1: What? The majority of abused and neglected children are wanted, and child abuse went up after 1973. But, let's see... would I rather 4400 children die brutally daily with absolutely nothing we can do about it, or have significantly fewer die from neglect when we can actually hope for retribution? Hmmm...
2: child (n):
1. a human between birth and puberty 2. a son or daughter; and offspring
3: So I guess being on life support makes you a piece of life support machinery, and being in a spacesuit makes you part of a spacesuit, and being in a submarine makes you... you get the point. Being dependent on an entity does not make you part of that entity.
4: There is not yet sufficient evidence to determine if the pill can actually kill.
4b: I'm not saying the system is perfect, but that doesn't make homicide ethical.
1: Mom and dad do the naughty.
2: Sperm fertilizes egg, creating new organism with distinct genome.
3: Offspring implants in uterine wall, beginning a symbiotic relationship.
4: Offspring matures and develops.
5: Offspring emerges from parent offspring, ending said symbiotic relationship.
Now where you get the "they occupy the same space" comment baffles me. The mother takes up the space around the child. Look in the attachment Untitled.jpg. See any purple?
Even if we're to accept that the offspring is a "parasite" (it isn't), a tapeworm is a separate organism. Moss is not part of a tree and so on.
I think you're thinking of asexual reproduction, sweetie.
The fetus is in no way a "ball of cells". See attachment g.bmp (ignore the Santa hat, bunny ears, pirate eyepatch, clown nose, and Cupid outfit).
The woman hasn't even missed a period at the zygotic stage, so abortion isn't even worth discussing here.
As for a "more complex ball of cells", I'm not sure you understand what the word " ball means here.
Let's think of a simpler analogy. Imagine a plastic egg. Inside it is a chocolate. One entity inside another entity. Now move the egg. The chocolate moves too! But do they take up the same space? NO! The egg takes up a thin shell of space around the chocolate, which takes up a small cube of space. This is true even if I glue them together.
The mother contributing half a genome does not make him/her part of the mother before birth any more than after birth.
And that first comma in the last paragraph should be a semicolon. :P
Except for the whole umbilical cord thing where:
You know the baby actually lives off the mothers nutrients for nine months.
And erm completely changes the mothers body and makes her sick and sore and gives her a list of various ailments. In some cases death.
Oh and then after growing off the woman for nine mothers and getting rather bigger than her vagina, pushes it's way out rather excruciatingly into the world.
And then at this point the mother's physical hormones and emotional connection causes her to transform from mere woman to mother in an instant (this is physiological not just emotional by the way). At which point her experience of life will never be the same again.
But yeah apart from all that it's just like a plastic egg.
1a: There are many abortion techniques. Some are chemically burning, some are dismemberment, et cetera. But murdering by poison is no more ethical than murdering be stabbing.
1b: Abuse rates, of course.
2: Fetus is a stage the offspring go through, but it doesn't encompass the embryonic stage.
3: It makes perfect sense. You claimed being dependent upon an entity makes you part of the entity. Separate entities can depend on one another.
4: And this is killing. Just like removing a tumor kills it. There was life and now there isn't.
4b: Homicide is the killing of a human being. Human beings are made of cells. So, yes.
There's a difference between abortion (killing) and removing someone from life support (letting die). While whether or not to remain on life support should be up to the one on life support, the two are substantially different. Abortion kills actively, the other passively.
The eggs you eat are typically not fertilized. But an embryo is an actual life, not a potential one.
Hi, which doctrine are you using to define human rights? The United Nations or something else? Or are you using Nulono's Guide to Human Rights in order to make your definition?
I only ask this because if you are using the United Nations doctrine of human rights, that only applies to those humans that are born, not those that are unborn. It is quite clear on that application.
Further, in order to apply the doctrine of human rights onto those that are not born, you have to violate the rights of the woman who is currently carrying the unborn. Don't you find anything wrong with that or are you just ignoring it?
I'd also like to ask the question:
Who, pro-life or pro-choice that is reading this, enjoy the idea of aborting a pregnancy?
I don't expect anyone from either side to find anything enjoyable in the act.
Also, and I don't know if it was mentioned or not but don't imply that aborting a pregnancy isn't an adverse consequence in itself. I've argued with too many people who try to imply that abortion is a benefit and not a consequence.