Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Tero]

Rubio can help you, Seth, with biology:

When Rubio appeared on CNN after Thursday night’s Republican debate, he kept insisting that this vague entity called “science” has declared that human life begins at conception. (Actual biologists, for what it’s worth, argue that life is continuous and that a fertilized egg is no more or less alive than a sperm or an unfertilized egg.) CNN host Chris Cuomo vainly tried to point out that “science” says no such thing, and Rubio got a little excited.

“Let me interrupt you. Science has – absolutely it has. Science has decided… Science has concluded that – absolutely it has. What else can it be?” he asked. Then Rubio reared up for what he clearly intended as his wowza line: “It cannot turn into an animal. It can’t turn into a donkey. The only thing that that can become is a human being.”

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Not really. The sperm is a "cell" as is the egg. When the chromosomes within each combine they become something new comprised of both maternal and paternal materials.

Not quite up with our cell biology, are we?

The egg cell contains a great deal of important genetic material, in the form of mitochondrial DNA, which can have a significant effect on the individual phenotype; the male contributes none. In addition, recent research shows that the other cell contents of the egg also play a significant role on the biological trajectory of the embryo.

So what? Now you're trying to base a woman's right to abortion on what percentage of the cellular material is hers versus the father's? Really? Talk about pettifoggery, that's a fine example.

The fact is that once the zygote forms it doesn't "belong" to anyone insofar as its basic structure, and therein lies the whole point. It's it's own separate living organism that is genetically distinct from both parents. While both parents contributed to the formation of the zygote the idea of parsing out how much of the material involved came from one or another parent as a supposed justification for giving the woman plenary control over the zygote is ridiculous. If you want to go down that road, then the zygote should be considered "community property" of the relationship and each of the genetic donors has an equal say in its distribution just as each would if it were a house or a car purchased as common property during a marriage. That is in fact one of the arguments made when disputes over frozen embryos created by IVF or other lab methods are brought to court, and the courts seldom rule that the embryo is the "property" of the woman alone, or of the man alone when deciding the disposition thereof.

Actions have consequences. Get pregnant voluntarily and you may at some point no longer have sole dominion over your actions. Get over it.

[Seth]

Rubio can help you, Seth, with biology:

When Rubio appeared on CNN after Thursday night’s Republican debate, he kept insisting that this vague entity called “science” has declared that human life begins at conception. (Actual biologists, for what it’s worth, argue that life is continuous and that a fertilized egg is no more or less alive than a sperm or an unfertilized egg.) CNN host Chris Cuomo vainly tried to point out that “science” says no such thing, and Rubio got a little excited.

“Let me interrupt you. Science has – absolutely it has. Science has decided… Science has concluded that – absolutely it has. What else can it be?” he asked. Then Rubio reared up for what he clearly intended as his wowza line: “It cannot turn into an animal. It can’t turn into a donkey. The only thing that that can become is a human being.”

He's perfectly correct. Perhaps he's been lurking here. Maybe I'll send him a linky...

As for "actual biologists" they too are perfectly correct. The zygote is no more or less "alive" than the sperm or egg...all three are indisputably alive at all times. But the zygote is something entirely different from either the egg or the sperm once it comes into existence (being), which is what Rubio is saying, and with which every actual biologist also agrees.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Not really. The sperm is a "cell" as is the egg. When the chromosomes within each combine they become something new comprised of both maternal and paternal materials.

Not quite up with our cell biology, are we?

The egg cell contains a great deal of important genetic material, in the form of mitochondrial DNA, which can have a significant effect on the individual phenotype; the male contributes none. In addition, recent research shows that the other cell contents of the egg also play a significant role on the biological trajectory of the embryo.

So what? Now you're trying to base a woman's right to abortion on what percentage of the cellular material is hers versus the father's? Really? Talk about pettifoggery, that's a fine example.

Nothing in what I wrote is an "ought" or "ought not". Simply, I was clearing up your misconception of the nature of the fertilised egg, and the relative contribution of male and female. You were incorrect in your "50/50" assessment. Also, you attempted to use this incorrect analysis to bolster the anti-abortion position. Personally, I think that the relative contribution is not an important factor in the debate.

