[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Necroghastia]

Even if a foetus were able to be considered a human being -- rather than a human (possessed of the DNA of the species homo sapiens), as the two are different -- why would that make an ounce of difference to the ultimate legality or morality of abortion?

A person is allowed to defend their bodily sovereignty (and their homes and their property, for that matter) against unwanted intrusions against other persons. Why should unwanted intrusions by a foetus be treated differently under the law (even if they were persons) -- when to treat them differently would not be treating them as people; it would be giving foetues unique rights that no person has.

Yes, a person is allowed to defend their bodily sovereignty against unwanted intrusions by other persons. That's why nobody is allowed to intrude upon the fetus's body. Moreover, the fetus had no say in the matters; therefore, it should be given a chance at life. Besides, if the mother didn't want a baby, then why did she have sex? Actions have consequences.
I'm not saying the mother doesn't have the right to control her body; I'm saying she doesn't have the right to control the body of the innocent fetus for which she is responsible.

Tell me, where does the parent's body and the fetus's begin?
So can I assume you also support things like a full wealth redistribution and economic overhaul in order to eliminate poverty?
Even ignoring that rape exists, sex is fun. People do it all the time without procreating, it's arguably as much if not more of a purpose as reproduction. Contraceptives can fail. People can have lousy sex ed (cough deep south cough) that leads them to not know how to have safe sex.
Actions have consequences and abortion is a way of dealing with those consequences.

[Authoritarian islands]

But this is about abortion not bodily sovereignty.

I literally recoiled at this.

Abortion is 100% about bodily sovereignty.

Yes. It absolutely is.

[Estanglia]

Because we need definitions in order to communicate and exist.


The definition that is accepted and used by society on the basis of sound reasoning.


The reasoning behind arguing that black people weren't people was flawed (but this thread isn't a debate about black history so we'll just leave it at that). The crucial difference here is that Strahcoin isn't giving any reasons as to why the current definition of personhood is incorrect, and theirs is.

Okay, thanks for clarifying what part of my side you found confusing.

According to you (and many other pro-choice people), one becomes a human being at birth. However, this idea has some flaws. For example, an underdeveloped newborn (let's say... 34 weeks) would be considered a human being, while a more developed fetus (perhaps at about 39.5 weeks) would not. Both individuals have distinct human DNA from their mothers, so the latter could not be considered a mere extension of his/her mother.

I'm not sure how it is in the US or elsewhere, but if I'm remembering it right the cutoff for elective abortions in the UK is either 18 weeks or 24 weeks (I forget). Beyond that, it is medical only. Thus, at least here, the argument of "why is a 30 week baby a human being but a 35 week fetus isn't" is mostly avoided.

A much more logically consistent starting point for the human being is at conception. It may seem strange that a single cell would be considered a separate human being, but it is much more concrete than the idea that a developed fetus would not. When the sperm fuses with the egg, a (usually) full set of human DNA distinct from those of the parents is created, so the newly formed embryo is an individual entity. It is a human being because it belongs to the species Homo sapiens - even if it doesn't fit within the oversimplified definition of "man, woman, or child".

The problem with this definition is that it makes personhood and human being irrelevant, as it gives them the same definition as human.

Though, then again, it could make a distinction between human being and person (which constantly appears as synonyms in the definitions I find) if we change the meaning of human being to your proposed one.

Once we can accept that a fetus is, starting at conception, a human being - just like the rest of us - we can reasonably argue that abortion is immoral and should be illegal.

There are still some pro-choice arguments that would still apply even if the fetus is a human being. Namely, the self-defence one.

Even if a foetus were able to be considered a human being -- rather than a human (possessed of the DNA of the species homo sapiens), as the two are different -- why would that make an ounce of difference to the ultimate legality or morality of abortion?

A person is allowed to defend their bodily sovereignty (and their homes and their property, for that matter) against unwanted intrusions against other persons. Why should unwanted intrusions by a foetus be treated differently under the law (even if they were persons) -- when to treat them differently would not be treating them as people; it would be giving foetues unique rights that no person has.

Yes, a person is allowed to defend their bodily sovereignty against unwanted intrusions by other persons. That's why nobody is allowed to intrude upon the fetus's body.

Typically, the person violating another's bodily sovereignty does not get to use bodily sovereignty as a defence.

Besides, if the mother didn't want a baby, then why did she have sex? Actions have consequences.

Probably for one of the other reasons why people have sex. Hence why she wants an abortion.

And consent to an action =/= consent to its consequences.

Also, she is dealing with the consequences by aborting the fetus. It may not be a way you like, but she is still dealing with them.

I'm not saying the mother doesn't have the right to control her body; I'm saying she doesn't have the right to control the body of the innocent fetus for which she is responsible.

Except that she has to lose the right to control her body in order for the second part of your sentence to occur.

