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' If you are referring to your definition of bodily autonomy, I am not deliberately misinterpreting your position, I am simply identifying where your definition conflicts with your actual position. I am trying to show you the inconsistency of your augments. 'f 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.' True, but I never said that ending a life is ALWAYS morally wrong. Like I have stated before, I would want a solution where most human life is saved. If that means ending one life to save two, that's what I would do. 'This should not be a difficult concept, another term for it is called self-defense.' Of course it isn't a difficult concept, I believe in self defence. Like I have said time and time again, I am finding fault with your definition of bodily autonomy. Your statement is ludicrous and even you disagree with it, I am pointing out the flaw in it. So I'm not intentionally misinterpreting it, you shouldn't have said your definition if you didn't believe it. (For clarification this is the statement I was referring to): 'Bodily integrity or bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others.' You said: '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.' The thought experiment about the men, A and B was purely to show you how the fetus isn't part of the woman's body. I never said man A was morally obligated to help man B. If he chooses to let him die, that's not great, but it'snot man A's fault man B was burdened on him. So I haven't done a 180, as I never said man A had to help man B, and I never said you have to help the homeless man. This is different to abortion as with abortion you are actively killing the fetus. If you didn't care and kept on living your life pregnant nobody would die. Not helping a homeless man is not giving him any money. Aborting a fetus is stabbing the homeless man in the neck. ' These are mutually exclusive stances. Either you are morally obligated to help the helpless or you are not. Pick your stance.' You are not, and I do not invalidate my own statements. You misunderstood my thought experiment, believing that I felt man A should help man B. I didn't I merely explained how they were attached. 'I assume you also believe sperm is life, right?' Yes, it is life, but not human life. When it fuses with an egg, it then becomes human life. The reason for this is because a sperm, without the egg providing the extra X chromosome, and nutrients, can never become a human. A fertilised egg can. 'You consider lowering homicide rates" irrelevant and unjust.' Yes I do, and you seemed to have ignored the explanation I gave you as to why. I said that you cannot find someone guilty of a crime you think they will do in the future, and kill them for it. Read my previous argument concerning this, I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself just so you can ignore it again.