Abortion

" but potential human beings are not human beings, and so should not be treated as such. My argument asserts that foetuses, however, are actual human beings and not potential human beings." So far Con has not given a good reason why a fetus should be considered a human being. "You don't have to have unique DNA to be a human being, that is just generally a way of telling if a life form is a separate organism. Of course clones have non-unique DNA but these are exceptions to the rule; it is evident that clones are separate organisms but in cases where it is not evident (such as with foetuses), the fact the the DNA is unique rules out the possibility that it is not an individual organism. This is because it must be an individual organism if it has unique DNA" One again Con uses sloppy definitions. And in this case the Overwhelming Exceptions fallacy. "A foetus is not a division of the mother's body; it does not form any bit of the composition of the mother's body. Therefore the foetus is not a part of the mother's body. It is connected to the body and is located inside the body, but this does not entail being a part of the mother's body." By your definition, the fetus IS part of a woman. It is connected to the mother "The right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy" No it doesn't by any means. Someone can not lawfully live off of someone else body. I have stated this many times. Sure a fetus could have a right to live, but not at the extent of someone else. If someone made another person in a state of dependence, why is it right to force him/her to cater to the latter? "An action can only be immoral if it is freely chosen. For example, if I am hypnotised into killing someone, I have not acted immorally because I did not chose to kill that person. Therefore, the foetus is not acting immorally because it did not freely choose to use the mother's body" Once again Con is trying to give special rights to fetuses. A mother has the right to terminate a pregnancy. "She can say no, that doesn't harm anybody. But if a woman wants the right to kill another human being (which is what she is doing by seeking abortion) then this right cannot be granted. As I have said before, the right to bodily autonomy does not supersede a right to life." You are asserting that a fetus is a human being (Ipse dixit fallacy) And a woman is not terminating the fetus she is terminating the pregnancy. "Why is the latter guilty of the appeal to extremes fallacy and not the former?" Because rape is a huge problem in the world. Just because few women choose to abort the pregnancy if they get pregnant does not mean it is not an issue that has to be dealt with. You can not force someone to stay pregnant. "Also, the foetus is innocent of the crime in question; the rape. Aborting a foetus in a case of rape is punishing the foetus for a crime that someone else committed." Forcing a woman to stay pregnant is also a punishment for a crime she did not commit. "If I were a drunk driver and I hit someone and that person had to have an emergency kidney transplant, and I was the only possible donor then I would be morally, if not legally, obliged to donate a kidney." No one can legally force you to donate an organ. You have to volunteer for someone else to use your own body. Sources: "APPEAL TO EXTREMES." N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com......;. Arthur, Joyce. Pro Choice Action Network. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org......;. N.p., n.d. Web.