[Attempted Socialism]

I know you struck it out, but I'd just take the opportunity to explain why all your arguments automatically and necessarily must be dismissed: You have no grounds to argue from morality.

1. "Objective" means "concrete"; "indisputable". Without objective morals, there is nothing wrong with murder; therefore, the value of anybody or anything become meaningless.

Since there are no objective morals (They don't and can't exist), you don't think there's anything wrong with murder and the value of anybody and anything become meaningless. Abortion, in your view then, cannot be wrong even if it really is murder.
If you're going to argue for objective morality, please do use words correctly, unlike your use of legal, social and biological terms.

[The Alma Mater]

Yes, a person is allowed to defend their bodily sovereignty against unwanted intrusions by other persons. That's why nobody is allowed to intrude upon the fetus's body.

So when a rapist enters you, you cannot enter him back.
Sounds fair.

Still, you are allowed to take other action to remove him from your body. The sad thing when we use this analogy with a fetus is that everything we do to remove it (which is morally just to do) also kills it.

So.. invest in methods to extract embryos and fetusses from bodies without killing them. It is the only right thing to do.

[The New California Republic]

You speak as if the birth of the fetus suddenly changes its value from virtually zero to infinite. That's not how it works.

It is a person by that point, I said nothing of "value".

If the fetus right before birth is not a person and therefore comparatively worthless, then how is the baby right after birth suddenly valuable just like the rest of us?

Again I said nothing of value, I said it is a person.

Alternatively, it could mean that the word "person" has no meaning, and therefore we are nothing but entities of water and cells (and likewise inherently worthless).

Don't play the card of "the fetus doesn't fit the definition of "person", so the word "person" has no meaning", it's a bit kneejerk and disingenuous.

Well, a fetus can start feeling pain at around... maybe the middle of the first trimester. If tearing the limbs of a fetus apart isn't torture/murder, then what is?

Again your confusion is caused by your misuse of words.

The idea that aborting a fetus is morally okay says less about compassion for the mother and more about contempt for the fetus.

Show me evidence that this is the case, rather than it just being about you trying to score cheap points.

You know what I mean.

No I don't. If you keep using the words "baby" and "fetus" interchangeably then the meaning is garbled. Debates like this rely on a strict use of words, otherwise two people could ostensibly be talking to each other about the same thing, when in reality they are talking about two completely different things.

According to you (and many other pro-choice people), one becomes a human being at birth. However, this idea has some flaws. For example, an underdeveloped newborn (let's say... 34 weeks) would be considered a human being, while a more developed fetus (perhaps at about 39.5 weeks) would not. Both individuals have distinct human DNA from their mothers, so the latter could not be considered a mere extension of his/her mother.

The former has been born, the latter has not. And let's not use the unique DNA argument again as the crucial point of principle, as it has been repeatedly pointed out that cancer also has unique DNA.

A much more logically consistent starting point for the human being is at conception. It may seem strange that a single cell would be considered a separate human being, but it is much more concrete than the idea that a developed fetus would not. When the sperm fuses with the egg, a (usually) full set of human DNA distinct from those of the parents is created, so the newly formed embryo is an individual entity. It is a human being because it belongs to the species Homo sapiens - even if it doesn't fit within the oversimplified definition of "man, woman, or child".

A reminder that your aforementioned twisting and bending of the definition of "person" didn't work. And as I said, you might want to avoid using the unique DNA argument as the crucial point of principle, as it has fell completely flat numerous times over the course of this and previous abortion threads.

Once we can accept that a fetus is, starting at conception, a human being - just like the rest of us - we can reasonably argue that abortion is immoral and should be illegal.

You thus far have given no convincing arguments that the fetus is a person, so we aren't accepting that. Sorry.

Yes, a person is allowed to defend their bodily sovereignty against unwanted intrusions by other persons. That's why nobody is allowed to intrude upon the fetus's body.

Again you haven't proved that the fetus is a person.

Moreover, the fetus had no say in the matters; therefore, it should be given a chance at life.

Non sequitur.

Besides, if the mother didn't want a baby, then why did she have sex? Actions have consequences.

The bullshit "pregnancy as punishment for sex" argument again. Everyone take a drink.

I'm not saying the mother doesn't have the right to control her body; I'm saying she doesn't have the right to control the body of the innocent fetus for which she is responsible.

Whether you realise it or not, that is exactly what you are saying. If the woman is forced to carry the pregnancy to term, then she is losing bodily sovereignty.

[The New California Republic]

Species is determined not starting at birth, but at contraception. At contraception, the sperm and the egg fuse, creating a distinct set of human DNA.

I giggled.

[The Free Joy State]

Species is determined not starting at birth, but at contraception. At contraception, the sperm and the egg fuse, creating a distinct set of human DNA.

I giggled.

I know. I don't even want to know what kind of weird contraception that would be...

[Gormwood]

I giggled.

I know. I don't even want to know what kind of weird contraception that would be...

Bizarro World. "Me Am Najort Man."

