Performing Abortions Should be Illegal

1. The difference is important. It allows that a mother permitting the abortion to be performed may have acted without intent to kill. This wouldn't be criminal unless neglect were proven. Given the conflicting information mothers are told this is fairer than condemning them for murders they did not knowingly commit. Taking pills that abort the foetus would come under performing an abortion. If it can be shown the mother knowingly took a life it would be murder just as for a medical professional. I discussed medical professionals specifically because they have great knowledge of the medically "living" status of the foetus they can't claim to act without intent. Selling or buying the drugs is easily solved by separate laws not within the bounds of "performing" abortion and is therefore irrelevant. Yes, 0 abortions is the goal. Criminalising the performance of them goes a long way to this. No moot point. 2. Does the title say "Any" Abortion? Medically we can push back to at least 8wks, Although the synapses are forming and begin to function by 5. Since medical science would classify a foetus younger than that "dead" I always allowed that for those weeks proof beyond reasonable doubt has been met and therefore always excluded those weeks from my case. Not conceding the argument; only acknowledging its limits. As to "scan for brain activity" please research better. In most cases brain death is pronounced by indicators not direct observation (https://www. Nhs. Uk/conditions/brain-death/diagnosis). Also precisely because they may miss the brain waves of a foetus with current equipment a single scan couldn't be used to determine life/death. 3. Among these indicators is the ability of a patient's body to attempt to contract its own heart. A foetus of 5 weeks meets this but let's allow your 8 weeks when brain waves can be directly detected so as to allow that the child may then have personhood too. 4. Which point did I ignore again? I'm managing fine in 5k characters. Keep up. 5. You countered a weak point I didn't use. You did not address my argument but a weaker form of it. That is a strawman. 6. Where? You point to personhood and make other attempts to prove the foetus is not alive, But you never suggest proof is unnecessary. The principle I laid out and called "assumed life" stands uncontested thus far. Who said anything about gametes or zygotes being alive? Nonsense. They have no pulse or mind or any other provable aspect of life. By your definition here a lab grown skin patch is "alive". You are deliberately obfuscating the term life. Again you address a weaker form of my argument that you may refute it. You have yet to refute me. Strawman. If personhood is what you value tell us why. I showed in R2 four basic concepts that don't work. Where is your answer? As to your point about undecided and controversial: personhood is philosophical and without new overwhelming arguments in its favour can't claim superiority over other ideas. It is not defined, So it cannot yet be applied as definitive. I engaged your assertion and broke it. Put it back together if you want to claim I'm dismissing you unjustly. I applied logic. Arguments from popularity were not used here. Why must you value all life to value human life? By your reason of personhood, We stand head and shoulders beyond the closest known creatures. This is not a debate about why we should value human life. That is an established legal principle. As in, "human rights". Unless you are advocating for giving dolphins a vote, You're chasing a red herring. Yes. If the person is not brain dead I do have to say pulling the plug on a person dependent on life support is murder. Your point? 7. See my answer to your R1 section 1. Neglect leading to death is criminal. Not always murder but criminal. To prove neglect you must prove the ability to do or know better. In the current confusion of information on abortion we can't do this. Therefore the mother need not always be punished although she has undoubtedly ended the life of her foetus. I addressed the weakness of the self defence allegory before. You repeat but don't explain why you ignore my counterpoint. However, I'll play. Yes, Child bearing does harm. The actual risk to life of the mother in child birth is 0. 0185% in the US. Your "at risk in 100% of scenarios" is misleading. However, Risk to the mother's life is already acknowledged as a separate moral question that should be excepted from criminalised abortion. This is the place for your self defence argument but this is its only place. Again you repeat about theft without meeting my challenge to that. 8. Give us a break. Is this a utopia? Just because we get something else wrong doesn't mean we should get this wrong. The moot points are yours sir. I challenge you to justify just one of your assertions and directly counter the reasoning in the objections I have already raised. I have done both in response to you. Make progress not volume please.