Abortion is morally wrong

[Ravenshire]

So, Art, Since you so pointedly ignored me. Are you going to go do that volunteer work? Are you going to research how making abortion illegal would really affect the total amount of suffering in the world? Or are you going to continue in your fantasy world with your head stuck firmly in the sand? If the latter, kindly shut the fuck up about subjects you have no fucking clue about.

[The Valkyrie]

Beccs, I am not arguing from personhood. But that of being a human and human rights. Losty, I have given my definition of what a human is and stated that a fetus falls under this category. If you see a problem with my definition or know of a better one, please, share.

Once again, you completely ignore everything else I've stated.

You're done.

Sick of reading your spam.

Goodbye.

[CindysRain]

Tough subject for me personally. But....

Every woman has the right to choose.

[JuliaL]

I apologize for being late to this conversation.
I have read most of the thread, but I haven't seen Arthur123's full definition of what constitutes personhood.
Correct me if I misstate, but it appears he considers having a complete human genome makes one a human being.
Others have opined that a human genome is necessary but not sufficient. I am of this mind. There are substantial further requirements before a fertilized egg can be considered susceptible to murder.

But even given the unreasonably broad definition (a genetically complete human cell which can potentially become and adult human), how does Arthur123 answer the challenge that he is murdering millions of humans daily? By that definition, every cell in his body capable of being cloned is a potential human every bit as capable of becoming an adult human with proper care as a fertilized egg. Therefore each should be protected by the full weight of moral righteousness enforced by law.

I wish to preempt an expected objection that only a cell with a unique genome can be considered a human being worthy of protection by limiting the murders in which he indulges daily to only those cloneable cells of his which have undergone some trascription errors or mutations which serve to make them unique.

[fr0d0]

how does Arthur123 answer the challenge that he is murdering millions of humans daily? By that definition, every cell in his body capable of being cloned is a potential human every bit as capable of becoming an adult human with proper care as a fertilized egg. Therefore each should be protected by the full weight of moral righteousness enforced by law.

I wish to preempt an expected objection that only a cell with a unique genome can be considered a human being worthy of protection by limiting the murders in which he indulges daily to only those cloneable cells of his which have undergone some trascription errors or mutations which serve to make them unique.

You haven't given a reason in your preempt.

The zygote is a human being according to science.

Both sperm and egg are not human beings, and neither are isolated human cells. Arthur is defending the rights of human beings.

[Losty]

Human Being

Human Being

Neither is a person and neither has rights.

[Tonus]

I agree life support systems are not life support systems,

I think I'm starting to see the problem here.

[Esquilax]

The zygote is a human being according to science.

Both sperm and egg are not human beings, and neither are isolated human cells. Arthur is defending the rights of human beings.

The issue is that his category of "human beings" includes things that do not have the right to life too, like corpses, toenails and hair follicles. Merely making the assertion that the fetus is human according to this definition doesn't entail that it is one of the things that has a right to life, nor the special right to subjugate the bodily autonomy of another that he wants to give them.

There's additional arguments that need to be made here, and nobody making the initial claim seems interested in bridging that gap. They all just seem happy to stop at step one and pretend that's all there is.

[vodkafan]

Tough subject for me personally. But....

Every woman has the right to choose.

I think that is the nail hit squarely on the head. The law has developed to give a reasonable compromise and draws the line at aborting after the foetus becomes viable. 21 or 24 weeks according to country. If you look at abortion figures most women choose to have abortions well within this time limit.
This is civilized; it ensures that when babies arrive in this world they are wanted and loved.
Taking the choice away from women because of religion is not civilized. It is a form of coercion designed to punish mistakes, as most religion is.

[Heywood]

But the law is against you. Fetuses are not human beings.

This brings you back to the status of mere busy-body trying to inject your religion (btw, your 'god' had no problem with killing babies let alone fetuses) onto someone else.

Negative Minimalist.

Fetuses are protected human beings under the law in many jurisdictions. Abortion is not murder because muder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Abortion is lawful so it is not technically murder. If you kill a fetus without the mothers consent you can be convicted of murder(because doing so is an unlawful killing of another human being). Scott Peterson was convicted of the murder in California of two human beings....one of which was the unborn child of Laci Peterson. There are several other instances of people being convicted of murder by assaulting pregnant women and causing them to miscarry.