[The New California Republic]

I giggled.

I know. I don't even want to know what kind of weird contraception that would be...

If contraception results in pregnancy, then it's just another argument for the availability of abortion.

[Strahcoin]

1)Yes, a person is allowed to defend their bodily sovereignty against unwanted intrusions by other persons. That's why nobody is allowed to intrude upon the fetus's body. 2)Moreover, the fetus had no say in the matters; 3)therefore, it should be given a chance at life. 4)Besides, if the mother didn't want a baby, then why did she have sex? Actions have consequences.
5)I'm not saying the mother doesn't have the right to control her body; 6)I'm saying she doesn't have the right to control the body of the innocent fetus for which she is responsible.

1) This logic does not stand up to scrutiny. If someone kills someone that is attacking them, do you claim they violated the attacker's bodily sovereignty? That they should have just shut up and let the attacker finish?
2) Yes, that is unfortunate. But a woman does not choose developing maternal complications. She does not choose being raped. She does not choose being unable to cope with a child, or her contraception failing.
3) No. This does not follow at all.
4) Pregnancy as punishment, and it's not even five in the morning yet.
5) Yes, you are.
6)The foetus is inside her body, using her organs, her blood. It is literally attached to her. Shas has to suffer the pain of birth. If she wants an abortion and you are denying her, you are literally telling her what she can do with her body.

And, you haven't answered: why do you want to give foetuses rights -- even if they were persons (which they aren't) -- that no person has over another person's body? Why this exceptionalism? Unless it's not exceptionalism and you think everyone should have the right to the medical use of another person's body to preserve life -- in which case you'd be in favour of striking down McFall v. Shimp and legalising forced organ donation, I suppose.

1. Actually, I support self-defense. The difference is that the attacker willfully attacked the victim, and the victim had no part in accepting that beforehand. Also, the victim should not kill the attacker unless absolutely necessary.
2. Any danger that could be posed to the mother is more likely to happen in the third trimester than before. Deliver the baby early, and care for it. Encourage self-defense, gun rights, and capital punishment to deter rapists. As for the latter two, nobody said the mother can't abstain from sex. Careless sex has the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy, just as slacking has the consequence of failing school or being fired from work, just as drinking and driving has the consequence of a car crash, just as committing a serious crime has the consequence of legal punishment.
3. How about this: an annoying toddler makes his/her mother's life very difficult (albeit not out of malice). Does the mother have the right to kill the toddler? No! Even though the toddler needs to be fed and cared, the mother cannot end his/her life. (And if the mother wants to put it up for adoption, then fine. I stated that I will allow for the mother to put the baby for adoption.)
4. It's a natural consequence. A mother has sex, she gets pregnant. A student doesn't study, he/she fails the exam. A business makes a shady decision, it loses clients/customers. A rapist rapes a woman, he gets caught and punished.
5-6. The fetus is attatched to his/her mother by the umbilical cord, which "forms by the fifth week of development" (Wikipedia). Before this, the embryo obtains its nutrients from the yolk sac. According to your logic, this means that since the embryo is not attached to the mother, it is not a part of her, so the mother cannot kill it. Otherwise, if it can be killed, (and if we rightfully consider it a person,) then who's to say killing one after birth is not okay? In this case, a clingy five-year old can be killed by the mother just because the child is tiring the mother. Continue down this slippery slope, and murder is justified.

One more thing: we were all fetuses once. That means we have, according to you, "invaded our mothers' bodies". Either we have no right to our lives (our mothers do), or we must accept that all fetuses biologically have to reap the necessary nutrients from their mothers to survive. I don't believe in compulsory organ donation; however, this is because our organs are a part of our own bodies. The fetus is an individual human being/entity. Just because it's connected to the mother doesn't mean that the fetus is a part of the mother; if that was the case, then abortion would be painful for the mother (as it is for the fetus). Alternatively, it could mean that the mother is a part of the fetus, and the fetus has every right to do what it wishes for the mother.

Yes, a person is allowed to defend their bodily sovereignty against unwanted intrusions by other persons. That's why nobody is allowed to intrude upon the fetus's body.

So when a rapist enters you, you cannot enter him back.
Sounds fair.

Still, you are allowed to take other action to remove him from your body. The sad thing when we use this analogy with a fetus is that everything we do to remove it (which is morally just to do) also kills it.

So.. invest in methods to extract embryos and fetusses from bodies without killing them. It is the only right thing to do.

1. The embryo/fetus formed by the rape =/= the rapist himself. I believe that the rapist should be executed for the crime, but the innocent fetus should not. (The son should not be punished for his father's crimes.) I know it doesn't sound fair, but life isn't fair. The government's job is to make it less unfair for everyone - including the fetus.
2. Deliver it early. It might die, but it has a much higher survival chance than if it was aborted.
3. Yes. Innovation can work wonders.

