Abortion

'An egg and sperm have potential to become human and then it has potential to become a human being.'Yes, 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.'Why does someone have to have unique DNA to be human? A blood cell is human. A clone is 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.'The fetus is definitely part of the mothers body. Everything the mother puts in her will harm or help the fetus.'Consider the definition of 'part':'A portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole.' (1)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.'So your saying that the fetus has the right to use someone's body without consent because it doesn't get to pick the person it takes the rights away from...'It has a right to not be killed (as it is a human being and so it is entitled to the human right to life), if this entails that the foetus will have to remain in the womb, then it has a right to remain in the womb even if this happens to be using the mother's body.The right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy, I will refer you back to my earlier quotation:'Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins'So although we have a right to bodily autonomy, this right does not supersede the right of other's to not be harmed/killed.'Why should it matter? Without consent, you have no right to continue using that blood.'Ipse dixit fallacy (2).By causing someone to be in a state of mortal dependency, then you are taking responsibility for that person's welfare. You forfeit your own right to not support the dependant if you are the reason that the dependant is in a state of dependency. In a way, it is your fault that they need support in the first place. And it is the woman's fault (for want of a better word) that the foetus is in a state of dependency on the mother.'Is it not immoral for the fetus to use the mother's body without permission? The fetus is robbing a mother of her basic rights.'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.'When the baby is born you are taking the human being debate out of question, so yes, the baby has rights. I think you are missing my whole argument. A woman should not have to be forced to stay pregnant because she has a right to say "No"to something using her body without permission.'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.'Even though only a small amount of abortions are done due to rape, it doesn't mean that rape is a very common crime around the world. Suggesting the extreme leads to an absurd conclusion. So rape cases are not an example of the appeal to extremes fallacy. However, if I argued "What if a fetus was going to kill the mother and the fetus had to die?" then that would be an example of the appeal to extremes fallacy.'Why is the latter guilty of the appeal to extremes fallacy and not the former? They are both comparatively rare cases for abortion.'How is the "child" innocent? It is obvious that the fetus is using the mother's body for its own agenda agents the mother's will.'As I have said above, the foetus is completely innocent because it has not freely chosen to act immorally. This is because it physically cannot choose to do so.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.'If your brother was on life support any you were the legal next-of-kin, you could. And the fetus is on life support for nine months.'Just saying so does not make it so. Involuntary euthanasia (which is what you are describing) is almost universally condemned and illegal. (3)Even in cases where involuntary euthanasia can be conceived to be morally justified, these are where it is rationally concluded that the person would have to continue living. Yet this is not the case with a foetus, because it cannot be rationally assumed that a foetus would want to not live.'If that were true then if I were a drunk driver and I hit someone and that person had to be put in the hospital , it would be my moral duty to go to medical school and care for that person, which us illogical.'No, that's an elaboration of an analogy.To modify it to pertain to the debate, it would be as follows.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.This analogy pertains to pregnancy as closely as possible, and hence it shows that cause of dependence gives an obligation to protect the dependant.'Yes I did. But perhaps I need to be more clear. The fetus is being immoral in a pregnancy if the mother does not give consent.'Okay then, you concede to argument 2 by virtue of the fact that you will not attempt to respond to it.And as I have said multiple times, free-will is a necessary prerequisite to immoral acts, yet a foetus does not have free-will so they cannot act immorally. (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(3) http://www.wisegeekhealth.com...