[Seth]

Even calling it a human being does not "destroy" the argument in favor of abortion. Human beings are legally killed all the time. The question just becomes whether it should be illegal to kill the human blastocyst or embryo, etc. It's human. So, in discussing the issue with me, as opposed to rehashing arguments you have with folks who claim that it is not human, why not address the issue I have actually raised, which is that there are times when humans can lawfully be killed and unfortunately some legal abortions are necessary as a balancing of needs/interests of the mother carrying the human entity, the power/legitimate interests of the State in protecting life as well as protecting the health and well-being of the mother, and rights/interests of the unborn human entity.

We do that with the death penalty. Each human has a right to life, but that right is balanced against the States legitimate interest in deterring crime and meting out justice. Some humans suck so bad that they just need to be executed, so says the pro-death penalty crowd.

We do that with defense issues, too. In some societies, like the Amish, they say that self-defense killing is NEVER justified, and that they just need to sit and take it nonviolently. However, in the broader American culture, we see a person as having a right to defend himself not only against threats to his life, but also mere threats to inflict great bodily harm, and in some cases even just situations where a person thinks he's under threat but isn't correct about that. And, we can kill other humans when what they are doing threatens our lives even if the other human doesn't mean it, or even know it.

Certainly, in the context of abortion, the concept of self defense allows a mother to protect herself from death or great bodily harm or the good faith belief that she is being subjected to a risk of great bodily harm, no? Wouldnt' that make sense? I mean, a woman has that right against a grown person, so why is that right any less if the human is unborn?

I have never argued against the suggestion that the life of the mother should take precedence over the life of the fetus if there is a genuine medical danger if the pregnancy continues.

Further, it can be said that certain situations would require a woman be able to defend herself from massive psychological trauma too -- like if she is raped and has to carry the rapist's baby? Or, if her father impregnates her at the age of 13 and she would have to go through 9 months knowing that her own brother or sister is inside her?

Those are more difficult issues to analyze. While I acknowledge the potential psychological issues I also note that many women who have been raped choose to carry the child and raise it because, in their minds, the child is not guilty of anything and should not be punished with the death penalty because of the way it was created. There are options short of killing the child that are routinely exercised, including adoption and psychological counseling to help deal with the psychological issues involved. Psychological issues are not the same thing as predictable physical injury or death caused by medical conditions placing the pregnancy outside of the normal range of pregnancy risks that are highly manageable right up through delivery. In such situations certainly the best thing for everyone is careful consideration and immediate psychological counseling to ensure that the victim of rape or incest is making a rational, fully-informed choice in a timely manner and is getting the best possible support and advice. With that in mind, the principle of "tempus fugit" still seems to apply, which means that if the victim is going to choose to abort, that decision must be made as quickly as possible (preferably within 22 to 26 hours, before the zygote forms) and at the earliest stage of development possible to minimize the effects of an abortion on the fetus and the mother alike. After a certain point in the pregnancy the interests of the state and of the fetus itself may take precedence over the desires of the victim, so she should not delay in making her decision.

I answer all your questions -- can you please respond by directly answering the one's I pose, instead of going on about how OTHER pro-choice people seem to think that fetuses with human DNA are not human?

Of course, as long as we agree that from the zygote stage through death it's always a living human being.

Two humans are dangling together from a cliff. Jane is holding on to the cliff, with John hanging on her leg. She is strong, but her strength is fading fast. She is very fit, and she knows she can do the chin up necessary to reach another hand hold and ultimately grab onto enough rock to pull herself up to safety. She believes that she might be able to pull themselves up, but she also believes that if she does not get rid of John's weight, she quite possibly will not be able to pull herself up and both of them will fall to their death. She believes her chances of survival go up to a near certainty if she can get rid of his weight. She decides to intentionally kill John by shacking him off of her leg -- she roughly kicks in wiggles -- her heel bashes John a little in the teeth as he struggles for survival -- she kicks and kicks and says "John you have to die so I can live! Get off me!" She kicks again and he slips off, begging her not to do it - he falls to a craggy death. She crawls up to safety.

