Abortion

I just used quick definitions in order to draw the distinction between human and person. First, None of these arguments refute the notion that a fetus is a person. If a fetus is a person then killing it is immoral. On the subject of life threatening situations, I will hand that one over. The vast majority of life threatening pregnancies are solved by induced labor and the children have the chance of survival, And an ectopic pregnancy procedure is not an abortion, But I understand the fringe cases of women with cancer or other conditions in which if they keep their pregnancy they cannot get the chemotherapy they need. I will give those fringe cases over because if the mother's life is truly endangered and there is no other option I would be okay with abortion. On choice, I am not claiming that the value or choice of the mother is less than the choice of the fetus. They are equal, But the choice of the mother is to kill the fetus and the choice of the fetus is to live. Since the fetus is a person as of now, Then that argument is similar to say that the choice of a murderer is less than the choice of their chosen victim. Both sides are equal, But some choices are unethical and infringe upon the choices and rights of others. Rape is an interesting argument, Because it does not argue against the rights of the fetus or its personhood. The only argument that rape is refuting is the notion that people have to take responsibility for their actions, Mainly consensual sex. It doesn't even do a good job of refuting that because like you said the numbers are astronomically small. Since the fetus is a person then killing that person does not "unrape" the mother, It just adds another act of. The fetus has a right to live and its rights are not subject to the experiences of the mother. I would like to point out that I believe rape is a terrible terrible act. Rapists do not serve nearly enough time in jail. If the fetus is a person, Then taking its life equates to taking an adult life. My argument for the person-hood of a fetus is that there are no morally relevant differences between an adult (someone that would be regarded as a person) and the fetus. All differences between an adult and a fetus can be summarized by the acronym SLED. Size: Size definitely does not determine person-hood. A four-year-old is no less of a person than a 32 year old even though the 32 year old is much bigger. Moreover determining a size requirement of person-hood seems odd. For example if the requirement of person-hood was that the fetus must be 34 weeks old (or have similar size) then if it was born early infanticide would still be justified. Level of Development: Level of development does not have anything to do with the value of a human being. An adult does not have the authority to abuse or harm a child even though it is much more developed than the child. At conception, The sperm and the egg fuse into a new combination of DNA. That zygote is a human organism or human being. Lines drawn at further stages of development would leave out adults that would widely be regarded as persons. Environment: Environment is not a predicate for person-hood either. Where you are has nothing to do with your value or rights. Dependency: The line of person-hood drawn at viability is a common one. However, This excludes coma patients, Iron lung patients, Certain diabetic patients, Pace-maker patients, Etc. Who are entirely dependent on machines. Moreover the line of viability is determined by where you go. A New York hospital can deliver a fetus much earlier than a hospital in Bangladesh, But environment does not determine human value. If a fetus is a person then abortion is wrong. If a fetus is not a person then abortion is similar to a Kidney transplant or other bodily choices. If the assertion that a fetus is a person is refuted, Then the Pro-Life view is destroyed. Back to you.