Abortion and the right to life

I thank Con for his response and will attempt to rebut them clearly and concisely.My reasoning for justifiable abortions are simple: The unborn are human beings, which is supported by science (embryologists consistently agree that human life begins at fertilization without significant controversy), and philosophy (bodily rights arguments, such as the ones Con is making, assume the life and humanity of the unborn). Humans are inherently valuable due to the fact of belonging to the species Homo sapiens. They have an inherent capacity for sentience they just have not developed it yet. In order to justify killing a child in the womb, you must supply a reason that could not be applied to a child outside the womb (and some sophisticated pro-choice philosophers like Singer and Tooley take the pro-choice position to its natural conclusion and support infanticide, for there is no fundamental difference between an infant and a fetus, yet it is legal to kill a fetus.Now, in certain rare cases the unborn child's and the mother's life may be in danger (e.g. during ectopic pregnancy). This is not a case of abortion, but of triage. Two patients are in mortal danger and only one can be saved. The one with the greatest chance of survival is the one doctors will save, the mother. During the later term, a c-section can be done to save both mother and child. This is why it is no contradiction to believe abortion to be immoral but in certain rare cases it can be justified. I am not saying the mother's rights are more important than the fetus'. I am not saying that murder should be justified even though a doctor sometimes loses patients on the operating table.I have not detracted the debate at all. I have kept it on topic. The unborn are human from fertilization, which is backed up by science. This is a quote from the most-used textbook on embryology: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." [1] Jarvis' violinist analogy fails because you are in the situation due to an act of violence. You are kidnapped and forced into a situation in which you are sharing your organs. Pregnancy is not a kidnapping; as I have indicated, in the vast majority of cases it is through a consensual act by two people. The woman's uterus is designed to carry a child and her body goes through changes that facilitate carrying that child. It is merely that sometimes the woman's will is at odds with her body. The zygote is not an attacker, not a rapist, not a parasite, and no good arguments can ever be made to show they it is.So no, you can't be forced to give someone an organ that you are not responsible for. However, the woman is responsible for creating a naturally needy child, who implants itself in the only place in the entire universe it can survive. It is not an aggressor, and it is not there through any act of its own will.Here, Con has created a strawman argument against me. I do not wish to punish women, merely to expect them to take responsibility for the child they create. Also, I believe the same of men. A man is 50% responsible for the child's creation and should stick around to raise the child, or be forced to pay child support. The man is just as responsible as the woman. Calling me sexist is nothing more than an ad hominem.Consider this: You approach a baby-making machine. Every time you press the button, it gives you a pleasurable experience but 1 time out of 100 a baby pops out. If you push the button and a baby pops out, are you not responsible for that child? You pushed the button for the experience, knowing that it could produce a baby.Also consider this: I am playing baseball with my kids. I throw the ball and my son hits a pop fly which soars into my neighbor's yard and breaks a window. I knock on my neighbor's door and say, "I'm sorry about your window. However, I consented to play baseball with my sons. I did not consent to breaking your window. Therefore I am not responsible." This wouldn't fly. I am responsible for breaking the window, just like a couple is responsible for caring for a child they create through a recreational means.Showing court cases is an appeal to authority. Slavery used to be legal. Even if our court rules we have a "right" to procreative sex, it doesn't mean it's a moral right. What is legal is not always right and what is right is not always legal.Additionally, Con's assertion that Thompson's analogy "fits perfectly" is simply flawed, since it doesn't accurately portray pregnancy. I have shown why it fails.A right to life does not require an independent existence. A man in a reversible coma has a right to life, although he is completely dependent on life support. Additionally, it is simply bad logic to consider a preborn human to be a parasite. I apologize for my link not working, sometimes this site doesn't post my links properly. However, I did give a couple of reasons why the unborn are not parasites in my rebuttal.Con believes it is moral to kill an unwanted unborn child because it has a higher chance of leading a dysfunctional life. So please tell me, Con, if you happen upon a child who was abandoned in a dumpster (this does happen), do you have a moral obligation to get this child help, or would you be morally justified in walking away and washing your hands of the matter?Regarding self-defense, again, I reiterate that pregnancy is not an assault. It is a natural process resulting from sexual intercourse. It's simple cause and effect. Sex produces children. The zygote is not attacking you, it was brought into existence through a consensual act between two adults. Abortion is not self-defense, it is homicide. Death resulting from pregnancy is exceptionally rare, in fact it's 13 in 10,000, or less than a 1% chance. [2] In fact, she has a higher chance of dying in a car accident, a 1 in 6,000 chance. [3] Hopefully those links will work this time.Killing someone who has less than a 1% chance of killing you is not self-defense, it's homicide. There may be certain health factors in play, too, but with proper diet and care she most likely won't have to worry about them.I have shown why it is immoral to kill an unborn child (they are alive, they are human, and they are intrinsically valuable based on the fact they belong to our species of humanity, and have an inherent capacity for everything that makes us valuable, they just haven't developed them yet). I have also successfully refuted Con's points and I look forward to his response to my arguments. I look forward to our final round.[1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...;[3] http://adventure.howstuffworks.com...;