She killed him. Is she guilty of a crime? Is it murder? Is it manslaughter? Is it self-defense? Is it justifiable homicide? John, clearly a human being, has a right to life. He wasn't intentionally hurting her, he was just hanging on for his own life. So, shouldn't this be murder?

No, not unless she was trying to kill John in the first place by pushing him off the cliff and he managed to grab her legs instead. As long as she did not instigate the crisis with the intent to harm John she may exercise her right to self defense using the "choice of evils" defense, which roughly states that a person may be absolved of criminal culpability if the only choices were, in this case, that John die or that both of them die. Both are evils, but in such a case the lesser evil is that only John die. Further, given the predicate conditions I mention, Jane has no legal responsibility to save John or to even place her life at risk to attempt to save him. Thus, if John had slipped and fallen and grabbed a rock and was begging Jane to help pull him back up to save him, he has no right to impose that risk on her and she is under no legal obligation to come to his aid if she does not choose to do so.

If, however, she pushed to try to kill him and he grabbed her, then her kicking him off would indeed be murder because she instigated the fall with the intent to murder him, so if she survives she is guilty of completing the murder she intended and cannot make a self defense claim.

So, what is your stance on abortion? Assume it is human --- when should abortion be legal and when shouldn't it be?

Sometimes, perhaps.

Law does not have to track morality.

Laws are the codification of the moral beliefs of a particular society, which is why laws differ so much from culture to culture.

Laws codify SOME moral beliefs, but most societies do not equate immorality with law. Some cultures find that it is "immoral" to have sex outside of marriage, even today. Yet, even in many of those cultures, it's not illegal to have sex outside of marriage. Adultery is generally considered immoral, but it has mostly been decriminalized int he west. Many people think excessive drug and/or alcohol/tobacco use is degenerate and immoral, yet that's not illegal in many cultures that view it as such. Prostitution can be legal without being considered moral.

Yes, there are moral issue that are not codified into law, but quite literally all laws that do exist are the codification of societal morality. So, one can accurately say that there is codified morality (laws) and uncodified morality (social custom and mores).

Perhaps the issue is that you keep evading stating your position on abortion. When do you think abortion should be legal and when illegal, and why? Maybe we actually agree.

That's because my general position is as the interlocutor who, using the Socratic method, responds to the claims of others and reveals the logical and rational flaws and inconsistencies in those arguments rather than making statements of personal beliefs and opinions.

You did say that if people who are pro-choice admit that it is human, then that admission will "destroy" their argument? What did you mean by that?

It destroys the argument that abortion should be unlimited because the fetus is not a living human being, it's just a "clump of cells" or something other than a living human being, usually undefined, right up until it's born.

Also, again, please be specific as to when you think aborting human beings should be legal, and when illegal, and why? That way, you and I can isolate any areas of disagreement.

Sorry, that's not my methodology. I analyze your arguments without stating my own personal beliefs. The objective is to tread the path towards knowledge and enlightenment not take
So when do you think that abortions should be legal?

Do you think that if someone unintentionally does something that you honestly believe puts your life at significant risk that you can kill them.

That depends on the exact circumstances, in particular whether the use of lethal force is legally justifiable and a lesser degree of force would not be effective in terminating the threat to my life as well as whose actions initiated the threat, among other considerations that may come into play.

In sum, might we say that you support legal killing of human beings under circumstances where there are competing rights such as the right to life and safety that come into play that would justify the taking of one life over another? Might I extend that example to include circumstances not of the life-taking individual's creation or instigation?

First question, in many cases, but not all cases, yes. There are times when life and safety come into play, but also the "honest perception" that significant bodily harm may occur. There are other situations too. Self-defense goes far beyond the notion of life and safety actually being threatened, but into the realm of honest beliefs -- and "bodily harm."

Indeed.

