic evolution; basically, regular evolution but with God at the wheel.
No, I can prove it.
Then do so.
No, that is not my point.
Then you failed to demonstrate your point.
I am not argueing that, but that evil does not justify another evil. Suffering does not justify murder.
So? Getting back to the topic (which is abortion, not murder): What happens to the soul of an aborted fetus? Is it destroyed? Is it judged unworthy?
1 Inaction does not impart guilt.
But coercion through deceit and force certainly does. If anti-abortionist senators have shut down the only accessible abortion centres, they are forcing women to either carry to term, which can easily have fatal complications, or do it without medical assistance, which can easily have fatal complications. If roving bands of anti-abortionists set up fake abortion clinics or waylay people on their way to real ones (yes, that
does actually happen) and fill them with misinformation, including lies about the legal deadline for aborting a fetus, in order to con women into putting off the decision until it's too late, they are forcing women to either carry to term or do it without medical assistance. If anti-abortionists threaten, sabotage, assault, or outright murder abortion providers out of misguided religious zeal, they are forcing women to either carry to term or do it without medical assistance.
2 Because abortionists might have to go to hell for what they did, and I can't stand that.
If they aren't following the doctrine of
your religion in that regard, it's probably safe to say that they aren't going to be heeding that doctrine in other regards, so unless you're planning to also convert all of these people, it really shouldn't make a difference.
