Pro-Abort Professor: Abortion Involves Deliberate Killing? That's Still Not A Reason To Be Morally Troubled.

That's Mark Mercer; a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Saint Mary's University. He acknowledges the fact that a new human being comes at conception but then he suggests that there's absolutely no reason to be morally troubled by abortion. Because the life it destroys is, in his opinion, not worthy of living:

The question when human life begins gains no purchase because nowhere in the process of reproduction does anything non-living come to life. The egg is alive, the sperm is alive, and, should the sperm fertilize the egg, the zygote is alive. At conception comes a new human being.

Abortion, then, involves the killing of a human being. But that abortion involves the deliberate killing of a human being is no reason for abortion to be illegal. Nor should one be morally troubled by it.

To kill a reader of this newspaper would be to kill a creature richly aware of its environment and full of beliefs and desires, including the desire to continue living. To kill him or her would be to kill a self-conscious creature. Thus, to kill a reader of this paper would be to destroy a self-aware locus of experience, one, moreover, that prefers not to die.

That is why only extremely strong, ethically sound reasons could justify killing a reader of this paper. Absent such reasons, we're enjoined to let her live.

A human fetus, on the other hand, though human, has only a rudimentary awareness of its environment and lacks self consciousness entirely. It has no interest in living, for it can have no interests at all.

Because a fetus is not a person, killing a fetus is not killing a person.

(Source)

Applying his own logic, killing a newborn is not a big deal either, because the newborn too, doesn't have much self consciousness, not to mention - being richly aware of his environment. And, if we look at it from M.Mercer's point of view, then there's nothing morally troubling with killing a two- or three-year-old. After all, what self-consciousness could a child have at that age, when he can barely be aware of the environment around him? And what about senile old men, who can no longer have all the self-consciousness and self-awareness? Oh, we know the answer to that one; after all, it's been just two weeks or so, since the euthanasia bill was debated by the House of Commons...

M.Mercer claims that an unborn baby "has no interest in living". This is nothing but a blatant lie:

When performing surgical abortions at 12-14 weeks of pregnancy [it] is recommended ultrasound monitoring in real time. That is on the screen [it] shows how [the fetus is dying].

[That's it,] no more abortions. Never again.

It's a pity that it took 13 years to come to this.

(Source)
(Translated Text)

Unborn baby's brain waves could be detected as early as 10-12 weeks after conception. The unborn too has desires, interests and even memories from before birth. If hurt, he can feel pain and he has as much interest in living as M.Mercer himself. If M.Mercer knows that and yet continues to assert his position as true - he is a crook. If not - he's an ignoramus. Either way, it's shocking that a latter day Hitlerist like M.Mercer could actually become a philosophy professor in a university.