As for the the second question -- it is not a necessary feature that the person not instigate or create the situation. For example, a person can start an altercation, but not do anything deserving of death, and if the other person turns the tables and begins threatening life or bodily harm, then the instigator can have a right of self defense.

The authorization to use deadly force is always a predicate to doing so and the law is fairly precise in describing the authorization as being generally limited to situations not initiated by the person using deadly force. Thus, if in a road-rage situation I repeatedly ram someone's car out of anger, even if I don't have an intent to kill them, but the victim reasonably believes that his life, or the life of another is in imminent jeopardy of death or serious bodily harm, and that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate (this does not include a requirement to "retreat to the wall" in Colorado), then the victim is authorized to use deadly force against me and I am NOT authorized to respond with deadly force in self defense because I instigated the incident, even though I did not intend to kill or seriously injure the victim.

Yes, there may be situations where the self-defense response is not justified by law where a self-defense response by the attacker may be legitimate, but those are the exceptions not the rule and only a jury can determine that.

Generally speaking the law disallows the use deadly force unless there is no other reasonable choice to prevent death or serious bodily harm to the person under threat.

When viewed from you "continuum" analysis, it may well be that the mother created the need by getting pregnant in the first place. Had she not gotten pregnant, the threat would never have occurred. It's not the baby's fault, is it? so why not choose the baby over the mother?

It's a choice of evils situation. There are many factors that might come into play in making such a decision. For example, the mother who has Type 1 diabetes, which is a serious known risk to her health if the woman gets pregnant, (as in "Steel Magnolias") is the woman accepting that risk to her life in favor of the child's life should complications ensue, or should she be permitted to abort the child if the pregnancy goes sour near the end of gestation? That's a very difficult case indeed, and perhaps should be viewed in both the context of her knowing consent to the risks and the interests of others, like the father, that might appear deep into the pregnancy, which might militate for saving the life of the child over that of the mother.

I don't view it as controlling that she did or did not "create the need." She created the need by getting pregnant, but she is allowed to defend her existence even against that unborn human that she created.

Whereas it might be reasonable to have an early abortion if she got pregnant "accidentally" when her health is as risk, is it reasonable to protect her health or even life if she was aware of the risks to her and chooses to carry the child to term and only then demand a life-saving abortion? As above, other interests are involved late in pregnancy that need to be considered, and might be best considered in a dispassionate and objective courtroom rather than being given completely to the woman without any independent examination of the facts involved.

Further, if she was raped, then she would not have created that need.

True. In which case it's prudent and rational of her to report the crime immediately and seek contraceptive care at the earliest possible moment after the crime has occurred.

Also, I don't think that a small child of 10 or 12 who is raped and impregnated should have to bear 9 months of carrying her rapists child, when an early abortion can save her that trauma. Those are some examples.

I think there is adequate medical justification inherent in such a pregnancy and the severe risks of harm to the mother to justify an abortion in that circumstance. On the other hand, one must consider the fact that it is medically possible for a young girl of that age to successfully carry and deliver a child, which is not at fault, which can then be turned over for adoption. I also note that there are plenty of examples of young girls of similar or slightly older ages who CHOOSE to carry such a child to term and deliver it. Some of them actually CHOOSE to get pregnant specifically for that purpose.

Sure, so it's a balancing test. You strike one balance, others may just as rationally strike another.

And the question becomes who, when, how and why such balances are struck. While it may be rational to strike another balance, is it rational to allow a woman to invoke personal privacy and autonomy under every circumstance, or are there rational boundaries to that autonomy that come into play as the pregnancy proceeds?

This raises the question of female reproductive autonomy from the other side of the coin. Should such a "child" (who is demonstrably not a "child" but is a sexually mature person capable of bearing children) be FORCED to have an abortion because she's deemed "too young"? It's a conundrum, isn't it?

Force? Oh, I don't think she should be "forced" to have an abortion.

Well, that's part of the conundrum, isn't it? At what point do the other interests involved, specifically the interests of the state and/or parents in protecting the health of a minor child, overcome the child's right to bodily privacy and autonomy? It works both ways, you see.

