Okay. I understand your analogy about cuts and the cumulative effect, but explain how having a new organ is an injury.
Anything that imposes upon a body physically can be an injury, from the splinter in your finger to a placenta growing inside your body. If you woke up tomorrow and found you had another eye growing in your forehead would you consider it an injury or not?
But obviously having your appendix removed is murder. Your appendix is human, so what else COULD it be?
If you woke up tomorrow and found you had another eye growing in your forehead would you consider it an injury or not?
Yes. But having a new eye would make me look like a mutant. Does having a placenta make a woman look like a mutant?
Whether or not a fetus, embryo, or zygote is a person/living human "is" the discussion ! Starting at the beginning: zygote - the single cell at conception If you think the zygote is a living human then explain why you think so.
Actually, most cells in our body are not human. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-humans-carry-more-bacterial-cells-than-human-ones/ We could, for example, define someone's humanity as the ratio of human to non-human cells in the body. Using that scale, we're most human before we're born. Such a ratio is objective, but rather ridiculous since it has nothing to do with traits we usually consider human. In my humble opinion, it's worthwhile to spend a few moments of introspection to figure out what you personally believe is the essence of being human. What distinguishes us from other animals? Despite my background in the natural sciences, my personal answer to such a question shows a distinct lack of measurable quantities. I don't try to define humanity in a scientific manner. That appears inadequate to me. I rely on empathy instead. I pondered about my hopes and dreams, fears and concerns instead, convinced that other humans have their own. Their life experiences shaped their personalities, similar and yet different to my own. In my humble opinion, the traits farthest away from the basic physics that make our bodies work, make us human. From that point of view, it should be unsurprising that I value the interests of the woman higher than those of a zygote or embryo. In fact, a zygote or embryo lacks the capability to even have any interests. Matters get more complicated in later developmental stages, but that's a problem that can be tackled with reasonable compromise and trust in medical experts and patients.
So you would base it on cosmetic reasoning ie being an inconvenience to you .. funny that you state that "inconvenience" is the main reason for abortion and look down on people due to that impression, yet you are more than happy to allow it for yourself. - - - Updated - - - So does every cell in my body, and yours as well. Could you please pin point the moment of conception, when does it happen exactly.
Irrelevant crap. You can't compare the life of an innocent child, to painting a car. Different standards of morality apply.
Quoting another user who has made a claim with no support for that claim does not prove anything. All you're doing is making another unsupported claim.
That is not proof, that is a correct statement that says the more times a woman has sex the greater the risk of pregnancy, just as it is that the more times you get into a car the greater the risk of an accident causing injury to you, and regardless of the number of times she has sex it still only equates to a risk of pregnancy. Do you even understand what consent is? Consent - noun - permission for something to happen or agreement to do something verb - give permission for something to happen Legal definition of consent - a voluntary agreement to another's proposition. 2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations. now please do explain how the consent to sex can in anyway, shape or form mean consent to pregnancy?
I compare it to your claim that if a person has sex, it means they HAVE to risk becoming pregnant....which is just as silly. BTW, you do know there are consensual sex acts....that have ZERO risk of pregnancy, and thus your idea is not generallly true....right?
Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, in the same way that consent to using a credit card is consent to credit card payments. By using your logic, nobody should be obligated to pay credit card bills without consent (based on arbitrary feelings of, "i don't feel like paying my bills), even though by using a credit card, they consent to an obligation to another person.
I'm trying to understand your analogy. How is "consenting to sex" like "consenting to use a credit card"? By consenting to use a credit card, you are paying for something.
What an inane comparison considering that prior to being given a credit card you sign a contract that lays out the requirements of being given the credit card, part of that is the requirement to pay all or a percentage of the outstanding balance each month .. now that is consent, actually it is contractual consent. You try to get a credit card based on just your word that you will make the repayments, you would be laughed out of the bank. Please show me where the contract is for a woman having sex that states she will accept the consequences should it result in a pregnancy?
If a woman has unprotected sex for a lifetime/years, then the chance of becoming pregnant is almost 100%. Just go back and reread fifth of november's posts about that.
Not to mention you have actually signed paperwork and contracts beforehand that explicitly states you will be obligated to pay them back or suffer marks against your credit rating if you don't. If you don't sign the paperwork you are not issued a credit card. When you have sex you are definitely not signing any paperwork beforehand, hell you and your sex partner might even agree beforehand that if a pregnancy does occur you will choose to abort, but that's just a verbal contract and is in no way binding. It would only become a case of he said she said in court.