See, this post is exactly what I mean when I talk about how the ideology pressuposses (I probably spelled that word wrong) answers to questions that should be at least informed by science and research. Particularly I mean points 2. 3. and 4. I won't repeat what I've already said many times, but I would like to ask, what exactly do you consider illogical about my point 4? Please share because if there truly is a fallacy I'd like to know. I have no problem with changing my position when shown evidence that warrants it.

@Slimebeast

Part of the reason I asked the question, but I don't think you can so easily label it hypocrisy. The morals of people are done step by step. A person thinks up a hyphotetical situation and considers this situation right or wrong depending on the feelings of the person. As many situations are devised, a system of morals is developed, which by nature is incomplete, and also since we don't tend to think about everything at the same time, the system may also not be consistent, which is the case here. The problem of abortion in a general sense seems different than the problem of abortion of a child due to some particular reason, though the action is the exact same.

So I think this is a good opportunity for pro-choice people to strenghten their morals. The thing is, I consider abortion an act of neutral moral. That is, it's neither wrong nor fine. It's never moral to abort, just like it's never immoral to do so, at least the act itself. As an analogy, think of murdering ants in your house. It's not moral or immoral, you just do it.

However, the reasons behind abortion can be moral or immoral. And so it is possible to consider abortion a choice of a woman while still condemning some abortions as moral or immoral.

I agree with you, at least on first glance.

I'm a man o sweeping statements. I agree that the question is more complex than just "hypocritial or not". But it's thought provoking to ask the question that way towards someone who is pro-choice (hopefully), and it could hopefully push the discussion further (about abortion, but about other rights issues too).

I don't follow you in your last two paragraphs though. How can you say the act of abortion or killing an ant is not an immoral/moral act but a neutral one? That's awkward. I don't think I've never heard that kind of reasoning before.

Hey, sorry for replying kind of late. I've been busy.

Well, my line of reasoning goes like this:

There are actions. Actions in and of themselves are not bad or good unless there is some moral system that judges these actions accordingly. Along with actions, there are often reasons for these actions. The reasons are not the actions themselves, so they can be moral while the act itself is immoral (think of the saying "the means justify the end).

However, not every action or reason needs to fall into the one or other category. In fact, these categories may not be binary; but they may form a continuum (i.e. there are bad actions that are worse than other bad actions). Hence, some actions can be considered neutral.

Now; given the above (which I don't think is disputable, since I made no extraordinary claim, just gave definitions), I claim that life in and of itself is not valuable, hence it's of neutral value. This means that murdering a living being is not wrong, unless some special conditions arise. What are these conditions? I consider: 1. Sentient beings   2. Beings who are "loved" (or used) by sentient beings. 3. If the survival of the group of the beings will ultimately lead to the existence of sentient beings (this last reason is to prevent destroying all life on Earth before the existence of humans, for example). There are more technicalities of course, but what I've written here is my general idea.

What is a sentient being? Difficult to answer, but there are clear examples of sentient beings and non-sentient beings. A cell is not sentient. Ants and flies are not sentient. Humans are sentient. A more practical question is: Are there any other sentient beings on this planet? There appear to be, in fact. Some scientists like using the mirror test to see if a species has a conscience of oneself or not. The mirror test basically consists on putting a mirror in front of an animal and observing whether the animal recognizes itself on the mirror. Some animals, like large apes, dolphins, and pigs pass the mirror test. Perhaps this could be a definition of sentient.

So with that theory out of the way, I claim that abortion is neutral because the soon-to-be aborted child hasn't become a sentient being yet and will suffer no pain as long as there is no nervous system. I of course also claim that killing ants, or rabits, or flies, or trees is of neutral value morally speaking, so long as it's not a massive murder (upsetting the ecosystem which could ultimately bring pain or suffering to sentient beings) or the animals in question don't satisfy condition 2 above. Note that this act of killing is an action but as I've written it, it is devoid of reason behind it. The reason can be moral or immoral. So action+reason as a whole can be moral, immoral, or still neutral.

Also note that my theory written here is very general, as I haven't specified what reasons I would consider moral or immoral, and for a lot of different moral systems, my suggestion here could be considered valid.