But, I do think she should be able to choose, as best she can, to have one. It's never going to be a perfect choice, and her maturity or lack thereof is a reality, but it doesn't change the fact that the situation exists. So, hopefully with consultation from caring family members and doctors, she will make a decision that she can live with. Or, perhaps she just goes to the clinic and gets it done and lives with the trauma.

It is a conundrum, but in that situation, I don't think it's a conundrum that can be solved by the State commanding her to either have or not have an abortion.

Why not? Would you say the same if the pregnant woman was mentally incapacitated to the point that she cannot make a rational decision? Minor children are defined as minor children because they are presumed not to be mature enough to make such important decisions. She cannot even make a rational decision to have sex in the first place, or get married, or buy a gun, or vote, or even live out of her parent's custody, so why does she suddenly become competent to decide to carry a child to term and raise it?

I certainly believe that there are circumstances in which it is justifiable, moral and ethical to end a human life. The question that remains here is whether, or at what point it becomes immoral, unethical and unjustifiable to end a human life inside the womb.

Sure, and there are lots of reasons why it would be justifiable to end a human life. Heck, one can think of it as horribly immoral to ever do it, and yet still be of the mind that it should be legal. Law and morality are not the same.

They should be, since law is the codification of morality and very little else.[/quote]

The Internal Revenue Code has about 75,000 pages, very few of which codify morality.

Nonsense. Taxation is a codification of societal morality that says that each person should pay his or her fair share of the costs of operating the society. All the rest is just details.

The United States Code has about 350 volumes of laws, totalling something like 350,000 pages, and they certainly cover many areas having little to do with morality. It's arguably MOSTLY not dealing with morality. Does the National Labor Relations Act deal with "morality?" The what? Morality of labor relations procedure? The Fair Labor Standards Act deals with "morality" rather than pragmatic attempts to help or protect workers versus employers? You think the setting of the minimum wage, or the determination of which employees are exempt from overtime compensation is a moral issue? Commissioned inside sales people get overtime compensation, but commissioned outside sales people do not is a function of morality?

Every single statue on the books has its roots in morality, as in the case of taxes. Does the NLRA deal with morality? Absolutely. It's a societal judgment that employees have a moral right to be protected from the (supposed) predations of "big business." The same sort of basic justification exists for ALL laws.

[Brian Peacock]

Seth wrote:

Not really. The sperm is a "cell" as is the egg. When the chromosomes within each combine they become something new comprised of both maternal and paternal materials.

Not quite up with our cell biology, are we?

The egg cell contains a great deal of important genetic material, in the form of mitochondrial DNA, which can have a significant effect on the individual phenotype; the male contributes none. In addition, recent research shows that the other cell contents of the egg also play a significant role on the biological trajectory of the embryo.

So what? Now you're trying to base a woman's right to abortion on what percentage of the cellular material is hers versus the father's? Really? Talk about pettifoggery, that's a fine example.

Not basing a human right on that, just countering your broad assertions reasonably and with firm information.

Pettifogger demist thyself.

[Brian Peacock]

Seth wrote:

Not really. The sperm is a "cell" as is the egg. When the chromosomes within each combine they become something new comprised of both maternal and paternal materials.

Not quite up with our cell biology, are we?

The egg cell contains a great deal of important genetic material, in the form of mitochondrial DNA, which can have a significant effect on the individual phenotype; the male contributes none. In addition, recent research shows that the other cell contents of the egg also play a significant role on the biological trajectory of the embryo.

So what? Now you're trying to base a woman's right to abortion on what percentage of the cellular material is hers versus the father's? Really? Talk about pettifoggery, that's a fine example.

Nothing in what I wrote is an "ought" or "ought not". Simply, I was clearing up your misconception of the nature of the fertilised egg, and the relative contribution of male and female. You were incorrect in your "50/50" assessment. Also, you attempted to use this incorrect analysis to bolster the anti-abortion position. Personally, I think that the relative contribution is not an important factor in the debate.