[Strahcoin]

Species is determined not starting at birth, but at contraception. At contraception, the sperm and the egg fuse, creating a distinct set of human DNA.

I giggled.

Sorry, I meant "conception".

Funny, if I do say so myself.

[The New California Republic]

Also, the victim should not kill the attacker unless absolutely necessary.

But it is necessary in this case.

Deliver the baby early, and care for it.

You have been told repeatedly that the odds of survival are minuscule, and a forced birth is a procedure that is even more traumatic for the woman than the abortion would be. And you throw in that "care for it" bit at the end a bit too casually. Who will care for it?

Encourage self-defense, gun rights, and capital punishment to deter rapists.

Been tried. Hasn't worked.

As for the latter two, nobody said the mother can't abstain from sex. Careless sex has the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy, just as slacking has the consequence of failing school or being fired from work, just as drinking and driving has the consequence of a car crash, just as committing a serious crime has the consequence of legal punishment.

Pregnancy as punishment for sex. Again. Everybody drink. Again.

How about this: an annoying toddler makes his/her mother's life very difficult (albeit not out of malice). Does the mother have the right to kill the toddler? No! Even though the toddler needs to be fed and cared, the mother cannot end his/her life. (And if the mother wants to put it up for adoption, then fine. I stated that I will allow for the mother to put the baby for adoption.)

The toddler is a person, the fetus is not. All of this confusion only comes about because you flat out refuse to accept that the fetus is not a person, and that abortion is not murder. You are the only person responsible for tangling yourself in knots.

It's a natural consequence. A mother has sex, she gets pregnant. A student doesn't study, he/she fails the exam. A business makes a shady decision, it loses clients/customers. A rapist rapes a woman, he gets caught and punished.

Pregnancy as punishment for sex. Yet again. Everybody drink. Yet again.

The fetus is attatched to his/her mother by the umbilical cord, which "forms by the fifth week of development" (Wikipedia). Before this, the embryo obtains its nutrients from the yolk sac. According to your logic, this means that since the embryo is not attached to the mother, it is not a part of her, so the mother cannot kill it.

It is still inside her and dependent on her body for survival. Your hair splitting doesn't prove what you think it proves.

if it can be killed, (and if we rightfully consider it a person,)

"Rightfully" nothing. You have yet to prove that the fetus is a person.

Continue down this slippery slope, and murder is justified.

Slippery slope fallacy.

One more thing: we were all fetuses once. That means we have, according to you, "invaded our mothers' bodies".

Not at all. They wanted us there. Honestly man, this really isn't difficult.

Either we have no right to our lives (our mothers do), or we must accept that all fetuses biologically have to reap the necessary nutrients from their mothers to survive.

This argument makes no sense whatsoever, as what you are positing is a false dichotomy.

Just because it's connected to the mother doesn't mean that the fetus is a part of the mother; if that was the case, then abortion would be painful for the mother (as it is for the fetus).

You are confusing the sharing of nutrients with the sharing of nervous systems; they aren't the same thing.

Alternatively, it could mean that the mother is a part of the fetus, and the fetus has every right to do what it wishes for the mother.

The actual fuck are you talking about? This makes no sense. It's something that you may think is profound, but it's completely nonsensical.

[The New California Republic]

if that was the case, then abortion would be painful for the mother (as it is for the fetus).

Wrong. The fetus does not feel pain until at least 23 to 24 weeks, at which point access to abortion is heavily restricted in many jurisdictions anyway:

"The science shows that based on gestational age, the fetus is not capable of feeling pain until the third trimester," said Kate Connors, a spokesperson for ACOG. The third trimester begins at about 27 weeks of pregnancy.

the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks, according to the review.

https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal ... hesia.html

[The Free Joy State]

1) This logic does not stand up to scrutiny. If someone kills someone that is attacking them, do you claim they violated the attacker's bodily sovereignty? That they should have just shut up and let the attacker finish?
2) Yes, that is unfortunate. But a woman does not choose developing maternal complications. She does not choose being raped. She does not choose being unable to cope with a child, or her contraception failing.
3) No. This does not follow at all.
4) Pregnancy as punishment, and it's not even five in the morning yet.
5) Yes, you are.
6)The foetus is inside her body, using her organs, her blood. It is literally attached to her. Shas has to suffer the pain of birth. If she wants an abortion and you are denying her, you are literally telling her what she can do with her body.

And, you haven't answered: why do you want to give foetuses rights -- even if they were persons (which they aren't) -- that no person has over another person's body? Why this exceptionalism? Unless it's not exceptionalism and you think everyone should have the right to the medical use of another person's body to preserve life -- in which case you'd be in favour of striking down McFall v. Shimp and legalising forced organ donation, I suppose.

1. Actually, I support self-defense. The difference is that the attacker willfully attacked the victim, and the victim had no part in accepting that beforehand. Also, the victim should not kill the attacker unless absolutely necessary.

And the need to thwart the attack is necessary.

