Abortion After Conception Should Be Illegal

I will address your argument as it pertains to the questions you posed. "A human requiring something or someone else to live has the right to live regardless of who or what they rely on. If you propose the opposite, Then I would like to ask you what we should do with people who are comatose. Should we pull the plug on them and assume they will never wake up? Is it humane to end the life of someone against their wishes, When they did not give consent before hand? It is not legal for doctors to kill a patient if he is in a coma. Is it right for patients under life support to be taken off? After all, They are requiring the machine to live. No, Of course not. Why, They will eventually be able to live on their own. The fetus will be able to live without its mother whenever it is born. It can be given up for adoption where it has the chance to find a loving home or at the very least grow up. The problem with this argument is that it automatically infers that the utility a person or object provides in service to the survival of someone else takes priority rather than individual discretion. If that's the case, Might I make a modest proposal? I suggest that the government rounds up all healthy young individuals and forcibly extract one of their kidneys and harvest them for those with renal issues? If we are to operate on your premise, A person "has the right to live regardless of whom or what they rely on, " then coercion doesn't qualify the morality of the actions taken to bring about this end, Correct? What if I'm a doctor and my daughter is a healthy individual with two kidneys? Do I force her to give up one of her kidneys because it would help someone else survive? "The fetus in unable to make the decision of whether it wants to live or die. Since the fetus is a separate life from the mother, It needs to be able to make the choice of whether it wants to live or die. Therefore, Since the fetus cannot make the choice to live or die, It is morally unethical to terminate the life of an unborn child. A counter-argument to this point could be that the mother simply does not want to have a child. However, Murder under the grounds of convenience is unethical. Murdering a pregnant woman is a double homicide. A motive of convenience will get a murderer convicted for the murder of both the mother and her unborn baby. So, The same rule should apply here. Abortion is unethical to be done out of convenience. A life cannot be ended because one just wishes for it to happen. " Wanting to live or die is not a choice. The fetus has no choice. The fetus lacks agency; therefore, It cannot render any decisions in service to its own survival. It is a being entirely dependent on its mother for basic functions and its own sustenance. And if the mother decides to withdraw the labor she puts into this sustenance before the fetus has viable prospects of surviving outside of her womb, The fetus will face certain death. This does not however establish "murder" as you put it, Since that would require "malice aforethought. " The fetus dies because its undeveloped physiology disallows it from surviving outside of its mother's womb. With that said, The method of abortion should be considered. And even I would concede that not all methods are moral. "Mercy killing is the notion that one should be "put out of their misery" by execution. This should not even be a contention of whether this should be a valid reason for an abortion. However, Many people view that a baby born into a rough life simply should not be born at all. Under that logic, Should any low income families should be terminated because they live in a rough environment? Of course, The answer is no. So, The same logic cannot be applied here. " This applies both ways. Just above, You qualified your argument by adding, "The fetus will be able to live without its mother whenever it is born. It can be given up for adoption where it has the chance to find a loving home or at the very least grow up. " If the consequences the fetus face once its born shouldn't matter if it were to have a "rough life, " then it shouldn't matter if the consequences are good, Too. You should be arguing the significance of the fetus' survival, Good or bad outcomes notwithstanding. I'm fine with dispensing with that rationale in its entirety. "The mother made the autonomous decision to have sex. She knew the risks that were involved with partaking in sexual intercourse. She knew that a child could result from the coitus which happened. However, She decided to have sexual intercourse knowing full well that a child could result from it. Therefore, The mother made an autonomous decision to protect the life of the child by acknowledging the risk of pregnancy through the method of sexual-intercourse and does not have the ethical grounds to end the life of another based on a decision she may or may not regret. " Having sex doesn't establish a contract to gestate a fetus. Having sex is having sex. Yes, Pregnancy is a risk, But the fetus is not a being with agency; therefore, Any "contract" to "protect" the fetus would be null and void. (Not to mention, The mother wasn't a party to this agreement. ) Risks of an action doesn't qualify the rights of the person taking the action. Case in point: say I were to leave my door open during the nights. By doing this, I risk invasion. Would this mean that I would be prohibited from fighting off and expelling any would-be invaders? Do I have to let them stay because I "knew the risks"? Is my home still not my home? What if one the invaders would condemn his children to certain death, If he did not raid my refrigerator for food? Would that justify the invasion? When a woman decides to have sex, Her womb is and always will be her womb, Regardless of who depends on it. She doesn't have the right to kill; she does however have the right to determine to which extent she submits her labor, If it all. If you acknowledge the fetus as a person, Then you must concede that it doesn't have the authority through itself or by proxy to consign its mother's labor, Against her will, In service to its own utility--even its survival. That's a rabbit hole I don't believe moral agents wish to enter. "Case One: Use as Birth Control Many women who obtain an abortion see it as a form of birth control. This is harmful since they are unnecessarily killing a human life under the notion of convenience when it was totally unnecessary. Around 46% of women in the U. S. A. Who had an abortion received more than one. (2) This does not show multiple "mistakes", It shows a lack of responsibility. Innocent unborn children are dying because the mother is not using contraception correctly. This is immoral and unethical. Due to this, I assert abortion should not be allowed due to its potential use as unethical birth control. " If her womb is always her womb, Then why would she not exercise abortion as a means of birth control? Why would the "mistake" be qualified at all by its incidence? Isn't this redundant? You're arguing that abortion is murder; does it matter how many times it happens? Of course, I reject its classification as murder, But I've already state that, And I don't wish to be redundant. As for case 2, I would say that a woman has discretion in risking her health given that the abortion exercised produced some utility to her. After all, We're not arguing what it does to her. We're arguing whether she has the right to do it. "It is clear that abortions cause horrible damages to a woman's body and mind. With all of these damages claiming the female population which partakes in abortion, How could one even begin to assert that abortion could be a good choice for a woman? It is sad and reprehensible that such damage is being forced onto the women who have these abortions. Therefore, I assert that such a harmful act to both the unborn baby and woman should be illegal. " How is the damage being "forced"? Are they not made aware of these risks? Do they not have the information available to them through either consultation or independent research? How do you know they're not risking these health issues in order to exercise an abortion? "In conclusion: It is unethical and immoral to kill what will become a full-fledged adult human It is unethical to allow abortions to be used as a contraceptive It is unethical to allow a woman and her fetus to be harmed by the side effects of abortion" There's more to flesh out before we accept these conclusions. On to round three.