His argument was put forward to negate the fact that a developing human is of its mother.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Not really. The sperm is a "cell" as is the egg. When the chromosomes within each combine they become something new comprised of both maternal and paternal materials.

Not quite up with our cell biology, are we?

The egg cell contains a great deal of important genetic material, in the form of mitochondrial DNA, which can have a significant effect on the individual phenotype; the male contributes none. In addition, recent research shows that the other cell contents of the egg also play a significant role on the biological trajectory of the embryo.

So what? Now you're trying to base a woman's right to abortion on what percentage of the cellular material is hers versus the father's? Really? Talk about pettifoggery, that's a fine example.

Nothing in what I wrote is an "ought" or "ought not". Simply, I was clearing up your misconception of the nature of the fertilised egg, and the relative contribution of male and female. You were incorrect in your "50/50" assessment. Also, you attempted to use this incorrect analysis to bolster the anti-abortion position. Personally, I think that the relative contribution is not an important factor in the debate.

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying your statement and please excuse me for reading something in to your statement that you did not intend.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Not really. The sperm is a "cell" as is the egg. When the chromosomes within each combine they become something new comprised of both maternal and paternal materials.

Not quite up with our cell biology, are we?

The egg cell contains a great deal of important genetic material, in the form of mitochondrial DNA, which can have a significant effect on the individual phenotype; the male contributes none. In addition, recent research shows that the other cell contents of the egg also play a significant role on the biological trajectory of the embryo.

So what? Now you're trying to base a woman's right to abortion on what percentage of the cellular material is hers versus the father's? Really? Talk about pettifoggery, that's a fine example.

Not basing a human right on that, just countering your broad assertions reasonably and with firm information.

Pettifogger demist thyself.

Done.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Not really. The sperm is a "cell" as is the egg. When the chromosomes within each combine they become something new comprised of both maternal and paternal materials.

Not quite up with our cell biology, are we?

The egg cell contains a great deal of important genetic material, in the form of mitochondrial DNA, which can have a significant effect on the individual phenotype; the male contributes none. In addition, recent research shows that the other cell contents of the egg also play a significant role on the biological trajectory of the embryo.

So what? Now you're trying to base a woman's right to abortion on what percentage of the cellular material is hers versus the father's? Really? Talk about pettifoggery, that's a fine example.

Nothing in what I wrote is an "ought" or "ought not". Simply, I was clearing up your misconception of the nature of the fertilised egg, and the relative contribution of male and female. You were incorrect in your "50/50" assessment. Also, you attempted to use this incorrect analysis to bolster the anti-abortion position. Personally, I think that the relative contribution is not an important factor in the debate.

His argument was put forward to negate the fact that a developing human is of its mother.

Well, not quite. The developing human may be "of" its mother but it's also "of" its father, in the sense that the genetic contributions that create the zygote derive from both parents, but it is neither "tissue of" the father or "tissue of" the mother once it has reached the zygote stage, at which time it becomes "tissue of itself" as a separate being hosted inside the mother. In theory, the zygote can be removed from the mother (as embryos often are), frozen, stored and later implanted in a completely different host uterus (rejection issues aside for the moment) or even be implanted, theoretically, in an entirely artificial womb where it would continue its development as an entirely separate human being.

So, just to be nigglingly correct, because in this debate definitions must be used with great precision because of how often they are deliberately MISused by one or the other side of the argument, the point is that the zygote/fetus is not part of the mother's body over which she may have plenary control, it is a separate living organism that happens to be hosted inside of her body.

[mistermack]

Make it clear in law that abortion is done to separate the mother from the child.
No attempt should be made to kill the fetus.
If it appears viable, they should be obliged to save it. That's a decision for the doctor.
So nobody is setting out to destroy the fetus. But if it's not viable, it dies.
That might soothe the bleeding hearts.

Problem solved.
People die on the operating table all the time. It's not murder. It's bad luck.
Separate conjoined twins. If one dies, it's bad luck. Same principle.

If a doctor judges that assistance is futile, then the fetus just expires.

Say a prayer. That should make everything ok.