2. Any danger that could be posed to the mother is more likely to happen in the third trimester than before. Deliver the baby early, and care for it. Encourage self-defense, gun rights, and capital punishment to deter rapists. As for the latter two, nobody said the mother can't abstain from sex. Careless sex has the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy, just as slacking has the consequence of failing school or being fired from work, just as drinking and driving has the consequence of a car crash, just as committing a serious crime has the consequence of legal punishment.

Pregnancy as punishment for sex. Again.

And, if women go about armed to the teeth, rapists are more likely to go about armed to the teeth.

3. How about this: an annoying toddler makes his/her mother's life very difficult (albeit not out of malice). Does the mother have the right to kill the toddler? No! Even though the toddler needs to be fed and cared, the mother cannot end his/her life. (And if the mother wants to put it up for adoption, then fine. I stated that I will allow for the mother to put the baby for adoption.)

Giving the born infant up is an immediate solution. The pregnant woman's only immediate solution is abortion.

And no-one is arguing for infanticide. The child is born with legal rights and personhood.

4. It's a natural consequence. A mother has sex, she gets pregnant. A student doesn't study, he/she fails the exam. A business makes a shady decision, it loses clients/customers. A rapist rapes a woman, he gets caught and punished.

Pregnancy as punishment, yet again.

But may I point out that students who fail tests can resit them. Women whose contraception fails have a back-up, too: abortion.

5-6. The fetus is attatched to his/her mother by the umbilical cord, which "forms by the fifth week of development" (Wikipedia). Before this, the embryo obtains its nutrients from the yolk sac. According to your logic, this means that since the embryo is not attached to the mother, it is not a part of her, so the mother cannot kill it. Otherwise, if it can be killed, (and if we rightfully consider it a person,) then who's to say killing one after birth is not okay? In this case, a clingy five-year old can be killed by the mother just because the child is tiring the mother. Continue down this slippery slope, and murder is justified.

Slippery slope. No-one's arguing for that.

I've already explained why the two examples are not comparable.

One more thing: we were all fetuses once. That means we have, according to you, "invaded our mothers' bodies". Either we have no right to our lives (our mothers do), or we must accept that all fetuses biologically have to reap the necessary nutrients from their mothers to survive.

This is jut a twist on the old, trite "your mother never aborted you" argument.

Had my mother aborted me, I'd have never known and wouldn't have cared.

That I was not aborted does not mean that I have to oppose abortion.

I don't believe in compulsory organ donation; however, this is because our organs are a part of our own bodies.

The woman's womb is part of her own body. Why should she donate its use to a foetus, if you would be unwilling to donate your kidney to save another life?

The fetus is an individual human being/entity.

So is the person that needs a kidney transplant -- in fact, actually they're born and aware.

EDIT: I was responding to "entity" (as the foetus is not actually legally a human being until they're born -- human, not a human being)

Just because it's connected to the mother doesn't mean that the fetus is a part of the mother;

No-one says the foetus is the mother. The mother's body is the mother's body, however. She should not lose her bodily sovereignty.

if that was the case, then abortion would be painful for the mother (as it is for the fetus).

It's not painful for the foetus. It feels no pain until the third trimester.

Alternatively, it could mean that the mother is a part of the fetus, and the fetus has every right to do what it wishes for the mother.

This is just double-talk.

[Kernen]

1. Actually, I support self-defense. The difference is that the attacker willfully attacked the victim, and the victim had no part in accepting that beforehand. Also, the victim should not kill the attacker unless absolutely necessary.

A wilful attack is not an element of self defense. An involuntary attack can be defended against if the defender reasonably believes they are at risk of substantial harm, and may use reasonable force. Since the only way to avoid the substantial harm of pregnancy and birth is abortion, that makes the use of abortion reasonable. Otherwise, we'd have to argue that the concept of defense of self is inapplicable to lethal force.

2. Any danger that could be posed to the mother is more likely to happen in the third trimester than before. Deliver the baby early, and care for it.

Delivering the squalling brat itself bears increased risk, and you incur serious medical and financial burdens from preterm birth.

Encourage self-defense, gun rights, and capital punishment to deter rapists.

None of which you should have to engage in, since culpability for the crime rests with the perpetrator, and not with the victim for failing to prevent the crime.

As for the latter two, nobody said the mother can't abstain from sex. Careless sex has the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy, just as slacking has the consequence of failing school or being fired from work, just as drinking and driving has the consequence of a car crash, just as committing a serious crime has the consequence of legal punishment.

People nonetheless engage in remedial activity to address their own mistakes all the time. Abortion is a remedial activity, careless sex or not. Pretending, further, that abortions are exclusively the result of careless sex is misinformed. Most abortions follow failing contraceptives. There's no negligence involved in using contraceptives and having them fail. Imputing liability of any kind, social or otherwise, is silly when the method of remediating the risk is inherently imperfect. Drinking and slacking are conscious choices. A broken condom is not.

