That is, I see a "person" in a picture of a, say, 26 month old, that I don't in a picture of a fertilized egg.
Visual perception is a dangerous basis upon which to rest your system of ethics regarding the life or death of individuals. Clearly what you see or can't (won't) see changes nothing about the individual being seen or not seen. Remember, the Nazis could look at a full-grown person of the Jewish faith and not "see" a person, but a subhuman, in their minds.
What if you couldn't see the individual at all, 26 weeks or otherwise? Would that change the reality of the person?
But, I think, intentionally or not, you may have swerved into the reason why those who find abortion acceptable do so. And, if pro-abortion people are intellectually honest, they will admit it, at least to themselves. And the reason is this: you don't see it. You don't witness the tiny body being torn asunder, you don't see the blood and guts being spilled, you don't hear the soundless screams of agony. The bloody deed is done silently, hidden from view, where those who support such butchery don't have to witness the results of their handiwork. Why do you think people find pictures of the results of abortion so offensive? It is because, deep down, they know the reality of the bloody deed, but have deluded themselves into thinking it doesn't matter, because they don't see it. Out of sight, out of mind. Well, it does matter, and we as a people had better have the intellectual courage to face the truth, or have the blood of millions on our collective hands, now and in the future.
One reason I changed from pro-abortion to pro-life many, many years ago was partly because of an honest facing up to the reality of what I was advocating. That, and the moral indefensibilty of the act, based on facts of science and logic and reason.
You illustrate, ahem, my point with your word pictures of abortion. Most pro-choicers prefer not to see those pictures and will go great lengths to get away from those pictures. They see a dismembered person, I assume, and that bothers them.
For that same reason the Nazis shipped the Jews off to the "work camps" and "relocation centers" - out of view of the vast majority of Germany. For all the propaganda, most Germans couldn't really see the Jews as total "non-persons". Or even the "enemy" in its full sense.
(I have this association just now of "taking leave of one's senses" and "moral disintegration".One reason I changed from pro-abortion to pro-life many, many years ago was partly because of an honest facing up to the reality of what I was advocating.
I think of the pictures.
That, and the moral indefensibilty of the act, based on facts of science and logic and reason.
The senses and reason and culture come together into a "moral gestalt".
And so far, I don't have even a hint of perception of the fertilized egg as a person. A picture of a ruined egg wouldn't bother me.
Along with pictures, I think of actions as a kind of summing up. For example, a thought experiment with me sitting as juror doesn't end with me finding a fertility clinician guilty of murder for incinerating surplus fertilized eggs.
I can understand a reason for such a law, that we need the insurance against dehumanization of real persons. I don't buy it, but can understand it.
I haven't had the ethical perception shift yet, where I see a person in the egg, worthy of defense for its sake.