So no, a woman isn't given the right to kill a "human being", but she does have the right to be separated from it. It's up to god if it survives or not. That's "god's will". Let him choose.

[JimC]

Sophistry!

(and quite a good vintage... )

[Seth]

Make it clear in law that abortion is done to separate the mother from the child.
No attempt should be made to kill the fetus.
If it appears viable, they should be obliged to save it. That's a decision for the doctor.
So nobody is setting out to destroy the fetus. But if it's not viable, it dies.
That might soothe the bleeding hearts.

There's a certain degree of rationality to this suggestion. I've maintained before that with advances in medical science the ability to preserve the life of premature babies continues to advance. In theory, as the ability to preserve the life of the fetus improves the time before which any interference will kill the child continues to move to earlier stages of development. Thus, in a perfect world, the state would provide artificial uteri and would be responsible for supporting the fetus even if it's removed and implanted in the artificial device at the zygote stage, if indeed the state chooses to intervene in the pregnancy decision making process. This seems to me to have aspects of rational compromise that serve all the affected interests.

Of course, until the fetus would be viable given the then-present medical technology available to the physician at the time, the other side of the argument is that the woman could be compelled to gestate the fetus until it can be safely removed and brought to term artificially, at state expense, thus freeing the mother from any and all financial liability for the child in the future.

Problem solved.
People die on the operating table all the time. It's not murder. It's bad luck.
Separate conjoined twins. If one dies, it's bad luck. Same principle.

If a doctor judges that assistance is futile, then the fetus just expires.

Say a prayer. That should make everything ok.

So no, a woman isn't given the right to kill a "human being", but she does have the right to be separated from it. It's up to god if it survives or not. That's "god's will". Let him choose.

Well, I get what you're trying to say, but the fact is that so long as the fetus is undeveloped enough that it cannot be safely removed and kept alive through full maturation with some degree of medical certainty, then it becomes obvious that your suggesting is, as has been stated, just sophistry and another desperate attempt to justify the killing of living human beings in utero sans consequences.

[mistermack]

No more sophistry than pretending that a single cell is a human being, in the widely accepted understanding of the word.
As against reality, when it's only a human being, by some peoples' own personal stretched definitions.

Anyway, compelling a mother to continue hosting another "human being" against her will is just as immoral as performing an operation that will kill the fetus.

If someone attached themselves to your organs, and started feeding off you through a tube, you'd soon want it removed.

But of course, if god wants the fetus to survive, then it will. God's brilliant that way. You should see what he can do with a pot of water.

[Seth]

No more sophistry than pretending that a single cell is a human being, in the widely accepted understanding of the word.

Er, the "widely accepted understanding" of any word is found in the dictionary, which accurately reflects such things, and I have previously cited the references which prove you wrong, and I'll do so again:

human being
noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

in·di·vid·u·al
ˌindəˈvij(o͞o)əl/
adjective
adjective: individual

1. single; separate.
noun
noun: individual; plural noun: individuals
1. a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family. (emphasis added)

A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"), is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual (emphasis added) Source.

The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome (2n4C) is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus. Source (emphasis added)

As against reality, when it's only a human being, by some peoples' own personal stretched definitions.

Darn all them pesky biologists and scientists who actually understand what happens when the zygote is formed. So very frustrating for you to be utterly and completely refuted by science, isn't it?

Anyway, compelling a mother to continue hosting another "human being" against her will is just as immoral as performing an operation that will kill the fetus.

Not if she voluntarily engaged in behavior resulting in the formation of the zygote. In doing so she imposes a burden on herself for the protection and gestation of the child which is subservient to the other interests in the child's survival that arise as a result of her voluntary actions.

If someone attached themselves to your organs, and started feeding off you through a tube, you'd soon want it removed.

Not if I consented to such an arrangement. Furthermore, if I did consent to such an arrangement I can be compelled to uphold my end of the bargain.

But of course, if god wants the fetus to survive, then it will. God's brilliant that way. You should see what he can do with a pot of water.

He can also persuade human beings to make it illegal to kill the fetus, can he not?