Abortion Should be illegal

When in R2 you say: "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. " It makes it seem like you are referring to the entire discussion. This is all I was speaking to. If I blew it out of proportion of what you meant, Then it is a misunderstanding not a strawman. I'll let the judges decide. I give the unborn personhood at 2-3 months depending on when brain activity starts, Yes. Abortion prior to this is acceptable because you're destroying a body, Not a person. Similar to when one goes brain dead and is removed from life support that is killing a body, Not a person. I accept abortions past this point because of practical limitations. These practical limitations are technology to inform the woman of the pregnancy in time to abort prior to brain activity, Anti-abortion states that have only 1 to a handful of abortion clinics in their state, Also requiring wait times et cetera. This puts undue burden on the mother. I would like it to not be so. If abortion were more easily accessible, And women could learn that they are pregnant in time to make the decision that would be my ideal world. To say nothing of proper sex ed, Public funding of superior contraceptive methods, Et cetera. Drawing the line that I'd like to draw is impractical currently. This isn't an inconsistency on my part. In my ideal world no one would die. That is impractical. In my ideal world no one would work. That is currently impractical. I said at the beginning: We as humans assume all humans born will develop consciousness because we have it. We can't point to something and call it consciousness outside of brain activity. So the fetus that has brain activity gains moral value. We don't know if pigs have consciousness. They might. I have said previously that some animals probably do fall under my personhood definition. If your personhood definition is so specific that it can't possibly refer to animals, Your definition of personhood is likely wrong. Aliens will probably not be anything like us. Valuing DNA is silly if that is so. Strong AI will fit my definition in the future. There is no way around it. The label of "person" may apply to them in a far greater way than it does to us. Currently I justify killing some animals for nutrition reasons. Vegans accept that some people can't live healthily without meat. This isn't an inconsistency. My line for what intellectual level an animal has to achieve to gain moral value is admittedly not clear. It is a hard line to draw. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs, If I recall. I give value to ravens, African greys, Dolphins, And some others. Pigs may very well deserve to be on this list. It is a strawman to say that under my definition newborns will be killed. I have stated brain activity = personhood. All brain activity that occurs shapes who 'you' are, Even the brain activity that happens prior to gaining consciousness. All of this shapes 'you. ' Your personhood definition has all of these values: 1. Human DNA 2. "Potential" consciousness/abstract thinking 3. "Current" consciousness/abstract thinking 4. Be an "organism" On top of that, You accept abortion when it comes to surrogate mothers because it doesn't fall under your "Natural and Ordinary" principle. N+O: 1. It must be the primary biological purpose of the organ from the person giving the care. 2. It must be clear what living individual(s) it is meant for. Instead of just saying "we shouldn't kill persons" you bring the N+O principle into play which can be justified to kill some persons, Making your acknowledgement of persons less important than your appeal to biology or nature. This is an "appeal to nature" fallacy. What you are saying is "what is natural is good. " Look how hard you work to limit your scope to JUST human fetuses. Your 1st valuation of human DNA eliminates all aliens and AI from possible personhood. This is ridiculous. Unless you are religious and think there is something supernatural that makes us persons (which isn't part of your definition) there is no reason to think animals and AI could not be persons even given hundreds of millions or billions of years of evolution. I have already gone into why valuing DNA is silly. What you try to do is combine all these principles at the same time, Saying that "If even one is present you are a person. " Whenever I argue against DNA, You'll say it has potential, But this potential is derived from its DNA for you, Not brain activity, So they are one and the same argument. The "potential" part though can apply to animals. You don't apply your moral consideration to animals because it doesn't follow your "Human DNA" requirement even if it may pass all the other tests. What is happening is you're picking and choosing. A fetus does not have current consciousness, So it violates one of your principles, Yet smart animals don't have human dna which is also one of your principles, But you don't give them moral value even though both violate one of your principles. This, And the surrogate mother part is why your position is inconsistent. You allow abortions, Just ones that don't violate your natural and ordinary principle. Your whole position is designed to allow you to cherry pick whatever you want, But you're applying your principles inconsistently. It doesn't include those that may be persons. It doesn't value persons for being persons. It values persons that are natural. On top of that, You probably don't value the "potential" children that females may have if they are allowed to choose when they become pregnant and are financially prepared for it. You only value "potential" that already exists. This is not valuing potential. This is just valuing fully-formed DNA. I apply my principles, My line, Consistently to all. Is it not immoral to force pregnancy on women? Does this not factor at all into your moral weighing of the situation? May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht