With respect to DNA, a fetus is human.

However to legally equate an embryo which not yet sentient, not self-aware, with its mother - a fully formed human with hopes dreams aspirations, etc. is at best a false equivalency and at worst a prelude to totalitarian rule.

With respect to law, the fetus is not equally human to the adult in which it resides.

Which brings us back full circle to Ayn Rand's "An embryo has no rights."

Ayn Rand also didn't like rain because it "slowed the wheels of commerce". lol

Any rights are going to and have come from the human being, in and of himself/herself. Did Ayn Rand expect that these "rights" should have come out of that bountiful hole of non descript unconsciousness or do the rights come from independent morally culpable human beings?

Modern day science offers nothing to a morally possible question of abortion for it is of course "soulless" and as I said previously it deals with potassium in the same manner.

It can be a hard decision for the modern woman, as it should be, but with the dialectical-legal beliefs of our times anything can be proved (supposedly) as the lawyers belief in this science will always deny a proper understanding of this matter.

This doesn't mean that a woman( or doctor) should be jailed for having an abortion for education and compassion are in need by each of us individually. Knowledge and understanding will lead all of us to well thought out activities as condemnation without comprehension is unhealthy and debilitating.

We don't have to kill the cake makers in order to become proper human beings.

We are not arguing weather abortion should be legal or not. Op said this thread shouldn't be about that, and I won't sit here and get in an argument with you about that.
Obviously, a lot of people, one way or the other, feel very strongly about this issue.
The thing you're neglecting, or ignoring, or are maybe not aware of, is the issue of Consent.
for example, It is perfectly fine for two consenting adults to have intercourse, if they both mutually want that. It is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor, because a child is incapable of consenting.
Just like a.animal is incapable of consenting, thus making it a criminal act, and abhorrent.
Two adults, even if the same gender, can do whatever they want because they are two consenting adults.
When you take something from me, if I consent, it's ok. If you take it without my permission or my knowledge, it's theft and thus a crime.
I'm no way is it the same thing when a man spikes a woman's drink, causing her to have an abortion. This intruding on her body without her consent, and a woman doing it willingly to her own body.
It's like you're telling us, rape and consensual sex are the same.
Please, stop trying to control other people's lives.
It's a free country!

This thread has already confirmed that the answer to OP's question is NO

Different people have different concepts of morality.

Yes which is ironic since the vast majority of human beings think that infants are quite literally the most important class of human beings that require the most protection

It helps not to imagine a fetus is an infant while it’s still a fetus. Otherwise, you end making laws and morals about imaginary infants.

Why do you need to equate an embryo with its mother? Either this argument is correct:

Premise 1. Its immoral to kill another human being unless you have too.
Premise 2. A fetus is a human being.
Premise 3. Most abortions are performed as matters of convenience.
Conclusion: Most abortions are morally wrong.

Or this one is correct:

Premise 1. Its immoral to kill another human being unless you have too with the exception of a mother killing her own fetus/embryo.
Premise 2. A fetus is a human being
Premise 3. Abortion is the killing of a fetus/embryo by the mother.
Conclusion: Abortion is not morally wrong.

Is there any reason to change premise 1 other than we want to have abortions for what are usually selfish reasons? I have a hard time changing premise 1 just so we can have abortions without guilt.

No, that's what people who state the 'not your body' argument for abortion do.


Then it's not human at all. All men are created equal.


People have used the same line of reasoning to argue black people are less human but still human.

Talk about the slip to totalitarian rule lol. Sheesh.

I was the first person to bring up consent. If you actually read my posts instead of just assuming I'm pro-life and arguing against abortion rights you would know that.


If the fetus is a human being, then its right to life should be protected as much as any other human. It doesn't matter if I want to kill it or not, I'm not allowed to commit murder and I will be punished for doing so. Unless you're arguing that a pregnant woman can choose to lawfully kill the human being living inside her? Or are you arguing that its not a human being and no one that kills a fetus should be convicted of murder? I'm confused.

So it's not a human being then and people who kill it can't ever be convicted of murder. Thanks for being consistent.

Is there an argument that acknowledges abortion is immoral but then goes on to make a case it should not be made illegal?

Probably I dunno. This argument is about how some people are convicted of murder for killing fetuses and some people aren't, and how if fetuses are human beings then abortion is lawful killing of a human being as applied to the pregnant women and unlawful killing as applied to everyone else.

That is clearly a legal inconsistency, and I have a problem with it. It's unequal application of a law in a legal system where the fundamental precept is equal application of the law. Anyone who cares about consistency should also, because inconsistencies undermine the basis of the legal system itself.

