Abortion is Wrong

"We can prove this because at the moment the sperm enters the egg, the new baby has all 46 chromosomes needed to put it into the class of homosapien sapien (human)." Your argument on why the foetus is be considered human from the off is flawed. Just because it has 46 chromosomes, doesn't mean it should be automatically put it into the Homo sapien species. Why? Because chromosomes are just the way that DNA is organised; they don't tell the DNA content. For example Reeve's Muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) and the Sable Antelope (Hippotragus niger) also have 46 chromosomes. Are these creatures also Homo sapien now? "Secondly, it has its very own unique set of DNA. Please note that this DNA is totally different from its mother; therefore, the fetus is not the mother's body." As for your second point, you're merely stating the obvious. I mean unless a human reproduced asexually, of course the foetus will have it's own set of DNA (which I will state is not "totally" different from the mother since they share genetic material). Also while it isn't genetically identical to the woman it is most definitely a part of her body, at the very least connected to her body. Therefore the foetus is (indirectly) a part of the woman. The woman has total freedom and control with what to do to her body and can remove whatever part she likes, in this case being the foetus. "I believe there is someone who should be killed in the aftermath of a rape. I really do. But its not the mother, and its not the child created during the heinous act. The man, if ever caught, I believe should be immediately sentenced to death. No jail time, no parole, death" Your point on what to do with rapists is hypocritical to your abortion argument that killing a life is wrong. It's okay to kill one 'living' being for one thing, but not okay to kill another for something else? So your saying I can justifiably murder when I feel someone has done something heinously unjust? "But to the main point, the child created was not the one committing the crime. People say that the child will be a constant reminder of what happened to the woman. This is truly regrettable, it really is. But to kill the child will only be adding shame and guilt on the woman, not alleviating it." While the created foetus may not have committed anything, the woman did not ask to be raped. She did not expect to suddenly become pregnant either. She may not want a child yet. She may have wanted a child her partner instead. Why should the woman be inclined to keep it? Because society's ethics tells her it's wrong not to? Why would aborting a foetus bring shame and guilt to a woman who did not willingly want to become pregnant? Basically the final decision should be up to the woman and the woman alone. She'll be carrying the baby for nine months and may be the one caring for it for 18+ years. She shouldn't feel pressured by society or ethics to make a decision that may not be right for her. As for your example involving the 2 year old child, the only similarity the child and the foetus would have is that they both contain human DNA. One is a sapient, breathing, choice-making being and the other is a bunch of undifferentiated cells. "Those parents should first kill their oldest child." Again you are being hypocritical. It's okay to kill the oldest child just to make way for a new one? Do you realise how that would affect the child's younger siblings? The negative impact it would have, especially when they find out that their older sibling died simply because there wasn't enough money to provide for the new child. This foetus cannot even think yet, but you'd rather kill off the being that can. To commit murder of one's child would take such an incredible toll on, not only the woman's, but the family's hearts and minds. "So when we are born and even to when we are 2 or 3 years old, you could argue that we're completely dependent on our parents to feed and clothe us and keep us alive." A toddler has a drastically larger chance of growing up if it has a parent, or parental figure, there to care for it, but it doesn't explicitly need a parent to survive (granted survival chances are low). A foetus cannot survive without it's mother because it's just a bunch of cells. Survival chances are zero. If the mother does not want it, she should not have to keep it. To add I stated "unnecessary suffering that would only lead to an early unpreventable death". Maybe I wasn't clear enough but what that meant was that the baby would unavoidably die shortly after being born (anything up to a few years old) and would suffer up until that point. So it would be more 'merciful' to remove it early on than to let it suffer and end up dying anyway. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://zyxo.wordpress.com...