3. How about this: an annoying toddler makes his/her mother's life very difficult (albeit not out of malice). Does the mother have the right to kill the toddler? No! Even though the toddler needs to be fed and cared, the mother cannot end his/her life. (And if the mother wants to put it up for adoption, then fine. I stated that I will allow for the mother to put the baby for adoption.)

Which isn't relevant, since a toddler and a fetus are fundamentally different. A toddler has personhood. A fetus does not. If a toddler did not have personhood, it would not be wrong to kill it.

4. It's a natural consequence. A mother has sex, she gets pregnant. A student doesn't study, he/she fails the exam. A business makes a shady decision, it loses clients/customers. A rapist rapes a woman, he gets caught and punished.

Sex is not a punitive consequence. Sex is a social act. Punishing something that is innately instinctual by banning remediation is the height of absurdity. You may as well punish rudeness.

5-6. The fetus is attatched to his/her mother by the umbilical cord, which "forms by the fifth week of development" (Wikipedia). Before this, the embryo obtains its nutrients from the yolk sac. According to your logic, this means that since the embryo is not attached to the mother, it is not a part of her, so the mother cannot kill it. Otherwise, if it can be killed, (and if we rightfully consider it a person,) then who's to say killing one after birth is not okay? In this case, a clingy five-year old can be killed by the mother just because the child is tiring the mother. Continue down this slippery slope, and murder is justified.

The yolk sac obtains nutrients from the mother. If you're going to argue that attachment precludes biological reliance, you need to square your proximate causes. A clingy 5 year old can be cared for by other people. A fetus cannot be transferred. As such, there is a fundamental difference in the analytical metrics between a fetus and a five year old that should trigger a hearty rejection by anybody capable of critical thinking. Slippery slope fallacy is slippery and a fallacy.

One more thing: we were all fetuses once. That means we have, according to you, "invaded our mothers' bodies".

Right, and our mothers chose to keep us. That does not mean we have an obligation to make the same choices.

Either we have no right to our lives (our mothers do)

We didn't have a right to our mother's body. We have a privilege that our mothers extended voluntarily (hopefully).

or we must accept that all fetuses biologically have to reap the necessary nutrients from their mothers to survive.

They do. And mothers have the right to unilaterally withdraw that right, just like you have the right to unilaterally withdraw an offer for an organ donation.

I don't believe in compulsory organ donation; however, this is because our organs are a part of our own bodies. The fetus is an individual human being/entity.

A fetus is more like an appendix than a person. It lacks personhood, provides no biological benefit to the host body, and absorbs resources. A fetus has no personhood, actual or legal.

Just because it's connected to the mother doesn't mean that the fetus is a part of the mother; if that was the case, then abortion would be painful for the mother (as it is for the fetus).

That's an idiotic statement. Your brain has no pain receptors. If I numbed your skull and stabbed your brain with a hot needle, you wouldn't feel the stab. Does that mean your brain isn't a part of you?

Alternatively, it could mean that the mother is a part of the fetus, and the fetus has every right to do what it wishes for the mother.

Except a fetus has no personhood, and the mother does.

Not that personhood is dispositive. As a matter of policy, we can weigh the rights of a productive member of society as superior to that of a nonmember.

1. The embryo/fetus formed by the rape =/= the rapist himself. I believe that the rapist should be executed for the crime, but the innocent fetus should not. (The son should not be punished for his father's crimes.) I know it doesn't sound fair, but life isn't fair. The government's job is to make it less unfair for everyone - including the fetus.

Except an abortion is not punitive. Its an outgrowth of an individual's right to make medical choices in their best interests. It has nothing to do with justice, and conflating the two, at best, shows that you lack an understanding of the justice system.

2. Deliver it early. It might die, but it has a much higher survival chance than if it was aborted.

And a much higher cost to society, the mother, and the fetus. You've just upped the ante, not lowered it.

[Lower Nubia]

In a different thread, I had this conversation on abortion, I want to hear how you might think about this topic.

So why do they tell you not to drink or smoke while pregnant?

Because it'll damage the baby's long term health, that doesn't mean it's alive.

Now, I’m engaging in a little bit of satire, but I’m interested in how far to push this, and see your response. I can, I believe, respond in four ways:

1) Why is abortion not “damage” to a babies long term health. (I know if their dead there’s no damage to long term health, but that’s a hairsplitting technicality)

2) if a woman smokes or drinks while pregnant up until the abortion cut off point, would you consider that okay? Or at least neutral and not irresponsible?

3) Why is damage extrapolated to the end of pregnancy, but the pregnancy, itself, is not?

4) If it was illegal for a woman to smoke or drink during pregnancy, would you allow her choice to smoke and drink up until the point of abortion cut off?

[Strahcoin]

In a different thread, I had this conversation in abortion, I want to hear how you might think about this topic.

