I think he's suggesting that you use your mind to think ahead and consider the potential consequences of your actions, and then accept rational responsibility for such actions (i.e. "I will not murder another human if the consequences of my actions become inconvenient for me) -- should you choose to carry them through....

Jesus and His disciples were "silent" in condemning a whole host of things that are evil (as well as in commending a whole host of things that are good). They had a very specific message and mission which was NOT "to expound on every possible moral issue".
At best, this is an argument from silence.

The rest of what you describe is no different than death by natural causes. There was no volition involved in the matter and therefore it doesn't say anything about the morality of that matter.

But when you do bring volition into it (at the end of your comment), you are blanking out the nature and context of the thing you are claiming the right to willfully "abort" (i.e. kill). It is a living human being.

The rest of what you say amounts to "I'm smart enough to kill a human all on my own -- I don't need other people telling me who, when, or how. It's my choice to kill a human as I see fit."

No you referred to the fetus as a creature. "...whether the creature growing within it..." .

"Tribalism (which is the best name to give to all the group manifestations of the anti-conceptual mentality) is a dominant element in Europe, as a reciprocally reinforcing cause and result of Europe’s long history of caste systems, of national and local (provincial) chauvinism, of rule by brute force and endless, bloody wars. As an example, observe the Balkan nations, which are perennially bent upon exterminating one another over minuscule differences of tradition or language. Tribalism had no place in the United States—until recent decades. It could not take root here, its imported seedlings were withering away and turning to slag in the melting pot whose fire was fed by two inexhaustible sources of energy: individual rights and objective law; these two were the only protection man needed." AR "Philosophy Who Needs It?"

The whole point is Man can conquer nature. Once people get beyond the Malthusian trap, the population can triple-we have the ability to feed everyone. Governments get in the way, people themselves get in the way depending on their philosophy-but we have the ability. The population has grown 100 fold since its inception. It is the welfare state which will drive the population away at some point. Drove me away.

If it just says "comment deleted" the comment poster deleted it

On re-read, your post is even more disturbing.
"When a female thinks its pregnant, it can go to a geneticist and verify whether the creature growing within it has a complete human genetic sequence, or if it's a space alien parasite from a movie." Why do you refer to a female as it instead of she? My experience is that anyone who wants to dehumanize other humans does so by making them objects not living thinking people.

Thank you. I had not known about abortion during biblical times. Your post sent me on a search which confirmed Jesus' and his followers
silence on the subject. The bible addresses it
only indirectly. This link is an example.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortio...

Wow you’re really passionate about this. I respect your right’s and hope you find relief from the pain it appears to cause you, sincerely. Here’s a joke to lighten. “A zealot is a person who does what God would do if he had all the information.” Abortion has touched my life and it’s such a painful issue I turned it over to God. I’m wrong for being cavalier and shouldn’t wade into these discussions even though the topic is philosophically compelling. Truce.

So, I’m watching this nature show. There’s a microscopic camera in a mouse hole in the wall; she just had 13 babies. They introduce a cat in the house. The mouse eats all the babies and moves out of the house. Nature is pragmatic. I appreciate we all want protection from violence and this topic is philosophically compelling. I would be happy in a world with no abortion as unsavory as it is, but I push the live and let live envelope. Don’t worry when the population doubles again we will be tagging those illegals. “That old nature”. I guess it’s safe to assume you’ve never did anything like take some acid and hang out in Calcutta? That’d be a bad trip; real eye opener though.

A woman’s view: The anti-abortion crowd make me laugh. Biology and the bible ( for those who use that as there source of wisdom) demonstrate to me that it is most definitely my decision --at least the first trimester. Why do I say this? Let’s look first at the spiritual aspect from a christian view. Abortions were prevalent during the time Jesus walked the earth. Much more so than today. Not once did he ever mention the moral implication. There was no sinner running for his forgiveness because they took herbs to end an unborn life. Obviously, God didn’t this was as an important issue to address so that we later on would know what to do in the modern world. He is silent on the matter. Biologically speaking, the woman’s body does not immediately accept a pregnancy. It test the viability of the fertilized egg using all available means. It’s one of the reason there is so much nausea and emotion turmoil during the first three months.Some of those chemical and hormone changes are part of a test. NIH reports that half of all fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted (the term used for miscarriages before the 60’s) before the woman even knows she is pregnant. The woman’s own body will choose to abort a fetus for reasons as callous as the fetus was creating too much heat for comfort or the woman’s body didn’t like the change of heart rate. Going back to viewing this spiritually: it seems to me, that if God wanted us to view fertilization as the most sacred thing that must be protected at all cost, he would have designed a system that did everything that it could do to protect the fetus from the get-go, but instead, he designed a system that allows the woman’s body to decide if the fetus makes it. It’s not until the fifth month does the woman’s body start choosing to protect the fetus over the mother. So to get to the point: I’m a modern woman living in a civilized world. I don’t need a man’s opinion or a lawmakers permission to see that the system I was born with allows for choice. I’m free to use my reasoning skills to aid in my choice. My glands, and respiratory system may decide the fetus is viable, but these psychical systems don’t know a thing about my finances or my social status. I can put this pregnancy through one more test --logic. I can think for myself and say: This is not a good time for a pregnancy. And in Ayn Rand’s words, "The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me."

They weren’t born in the US they don’t have constitutional rights. I have a German Sheppard, I’d freak out if some lady came to claim her “child” I’m hiding my dog; brb.

How can that be a rational argument for a person who has sex for crack cocaine. Responsibility does not enter into it. There is no thought outside, money-drugs. How many abortions are performed on woman who’s life is out of control? It’s a slippery slope. The average person is less than average and can’t be expected to live according ethics. Don’t worry God will deal with them the way he sees fit, let him be the Judge. If that baby is born and they let it die, that’s murder, maybe they contemplate that. I'm just sayin'

Yes I read the post. A good argument would be abortion is just a poor form of birth control. Would it be rational to expect, let’s say you for example to adopt, what did Hiraghm say 40 million babies? Most of these woman do not have the will to assume the responsibility it takes to raise children; they are just not going to do it. World population is about to triple since I was in grade school, this is the major challenge for our species; what do you think about the Chinese who struggle now with this problem?

Didn’t you read the stranger, by Albert Camus? You have that choice, the consequences are grim, but you have a choice. Pro choice is more accurate in most cases. Segueing to Machiavelli, are humans on the endangered species list, or are you just pro population explosion?