Abortion Should be illegal

Q1: We are agreed here, To some extent. 1. As persons, We know WE have consciousness. We assume that all other beings like us have consciousness. We don't know they do, But it seems a safe and optimistic assumption. 2. If the vast majority of humans develop consciousness, And we have no way to prove where it begins, It seems the best value to have is 'brain activity' since that is a precursor to consciousness. In reality, We have no idea if other animals have consciousness or not. Several species appear to have decent levels of intellect. I, For one, Would never eat or kill a raven, Dolphin, African grey, Et cetera. It's a fine line to draw though. My line for 'personhood' would be 'when brain activity starts in beings thought to have consciousness/high intellect. ' Many alien species will likely fit the bill, And several animals probably do or will as they evolve, Or we evolve them. My line for personhood would not apply to a fetus that has not yet developed brain activity. My view is that there is no argument for valuing a full set of DNA or an essentially dead body prior to brain activity. Q2: 1. She doesn't necessarily have a legal obligation to do so. As far as moral? Not even necessarily that. Is it a bodily autonomy violation to milk yourself and feed the baby from a bottle, Or whatever other implement you have? Probably not. No, The answer would not change if she were raped. Do you think the answer changes when a woman finds shelter in a random house and a baby just happens to be in there? I would say she has a moral obligation to feed the baby even if it were not her own, Because it is a 'person' and we should care for each other. I don't think many women would view this as a bodily autonomy violation. The women can then give them up for adoption after the storm has passed. Again, They don't really have a legal obligation to breastfeed specifically. 'natural and ordinary obligation' is so non-specific that it could apply to hundreds of things that you don't like. Humans in the past have ordinarily and naturally enslaved each other. A woman's womb has the natural and ordinary job of producing babies. Is she morally obligated to do so because beings might be persons in the future that wouldn't exist were she not? Doesn't the moral implications of forcing women to breed and being second class citizens on the planet have any value to you? Yes, The DEGREE OF BODILY AUTONOMY VIOLATION is the concern here. The analogy isn't in a similar ball park at all. It's not on the same planet, The same solar system, Or galaxy. Let's not understate how different the bodily autonomy violations are, Specifically when most women wouldn't view it as a bodily autonomy violation, Shall we? You say 'artificial' now, So under your 'natural and ordinary' rule it would be OK for a woman who finds an abandoned baby to not take care of it until she could give it up for adoption? That seems to be what you're saying. Your rule is at best vague and incomplete. We as a society would not force someone to give up blood to save a person's life, But that doesn't mean it isn't a dick move. We as a society don't force people to take care of an abandoned child they see, But it is also a dick move. All newborns are assigned a caretaker by society. The default is the parents. If they're planning to not take responsibility for the child we have a system in place for them to deposit the child, So they are no longer the caretakers. By default, When a child is born we assign that caretaker role to the parent until it is given up. 'Natural and ordinary' is a vague way to describe this. Parents are just the default we currently use. Your conclusion states 'unborn should have the same rights as newborns' but all your questions have been for beings that are born already. You seem to be valuing your 'natural and ordinary' principle rather than valuing life, Personhood, Et cetera. It seems strange when your principle could be used to justify many other actions, As well as be a justification for actions others have real moral arguments against. I have said already, I value personhood. Not vague principles or 'life. ' I have defined personhood to you. Some unborn would fall under this, Some would not. Until tech improves to let women know when they are pregnant faster and until society improves their ability to access abortion I'm uncomfortable on a practical level with banning abortions past the start of brain activity, But that is the ideal goal for me. I have zero discomfort with abortions prior to brain activity. Under your 'natural and ordinary' you say forced surrogates having abortions is fine, But raped females having abortions is not. So you are essentially valuing DNA here and going against your natural and ordinary principle. Under your principle, The forced surrogate's womb and milk would be for the child as well. This is a contradictory position unless you are valuing DNA, Which you cannot make a good argument for. Q3 This is called 'male abortions' or 'father abortions' and is law in several countries already. The male parent can give up all rights to the child and pay no child support as long as the woman can still have an abortion. No, The government does not view the act of sex as signing a contract to take care of the negative results. The proof is that abortions are legal, And a supermajority of society think they should be legal. Your claim holds no grounds. If they viewed sex as signing a contract to take care of the unborn, Abortions would be illegal. You have already shown that you yourself fail to hold consistent with your principle. The debate in philosophy is "When is something a person? " I'll link a video in the comments, Because you may not have heard of it before. You're saying something gains personhood whenever it requires a female's care to stay alive and whether the female was 'designed' to care for it. These are vague notions and could apply to parasites, Et cetera. -Thoht