So why do they tell you not to drink or smoke while pregnant?

Because it'll damage the baby's long term health, that doesn't mean it's alive.

Now, I’m engaging in a little bit of satire, but I’m interested in how far to push this, and see your response. I can, I believe respond in four ways:

1) Why is abortion not “damage” to a babies long term health. (I know if their dead there’s no damage to long term health, but that’s a hairsplitting technicality)

2) if a woman smokes or drinks while pregnant up until the abortion cut off point, would you consider that okay? Or at least neutral and not irresponsible?

3) Why is damage extrapolated to the end of pregnancy, but the pregnancy, itself, is not?

4) If it was illegal for a woman to smoke or drink during pregnancy, would you allow her choice to smoke and drink up until the point of abortion cut off?

Exactly! Thanks for helping me out.

And to those who still don't believe that a fetus is a human, why is killing a pregnant woman legally considered a "double homicide"? Surely, if the fetus was not a person, it would only be a "single homicide", regardless of whether or not the woman is pregnant.

[Attempted Socialism]

In a different thread, I had this conversation in abortion, I want to hear how you might think about this topic.

1) Why is abortion not “damage” to a babies long term health. (I know if their dead there’s no damage to long term health, but that’s a hairsplitting technicality)

It's not a hairsplitting technicality. Removing a foetus from your body and doing damage to a foetus you intend to carry to term are not comparable. One is "damaging" something that will never become a person and will never be a part of our ethical community, and one is risking damage to someone who probably will. If a woman intends to carry a pregnancy to term, their actions will affect another person down the line. Health professionals suggest women stop smoking and drinking during pregnancy because of what it'll do to the foetus if it becomes a person we need to consider.

2) if a woman smokes or drinks while pregnant up until the abortion cut off point, would you consider that okay? Or at least neutral and not irresponsible?

It's irresponsible. If she wants to be pregnant and carry to term, there's a steadily rising responsibility to consider what she might do to a future person. This is not unlike our general ethical obligation to consider our actions as they affect future generations (E.g. climate change, economy, common heritage of man etc.). The question of whether to make it illegal is a different question though. I don't think it's practical or reasonable - though prenatal care should be freely available and include such information.

3) Why is damage extrapolated to the end of pregnancy, but the pregnancy, itself, is not?

Rephrase the question please.

4) If it was illegal for a woman to smoke or drink during pregnancy, would you allow her choice to smoke and drink up until the point of abortion cut off?

I don't get the question. If it was illegal, would I allow a woman to break the law? That's between me and whatever law enforcement agency might want to know if I put personal ethical considerations above the law.

And to those who still don't believe that a fetus is a human, why is killing a pregnant woman legally considered a "double homicide"? Surely, if the fetus was not a person, it would only be a "single homicide", regardless of whether or not the woman is pregnant.

Your obesession with the human-ness is a misunderstanding on your part. Whether it's human in biolgical classification, has human DNA or whatever isn't the question. It's whether it's a person. You haven't made a single coherent argument towards establishing that. It seems to me part of the reason is you don't actually understand the words you try to use.
To the best of my knowledge it's not a double homicide where I live. I don't know the specific part of US legal code establishing it as such. However, there's a fundamental distinction between a woman not wishing to be pregnant, and some third party forcing the woman (Or killing her). I hope you can see how those two are quite different.

[The New California Republic]

In a different thread, I had this conversation in abortion, I want to hear how you might think about this topic.

Exactly! Thanks for helping me out.

He isn't helping you out at all.

[The New California Republic]

In a different thread, I had this conversation on abortion, I want to hear how you might think about this topic.

So why do they tell you not to drink or smoke while pregnant?

Because it'll damage the baby's long term health, that doesn't mean it's alive.

Now, I’m engaging in a little bit of satire, but I’m interested in how far to push this, and see your response. I can, I believe, respond in four ways:

1) Why is abortion not “damage” to a babies long term health. (I know if their dead there’s no damage to long term health, but that’s a hairsplitting technicality)

2) if a woman smokes or drinks while pregnant up until the abortion cut off point, would you consider that okay? Or at least neutral and not irresponsible?

3) Why is damage extrapolated to the end of pregnancy, but the pregnancy, itself, is not?

4) If it was illegal for a woman to smoke or drink during pregnancy, would you allow her choice to smoke and drink up until the point of abortion cut off?

If it became apparent that the woman was going to have an abortion anyway then the doctors really wouldn't give a shit about giving that kind of advice.

[The Black Forrest]

In a different thread, I had this conversation on abortion, I want to hear how you might think about this topic.

So why do they tell you not to drink or smoke while pregnant?

They also tell women to eat properly and get rest.

Doctors tell everybody not to smoke. Many also say a little bit of wine is ok.

Because it'll damage the baby's long term health, that doesn't mean it's alive.

