Abortion is morally wrong

[Esquilax]

If you wish to debate my view of what a human being is please state your objection.

Funny, because I've done that multiple times over the past few days, only to be glossed over. You can't just use genetics to determine what a human being is, because if you did then plenty of things that aren't human would fit into your definition. More importantly, things that don't fit under your umbrella of human rights would too, like a human corpse; this is a problem for your definition because now we have human beings, under your definition, that don't have the same rights as a fully grown person, meaning that not everything that is a human being has human rights.

You need to add more things to your definition; I know keeping it simplistic and glib is what you need to do to keep fetuses nestled squarely in the "human being" category, but it's not anyone else's fault that an accurate definition that encompasses all the elements of this discussion does not include fetuses in it.

Some philosophers have likened pregnancy to, a woman who knowingly signs up for a social experiment where she may or may not be trapped in a cabin for nine months with an infant and the infant would need her body to survive for this time. Lets say she is picked, is she now knowing full well she is responsible for bringing about the situation and the dependance of the fetus, should she not be morally and legally held responsible for the child? I believe the answer is a resounding yes.

And the problems with this still exist; it is always within the woman's rights to opt out of the experiment, in good science. What you're describing isn't an opt in scenario, it's a kidnapping. More importantly, it's yet more astoundingly glib and simple logic, because not everyone who winds up pregnant does so because of unprotected sex that was entirely within their control. Birth control fails, accidents happen, people lie.... there are so many more variables at stake here, and it says so much about your position that you've got to rely on these narrow arguments to make your case.

Similarly, in the violinist example, the woman has no responsibility nor connection to the sick man who is hooked up to her body. He is hooked up there because he, (or in her paper she uses "The Society for Music Lovers,") intentionally hooks himself up to her. But why is the fetus hooked up to the woman in the first place? Ninety-nice percent of the time, it is because she engaged in an action (sexual intercourse) that is known to create dependant people(unborn children).

"The little slut should have just kept her legs shut, if she didn't want to get pregnant!"

Listen carefully: We do not prevent other humans from seeking to mitigate the consequences of their actions.

A further analogy, shows this in a car-crash scenario. Comparing unwanted pregnancy to that of a car crash. Here, a car crashes into one car propelling it into another car. Now we find out that the owner of the third car also was the driver and instigator of the first car and started the chain reaction. Since she is the owner of both cars, she can only fault herself and indeed the car in the middle can fault her too.

Oh, you wanna do car crashes? Okay, let's apply your fallacious reasoning to car crashes: a car crash occurs, and the instigator of the crash is critically wounded and dying. An ambulance shows up with plenty of time to spare, but does nothing: after all, the driver engaged in an action (driving a car) known to cause injurious events (car crashes.) Both of the victims of the accident clearly should not be helped, as they knew the risks of driving cars.

Now comes the hard question, Arthur: is there any meaningful difference that would stop your logic regarding pregnancy above, from being applied to the car crash here? If the two terms are switched, how do the premises of your argument become invalid?

Losty, I have said that due to human embryology a human is genetically complete in its human information and belongs to the species Homo sapien thus should be considered a human being with the same rights as myself. I have argued and defended my view that this is the only coherent definition of a human being.

Listen, you're playing both sides of the field here: does the fetus have the same rights as you, or not? If it does, then it doesn't have the right to hook itself up to another's body without consent and should be summarily removed. If it doesn't, then there's no problem here.

What you're trying to do is slip in special rights under the guise of our usual rights, and as justification you've offered us nothing more than an assertion that the pregnant woman is only "temporarily inconvenienced" by the fetus which, aside from being factually wrong and insulting, is also completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed.