Abortion

sorry for the late reply, I was robbed a few days ago and haven't had any time to really check anything online over the weekend. But back to it anyway, It is not the same as killing an innocent human unless human is specified as meaning a human being. A skin cell is human in nature, but not a human being itself. Thus i would contend since the fetus is a human being and a child is a human being, the two are the same. Is the fetus really the same as the woman body? No. Any scientific article can verify this since the fetus has unique human DNA, has arms, legs, a heart etc. Just because the fetus is inside the woman does not mean the fetus's body is the same as the mothers or vice versa. Two separate bodies because two separate and unique DNAs. And even if the mother will experience trauma from the birth, should she be allowed to kill the child at any point. Your argument in this circumstance is that trauma should be grounds for killing. If the child will cause her trauma, your argument can be used an excuse to kill the child at 1 day old. You need to be more specific with that in regards to abortion itself. So does finance determine whether someone should live? Even if the mother cant afford the child, should the child be exterminated in order to "solve" a problem. That is like trying to solve an issue of poverty with mass extermination. And to answer the question, I would be ok with a raising of taxes in order to support the lives of young children. Or we could even take the funding planned parenthood has for abortion and put it towards a donation system for saving young babies, even though i understand that wouldn't nearly cover the costs. I also realize that taxes would cost a lot, but is a life worth a monetary amount? No its not. Someone should be killed for how poor they are. The law can be wrong. At one point, the law considered blacks in America as 3/5 of a person. Was this actually true? No. They were 5/5 a person. And so this now is just a prelude to show that the law can be wrong. Furthermore, the lAw of Double murder holds that if a pregnant mother at any stage is shot and killed along with the fetus inside her, then the shooter can be charged with double murder. This breaks the law of non contradiction because in one circumstance the law holds that a fetus is protected under the "Right to Life" but in another can be killed with motherly consent. How does this make sense? Either the fetus is a human being with the right to life or it is not. I would argue that the law of double murder is the accurate law and the law of abortion is the incorrect law. "A clump of cells that will become human" Actually your quote is wrong because the "clump of cells" have human DNA thus making them human. So it is human. But is it a human being? Would you be ok with saying that once the fetus is born and cut from the umbilical cord, it magically transforms from a clump of cells that looks like a baby into an actual baby human? How about an hour before birth? IS the the fetus still just a clump of cells that will eventually magically become a human being based on the mere fact is is not outside of the mothers womb? Of course that doesnt make sense. And if we keep subtracting the hours from birth, it will become apparent that either the fetus is a human being from the beginning or never a human being until birth. And because it doesnt make sense to say a fetus is not a human being 1 minute before birth, we are now left with the fact that the fetus must have been a human being from the beginning of its existence. A human being that started as a zygote and continued to grow like every human being to ever exist. And ok you do make a good point with motherly deaths. This brings up the situation where either the mother dies or the fetus dies. And here is where we have to weigh culpability. Both are innocent. Both have the right life. This is hard for some people to accept, but, fundamentally, both have the EQUAL right to life. Even the Catholic faith holds that saving the mother would be equally as noble but also inherently equally tragic as saving the child. So in fact, yes, this is the only circumstance where abortion is permissible because two equal innocent lives are at risk. Since their is an inalienable right to life, it would be better to save one innocent life than neither life. And furthermore, choosing either to save to mother or fetus does not make the person morally culpable for this reason: A good deed is always inherently above/better/higher than a bad deed of equal gravity (in this case killing). The good deed of saving the innocent mother is inherently above/better/higher than the bad deed of having to abort/kill the fetus. I am not contradicting anything I have stated because my overall theme, applied to any situation, is supporting the inalienable right to life. This debate happens to be on abortion. Therefore i should also add saving the fetus would be inherently better then the act of letting the mother die. So those woman who died, actually had the right to receive an abortion. Im sorry that that was relatively short, but I did just write that in the time I had in about 30 minutes. I look forward to your response.