Like I said, I don't want to derail the thread and start arguing weather abortion is right or wrong. Like I said already, people on both sides have strong opinions on the matter.
But, abortion is currently legal in the United States. I don't know what country you come from.
Maybe it's illegal where you come from? That would change the whole argument.
But, since it is legal, the law of the land, in the U.S., how can it be a crime?
Listen, to be totally honest. I have conflicting views on it too.
But we're not arguing here about the law. And according to the law as it stands right now, you actually don't really have an argument.

Maybe such inconsistencies will surely arise if the architects of our legal system operate under the assumption that not everything which is immoral should be illegal.

You don't like such inconsistencies. Would you be willing to make everything immoral illegal to get rid of them?

This isn't that difficult. Either the fetus is a human being or it isn't a human being. If it is, then killing a human being through an abortion is either murder or it isn't murder. Some people have been convicted of murder for killing a fetus and some people aren't convicted of murder. So an abortion is both murder and not-murder depending on who does it. That is inconsistent application of the law, and it undermines the fundamental precept of the law, which is that all are equal under the law!

Immorality has nothing to do with it, for crying out loud.

It is irrelevant what your moral stance on abortion is. If killing a fetus isn't murder when the pregnant woman does it, then it isn't murder when anyone else does it either, or it's only lawful when the pregnant woman does it. But that would give pregnant women the right to kill a specific class of human beings, which undermines the bill of rights that states there are no stratified 'classes' of human beings.

It's a legal and logical inconsistency which undermines the whole system of law.

I'm afraid reasoning with you is fruitless. I'm going to try to refute you one last time. Just please don't tell us you're one of those nut jobs that thinks it's ok to bomb abortion clinics.
Again, the law says that abortion is legal.
There is a stark difference between what you decide to do with your own body I and an outside entity, someone else, doing something TO your body.
Maybe , do to the new make up of the supreme court, that will change.
But not until then.

Respect the law for once and respect people's rights for heavens sake.
Or maybe just move to Afghanistan and join the Taliban. Last I heard, they think abortion should be a crime also!

Why are you thanking me for your words?

An infant is consistently an infant. A fetus is consistently a fetus. Imagining that a fetus is an infant is inconsistent with what each of those things are consistently.

Refute what? All I've done is point out inconsistency with the law. I haven't stated an opinion one way or another about abortion.

No it says that abortion consented to by the pregnant woman is legal. Forced abortion wouldn't be legal.


I agree which is why forcing a woman to have an abortion is a crime. If you actually read peoples posts instead of jumping to ridiculous conclusions about their points of view then you would know that.

However, unless a fetus is a human being, forcing a woman to have an abortion cannot be considered murder. Why? Because for murder to occur there has to be

1) an unlawful
2) killing
3) of a human being

If you consider the fetus to not be a human being, then abortion can never be murder. If you consider it to be a human being, then sometimes abortion is murder and sometimes it's a lawful killing.

Which one of the above are you arguing for?

I'm so confused.

?

Forcing an abortion is a heinous act against the women (that should be a very serious crime).

If the woman consents then it's totally different.

"Infant" and "fetus" are words used to delineate different stages of development of human beings. What is consistent is that a fetus and an infant are both human beings. Stage of development is the variable.

Heinous acts are not necessarily murder. Rape is a heinous act but it is not murder. I think DoOrDoNot has an issue with sometimes prosecuting the killing of a fetus as murder and sometimes not prosecuting it at all.

You, very correctly, pointed out a glaring inconsistency in our legal system. Why does that inconsistency exist? Is it because we are stupid? I don't think so. Is it because not everything that is immoral should be illegal? That's a hella lot more likely than collective stupidity.

But how do you justify the stance that not everything that is immoral should be illegal?

Politically I don't care if a forced abortion is called murder because it's comparable in severity. However as we're in SMP, I strongly object to it being called murder because it isn't.

DoOrDoNot objection is to the semantics. They annoy me as well.


cos' banning things just because they're immoral is immoral. ldo

Ok I see what you're saying. Actually to be honest I think almost the entirety of the law and government is made up nonsense. I've studied law as part of my business degree and there is very little of it that makes any sense. Its reasoning built on reasoning that's ultimately built on nothing but the wind. The problem of internal inconsistency is a problem of the first principles the system of law is based on.

At the same time I can see why law and government in general is necessary to a functioning and civilized society, but also how the existence of law and government itself undermines the things its very existence intends to protect.

It's a curious thing.

I think for the law to make sense at all it must all be based on some values that no one can logically disagree with.

A good example of an inconsistency is the conflict between freedom of association and civil rights. No one can argue that I should be free to associate with whoever I want. No one should also argue that people should be treated less because they're black. So what happens when a private business owner doesnt want to associate with a black person? Whose right wins?

Anyone who has an opinion one way or another is straight up biased. The conflict itself is a problem the legal system both creates and protects against.