Abortion Should be illegal

Who is WE? Who are other beings like us? Lots of beings are like us in different ways. What is consciousness? Definitions please. You are just making vague undefined statements. If we have no way of proving when consciousness begins then it seems like a terrible tool to assign or measure personhood. You are essentially basing your personhood argument off ignorance. Which is why you can"t answer this question: why do we give a give a day-old newborn personhood but not the same to an adult pig? You don"t know because your argument is based off a vague undefined concept and an appeal to ignorance. Realizing the flaws in your definition, You try to salvage it by throwing in the word "precursor" which is essentially a placeholder for potential. Which was my argument and would take us back to genetics. Your definition is vague, Based off ignorance, And impractical in application. The embryo is a living organism with the genetic potential to become rational, So it is not a dead body. Not biologically. Not philosophically. A brain-dead human is philosophically dead because it no longer has the potential to reason. I am staying extremely consistent with my definition of personhood. On completion of a successful fertilization you have an organism with human DNA, The first precursor for reason. You have yet to present me with any reason why this view is inconsistent. The government forcing a woman extract bodily fluid from herself to give to another is not a bodily autonomy violation. So, I guess the government forcing a woman to extract blood from herself to give to her child would not be a bodily autonomy violation as well. Many women don"t view pregnancy as a bodily violation but that doesn't change the fact that it is one. You are making an appeal to the masses. You keep on speaking of morals and moral obligations. But this is a discussion of rights and laws. I only care about the legal obligations. Legally speaking a person has no duty to help a stranger. Their only legal obligation is to attempt to contact the authorities about the situation. The woman has no legal obligation to care for the stranger (who in this case is the infant). I will restate in more detail the definitions of my qualifiers. Please pay attention. Natural care: 1) It must be the primary biological purpose of the organ from the person giving the care. Ex. Primary biological purpose of breasts: to produce milk in order to nourish her infant Ex. Primary biological purpose of uterus: nurturing her fertilized ovum that develops into a fetus and holding it till the baby is mature enough for birth. Ex. Primary biological purpose of blood: supply essential substances around her body, Such as sugars, Oxygen, And hormones. (The primary purpose does not include nourishing a parasite so that would not fit my definition of natural). 2) It must be clear what living individual(s) it is meant for. Ex. The breasts/breastmilk biologically meant to nourish her living offspring. Ex. The uterus is biologically to meant to nourish her living offspring. Ex. The ovum is biologically meant for a man"s sperm. (which man/men is not clear, So it does not fall under my definition of natural). I wouldn"t consider sex an act of care so it wouldn"t apply anyway. Ordinary care: This is all other care that is not life-threatening to the one providing the care. Essentially it is synonymous with non-life-threatening care. Ex. A man would be required to walk a mile to get food for his child even though there is a very low chance he will get hit by a car. Ex. A man would not be required to run into a burning building to save his child because there is a very high chance of death. Your slavery example is so illogical it deserves no response. How about in the same multi-verse then? Stick to logos please. You completely ignored my argument and then made an appeal to the masses again. My point was that if you think a mother has a legal obligation to breastfeed your child (I guess you don"t which just shows the moral bankruptcy of your argument) then you must also legally require a woman to give blood to her child. Both involve similar degrees of bodily violation. In my view the two situations are significantly different. One involves natural care while the other does not. The only time that degree matters is if it comes to the point of a life-threatening degree. That would violate my ordinary qualifier. Ironic that you say value personhood not vague principles when I have already showed that your definition of personhood is founded on vague undefined terms and ignorance. I don"t really care about your comfort level. If you say my definition of personhood is vague perhaps you should try to prove that. I am not going against my natural or ordinary principles. The primary biological purpose of a woman"s womb is to nourish HER offspring not someone else"s. Of course, I value DNA. My whole argument is built off genetics. You did not even challenge my view of persons based of genetics, So you can"t criticize the position. Several unnamed countries allow for male abortions. There are 195 countries. Most countries still force a man to support a child he never consented to it. So yes, Most governments view the act of sex for men as agreement to take care of negative results (if you consider a child a negative result). But it does not hold women to the same standard which was my whole point and you missed it. All your attempts to show inconsistencies in my arguments were easily refuted. You, However, May want to rethink your definition of personhood. I never said personhood came from the requirement of a female"s care. I said nearly the opposite. I defined a person as organisms with the potential/actual ability to reason. Those persons with only potential have a right to natural and ordinary care (among other rights). That would include the natural and ordinary care from the female"s body.