Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, and Ariel Sharon. All of them conducted massacres of large numbers of innocent people - Stalin in the Gulags, Pol Pot after after year zero, Hitler in the death camps, Ariel Sharon his thousands in the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila.
Why are the first three considered murderers throughout the world, while Ariel Sharon is known to be a mass murderer in the muslim world and considered a hero in the Yahwist Judeo-Christian world?
Because of the context. These people were not genetically predisposed to murder. They murdered in a situation, and if they had been aborted, other people would also have acted badly in whatever other situation would then have existed.
Let us go through this slowly and see where the error might lie.
First off, let us flip the coin over on the other side to give us a fresh perspective.
Let us take the positive side of things.
1.Was Mozart genetically predisposed to music? How about Bach? Or, would you assert they only composed (with enormous genius!) in the situtaion they were in while other people would have composed their music in a different situation?
2. Were the men who made up the First Continental Congress (in America) easily replaceable as great thinkers, leaders and crafters of one of mankind's greatest social documents? Or, could any mix of men in any era have acted as well in context?
Do you see what I am getting at?
Genius, leadership, creativity and far-sighted wisdom is the possession of what we often call "gifted" people. Without those special minds we have, instead, mediocrity. The results of creative genius are benefits to mankind such as great music, art, literature and model governance.
This is the postive side of the coin of the argument.
Just as men of great ability who do great things are specifically great in their own time and place; so too are men of evil inclination just as specifically endowed.
Let us flip the coin over, shall we?
Snakes act like snakes and spiders like spiders becase they ARE such. Humanity is composed of a great many individual traits which are inherent for good or bad.
None of us knows the eventual personhood of an unborn human. However, if their parents are predisposed genetically toward certain diseases or deformities of a physical nature we can reliably predict a certain expectation in the child.
Why do you imagine that does not apply to behavior?
If a family such as the BACH family can produce generations of musical genius just as the offspring of a superb stallion possess the qualities of the progenitor--why exempt the human?
Yours is an artificial argument. It is framed in terms of your social views and not in terms of nature itself.
Moreover, you skirt the issue of potential vs. actual.
In effect you are asserting there are no predispositions! Preposterous.
Parents take medical tests to be informed of just such eventualities as would produce profound retardation and physical deformities.
Essentially, you are arguing that ALL LIFE is equal. Not only is it wrong; but, it is wrong-headed. There are infants born with only a brainstem who will have no conscious life at all! Their unfortunate parents are faced with the decision of keeping that human vegetable viable or not.
Humanity is as good or evil, beneficial or harmful as the individuals which compose society. Nothing exists (even life) in a sterile vacuum of non-context.
Abortion is our topic here.
When we destroy a fetus (for whatever reason) it is as reasonable as our reasons themselves. There is no extra layer of profundity.
Why? Because it is tissue and not person. To be a person you must exist over a period of time with full opportunity (physical, mental and emotional) to develop personality, identity and function.