After birth abortion?

[Amarok]

Is a fetus part of a woman's body or is it a distinct organism? I think it is hard to argue that fetuses serve any necessary biological function of a woman, similar to the way spleens or lungs do. As such, fetuses are not in fact parts of pregnant women's bodies. Therefore the argument that a right abortion is grounded in the woman's ownership of her body is a complete non sequitor.

This is by far the worst of the bunch 

Weither it's a distinct entity or not is of no consequence it's very presence is a bodily violation and denying the women the right to an abortion is equal  to rape and yes she has absolute  sovereignty over her body enough that she has every right to kill an unwanted intruder violating her form and stealing her bodily resources anything less is an abomination .

I wonder why we afford personhood to corporations and give them more rights than unborn human beings.

Corporations are not persons no matter how much Republicans insist they are .

hen one side claims that women died when abortion was illegal, it seems reasonable to know how man

The number does not matter that any died or their is even the distinct possibility they may die is justification enough

when they say that a fetus is not a person

It's not in reasonable sense can it be a person

 baby has simply changed its physical location from inside the womb to out in the world?

And that's the argument in nut shell .And are you saying that location of something is not important .If my knife goes into a steak i'm eating if it goes into your heart it's murder.In this case one is a violation of her body and is forced reproduction the other is not .

Could viability serve as such a qualifier? That too is problematic. Healthy fetuses naturally develop into infants in the same way that infants naturally develop into mature adults provided the necessary and sufficient conditions are present to meet their needs.

Same could be said of random chunk of DNA someday if master cloning .So i guess i should never scratch my ass as there are possible human back there.You may argue that that's not natural i would ask would you think it any less human ? This argument is just a re-hatch of the potential argument . And again one is forced reproduction the other is not . And their are options to relinquish the burden of later that you wish to deny for the former.

 It seems strange to say that a human being isn't viable simply because it will wither and die for lack of basic necessities. What makes it right to fatally withhold the basic life necessities of a very young human being but not right to do the same to an infant or an adult?

By your logic it's moral to force you to give your blood to support my existence. And again one is forced reproduction the other is not .One is a violation the other is not . And their are options to relinquish the burden of later that you wish to deny for the former.



And lastly no there is no justification for abortion that leads to infanticide or euthanasia those are wholly separate categories  and it's absurd to conflate them .I will say thou the Pro choice side has some dark implications .