Abortion

I feel like at this point you are intentionally misinterpreting my position. So, I"m going to just try to state this even more simply, and closer to the words you seem to like to use in hopes it will avoid misinterpretation on your part. Value of life misinterpretation You say abortion is murder because you have acted to end the life, and doing so is morally wrong. Your statement is that all life has value, and if you act to end a life then you must not value life. You say that acting to end the life of the attacker is not morally wrong and maintain that in doing so you still value life. If the bases of your argument is, that by acting to end a human life, you are morally wrong, when it comes to abortion, then you cannot be morally right in acting against the attacker. Your bases is that all life has value, and if you end it then you must not value life. This is a false dichotomy because you value the life of your child more than the value of the attacker"s life, so it is not a black and white case of either valuing life, or not caring about life at all. There are simply more options than you present. As this is the base from which the rest of your argument stems, it makes the rest of your argument invalid. There are more than two options on how life is valued even by you. This is clear, and there should be no confusion on this point" I mean like at all. Bodily autonomy misinterpretation Bodily autonomy protects you from others making changes to your body without your consent, up to the point of hurting or killing others. The attacker in this scenario is trying to change someone else bodily autonomy which is both morally and legally wrong. He is not protected by bodily autonomy when he tries to change someone else, only when someone tries to change him. This should not be a difficult concept, another term for it is called self-defense. To put another way, you have the right not to be punched, you do NOT have the right to punch others. Also, if you use someone"s body to shield yourself from the attacker, you are BOTH in the wrong. I did NOT say that. You do not have the right to use their body, any more than the attacker has the right to change your body. Bodily autonomy means you keep your hands to yourself, or you lose your rights. Again, this is clear, and there should be no confusion on this point, but there seems to be. The point I made about the homeless people freezing to death DIRECTLY correlated to your example about having a man tied to you with unbreakable rope that was helpless, and you have done a complete 190 on this topic. Original statement " In the same way that man B is separate from man A, and is only temporarily attached, the fetus is not a part of the mother's body, as it is only temporarily attached. Now - you didn't cause those children to die of starvation, so you shouldn't be held accountable for their death So again, you invalid your own statements. Either the mother should be held accountable for helpless person"s death, or the mother shouldn"t be held accountable for the helpless person"s death. These are mutually exclusive stances. Either you are morally obligated to help the helpless or you are not. Pick your stance. Lastly life begins at conception (because it"s a new life), but you don"t become a human until you are out of the womb. We call it a fetus for a reason. Had you asked me if sperm was life I would have said yes as well. I assume you also believe sperm is life, right? How can you be against homicide and still masturbate? Hopefully you understand how silly that sounds, and we don"t have to go into that in any more depth, but somehow I expect we will. https://i.ytimg.com... Now let"s talk about future homicides. I have not said that the future homicides justify abortion. (abortion needs no justification; it has nothing to do with me) I"m saying that abortions lower homicides. (and other crimes) If there was an action you could do that would lower homicides would you be morally required to do it? Now I"m not talking about it "may" lower homicides, or there is a "chance" that it lowers homicides. I"m saying it"s been proven repeatedly to lower homicides. Do you think morally that is something that should be done? You don"t. You don"t even think morally it"s something that should be considered. You consider lowering homicide rates" irrelevant and unjust. You don"t even want to talk about it" it"s blatantly true. I brought it up, and you dismissed, something that lowers homicide rates, and you dismissed it out of hand.