Originally posted by Zahlanzi
as you see, i quoted your whole post, i didn't removed anything that would mess up my argument
EDIT: as you see, i quoted your whole post, i didn't removed anything that would mess up my argument. please treat my posts with the same courtesy.
that would fall under the special circumstances i mentioned.
"I don't see how an embryo has an automatic right to life. "
i don't see how a newborn child has an automatic right to life. how about a p ...[text shortened]... should the mother have the right to kill a fetus and not your average serial murderer?
My mistake, I'm sorry. However, it's odd that you would be in favor of allowing a rape victim to murder something you consider to be a child?
i don't see how a newborn child has an automatic right to life.
The newborn child isn't part of another human being.
how about a person in a coma?
We make these decisions all the time. The family usually decides whether to keep life saving measures on or pull the plug.
how about a very old, senile person who is not even remembering his/her name?
How are they even analogous? Is the senile person in someone else's womb?
what characteristics must a lump of living cells need to possess to be considered illegal to murder it?
How about independence (i.e. not a part of another being) for a start? I am aware that an infant child is dependent on their parents or care taker - I am talking about being a part of another human being here though.
by your reasoning we can also deal with our elderly in the same fashion
No, we can't do that by any stretch of imagination by my reasoning. There is a big difference between a fetus that is part of another human being and an actual fully separate human being.
how is letting your unborn child die any different.
It's different because your unborn child is unborn. It is a part of your body.
How about miscarriages? Should we investigate those to make sure women drink too much and raised the risk of a miscarriage too much?
At what point do you think that fetus gains those human rights? At conception? If at conception then you would have to outlaw in-vitro fertilization since fertilized embryos get discarded during that process. It would also ban a number of forms of birth control - including the pill since they work by making sure fertilized embryos don't implant.
why should the mother have the right to kill a fetus and not your average serial murderer?
The fetus isn't a part of the average serial murderer. The average serial murderer isn't a host to that fetus - it's not the murderer's body hence it's not his choice.
As I mentioned, I am in favor of some restrictions. There is a period before the baby is due that I think it's reasonable to restrict abortions. I'm not 100% sure where that point is - I couldn't tell you a week number or anything. That being said, I think there is another point where up to then it is simply the decision of the woman.
I did take sentences out of your post, but I don't think I did so in a way that misrepresented your post. If you think it did, I'm sorry.