Abortion is morally acceptable

So when we are talking about a "fetus," you should envision a tiny lump of flesh rather than a baby." This is an odd concept, that killing becomes more morally acceptable if the victim is much smaller than the killer. If you are saying this, then you must admit that it would be justified for someone much larger than you, let's say that giants exist, to kill you. Would it be a valid justification for a giant to kill you because you are a tiny lump of flesh? Surely not. To summarise, highlighting the size of foetuses is irrelevant to this debate. "The fact of the matter is, human rights exist to try to prevent human suffering. That's why things like torture, murder, thievery, etc., are banned. If a young child is assaulted, they are very much aware that they do not like what is happening to them. They might not know that there are laws specifically prohibiting pedophilia, but they are aware that their assault is uncomfortable and painful and they don't like it, and they can definitely comprehend, given the information, that they have a right for that to not happen to them." You are partially correct in asserting that human rights exist to reduce human suffering, but this isn't the whole story. They also exists to ensure the basic happiness of humans' lives. Indeed, it says in the preamble that the UDHR is 'determined to promote ...better standards of life'. To expand on this, article 27 states that: 'Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.' (1) This is not a right that reduces suffering (few people would actively suffer from not being involved in arts and science) but it is a right that defends one's basic happiness. Abortion removes all the happiness from a foetuses life, and thus is immoral even if no suffering is involved. You may question why deprivation of happiness is immoral, but let me illustrate this analogy: A child is going to be given a surprise birthday present; but a stranger, knowing that destroying the present will deprive the child of happiness, goes ahead and destroys the present. Is this not immoral? The child will not suffer (it was a surprise), he will just be deprived of basic happiness. This suggests that deprivation of happiness is immoral even if the one being deprived does not suffer. Also, if violation of human rights is justified if the victim does not suffer, then this would allow the sexual abuse of children whilst they are asleep, or the rape of someone in a coma. Nobody suffers in these examples, but does this make them morally acceptable? "Basically what I'm saying is, human rights are null and void until all of them are applicable to a person--so, infancy." But an infant does not care about a right to leave the country, have an education, or be free to assemble. These rights are not applicable to infants (or most children, for that matter). Does this mean that human rights are null and void to children? If this was correct, children would not have a right to liberty, life and all the other basic human rights. This is surely not the case. "A woman can't justifiably hurt a person unless it's in self defense, that's true. But the difference between a person and a fetus is that the person isn't wholly and completely reliant on the woman and the sustenance she gives them for survival. A fetus only exists because the woman exists, whereas for another person that isn't the case. Because of this, the ability to abort the fetus would technically be the bodily autonomy of the woman until viability." The very fact that the woman is responsible for the foetus's existence gives her moral obligations to care for it. You have not explained why dependency is equivalent to forfeiture of human rights. I would also argue that a newborn infant is dependent on the hospital for its survival, but this does not give the hospital the right to kill the baby. You argue that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy when contraceptives are used. Yet in reality sexual intercourse is intrinsically ordered to cause pregnancy, and so participating in an act that is fundamentally intended to give a certain consequence is effectively consent for that consequence to occur. If a blind man fires a gun in a shopping mall, knowing that there is a 10% chance of killing someone, it would be unreasonable for him to say that he only consented to pulling the trigger, not killing someone. "The life and career of a person should not be compromised because of such uncertain circumstances" I agree, the life of the mother should not be compromised, however, it is barbaric to suggest that murder can be justified to improve one's career. (1)http://www.un.org...