Now, I’m engaging in a little bit of satire, but I’m interested in how far to push this, and see your response. I can, I believe, respond in four ways:

1) Why is abortion not “damage” to a babies long term health. (I know if their dead there’s no damage to long term health, but that’s a hairsplitting technicality)

Yes it is hairsplitting and a somewhat silly approach.

2) if a woman smokes or drinks while pregnant up until the abortion cut off point, would you consider that okay? Or at least neutral and not irresponsible?

How do you police it and more important; do you really want that done?

3) Why is damage extrapolated to the end of pregnancy, but the pregnancy, itself, is not?

Because there is no guarantee pregnancy will go to term. When in the final trimester; the survival rate significantly improves.

4) If it was illegal for a woman to smoke or drink during pregnancy, would you allow her choice to smoke and drink up until the point of abortion cut off?

Illegal...ok.....allow her to do that? When my wife was pregnant; she would have pulled out my spine if I "allowed" her to do things.

[The New California Republic]

When my wife was pregnant; she would have pulled out my spine if I "allowed" her to do things.

[Lower Nubia]

In a different thread, I had this conversation in abortion, I want to hear how you might think about this topic.

1) Why is abortion not “damage” to a babies long term health. (I know if their dead there’s no damage to long term health, but that’s a hairsplitting technicality)

It's not a hairsplitting technicality. Removing a foetus from your body and doing damage to a foetus you intend to carry to term are not comparable. One is "damaging" something that will never become a person and will never be a part of our ethical community, and one is risking damage to someone who probably will. If a woman intends to carry a pregnancy to term, their actions will affect another person down the line. Health professionals suggest women stop smoking and drinking during pregnancy because of what it'll do to the foetus if it becomes a person we need to consider.

Of course it is. The problem is the vast number of ethical hurdles to get to your logic. Smoking while the child is not a person, as has been discussed here, is not an ethical problem, if we can destroy, we can damage. Now before you get all: “but that will harm them in the future”. Notice that to get your hypothetical scenario, we have to extrapolate to the end result of pregnancy, which is adding a member to our community. You extrapolate the damage, but not the abortion. Which is interesting. Your final line reveals this;

“their actions will affect another person down the line.”

Duh. It’s the hairsplitting technicality. You said “probably” meaning you accept possibilities concerning miscarriage as not important when discussing damage through smoking. So if you don’t have an abortion, then they, like your harmed baba, will become a member of our community.

The fact you gave this statement without seeing the hilariously saddening irony is brilliant.

2) if a woman smokes or drinks while pregnant up until the abortion cut off point, would you consider that okay? Or at least neutral and not irresponsible?

It's irresponsible. If she wants to be pregnant and carry to term, there's a steadily rising responsibility to consider what she might do to a future person. This is not unlike our general ethical obligation to consider our actions as they affect future generations (E.g. climate change, economy, common heritage of man etc.). The question of whether to make it illegal is a different question though. I don't think it's practical or reasonable - though prenatal care should be freely available and include such information.

How is it irresponsible? If she smokes before her abortion cut off, she’s just genetically harming no-one, a cell cluster. For your position to work, we have to extrapolate to the end of pregnancy. Why is this not done for personage, which you will have at the end of pregnancy?

Notice you even discuss legal proceedings! How ironic. You can harm an individual illegally, because the harm will effect their future. But you can’t kill an individual illegally, because the destruction will destroy their future.

Pick a narrative.

3) Why is damage extrapolated to the end of pregnancy, but the pregnancy, itself, is not?

Rephrase the question please.

The question is obvious, you just can’t see the logical conclusion.

4) If it was illegal for a woman to smoke or drink during pregnancy, would you allow her choice to smoke and drink up until the point of abortion cut off?

I don't get the question. If it was illegal, would I allow a woman to break the law? That's between me and whatever law enforcement agency might want to know if I put personal ethical considerations above the law.

Convenient. The problem is that you’re hypocritical in bodily autonomy here. Abortion is allowed because of autonomy. So smoking when there is no harm should be allowed. Because that’s precisely the abortion issue. We abort before we do harm. So why not smoke before harm?

Your reply will be; “because smoking will harm a future member of our society.” Repeat question three I presented above. Why is smoking harm extrapolated, but not abortion itself?

[The Alma Mater]

It's not a hairsplitting technicality. Removing a foetus from your body and doing damage to a foetus you intend to carry to term are not comparable. One is "damaging" something that will never become a person and will never be a part of our ethical community, and one is risking damage to someone who probably will. If a woman intends to carry a pregnancy to term, their actions will affect another person down the line. Health professionals suggest women stop smoking and drinking during pregnancy because of what it'll do to the foetus if it becomes a person we need to consider.

Of course it is. The problem is the vast number of ethical hurdles to get to your logic. Smoking while the child is not a person, as has been discussed here, is not an ethical problem, if we can destroy, we can damage.

Why ? Destroying someone before they can have experiences does not harm them.
Damaging them in a way they will be able to experience does.