160 replies to this topic

[Egann]

The only way one could possibly support abortion would be if that person agreed with the sentiment, "The ends justify the means." Abortion is at best morally and medically arbitrary, and at worst set into dead contradiction against anything we have learned from these fields.

Central to the position of abortion is the concept that the fetus/embryo is not it's own person, but rather is an extension of the mother. It's a nice sentiment, but biologically it's untenable. Is a Crocodile embryo in an egg it's own creature or not? Is a newly born marsupial developmentally the equivalent of a single trimester in human terms not it's own creature?

Clearly, both of these examples demonstrate that an embryo is not an extension of the mother, and any such sentiment has no foundation in the fields of biology. The only valid interpretation is that the the embryo or fetus is it's own creature, but is wholly dependent on the mother.

I have already voiced my sentiments on morals to the effect that if there is any doubt about the presence of human life, one should give the benefit of the doubt. I have yet to hear someone come up with a countering position which is so guaranteed to result in morally upright responses which can support abortion.

In fact, the only thing that abortion has going for it is that it has the convenient end of a mother being able to put a final veto on pregnancy. Like I said, the ends must justify the means.

You can call it whatever you want, but ultimately, the abortion cause is a case of convenience taking precedence over even an attempt at moral uprightness. This becomes even more apparent when you consider that there is such a thing as an "emergency contraceptives." (Reflectionist, if you're so into compromise, I'm pretty sure I could sell morning-after pills and cases of absolute medical necessity to most of my camp.)

Edited by Egann, 02 February 2009 - 10:54 PM.

[Reflectionist]

The only way one could possibly support abortion would be if that person agreed with the sentiment, "The ends justify the means." Abortion is at best morally and medically arbitrary, and at worst set into dead contradiction against anything we have learned from these fields.

Central to the position of abortion is the concept that the fetus/embryo is not it's own person, but rather is an extension of the mother. It's a nice sentiment, but biologically it's untenable. Is a Crocodile embryo in an egg it's own creature or not? Is a newly born marsupial developmentally the equivalent of a single trimester in human terms not it's own creature?

Clearly, both of these examples demonstrate that an embryo is not an extension of the mother, and any such sentiment has no foundation in the fields of biology. The only valid interpretation is that the the embryo or fetus is it's own creature, but is wholly dependent on the mother.

I have already voiced my sentiments on morals to the effect that if there is any doubt about the presence of human life, one should give the benefit of the doubt. I have yet to hear someone come up with a countering position which is so guaranteed to result in morally upright responses which can support abortion.

In fact, the only thing that abortion has going for it is that it has the convenient end of a mother being able to put a final veto on pregnancy. Like I said, the ends must justify the means.

You can call it whatever you want, but ultimately, the abortion cause is a case of convenience taking precedence over even an attempt at moral uprightness. This becomes even more apparent when you consider that there is such a thing as an "emergency contraceptives." (Reflectionist, if you're so into compromise, I'm pretty sure I could sell morning-after pills and cases of absolute medical necessity to most of my camp.)

Morning after pills are good - if one knew of the extenuating circumstances I was speaking about with family disownment and financial burdens before they had sex. A morning after pill is not a two-months-pregnant-and-i'm-living-on-the-street pill. But you know, that's an extreme scenario. Morning after pills are generally a good idea, sure.

Edited by Reflectionist, 03 February 2009 - 08:59 AM.

[NM87]

I don't see how anyone disproved the notion of potential, rather it was said that "hurr we could never know", which was not the point. Also, I don't care what kind of example I had used, that is irrelevant.

[Reflectionist]

^ If you really believed it was irrelevant, you wouldn't have brought it up again.

[NM87]

Only if I was "bringing it up again", which I am not, I am responding to posts directed toward me.

[Green Goblin]

one day after the fact, while the rest of us have moved on.

[NM87]

Yes, because of my inability to check the site every day?

...and the maturity level of Green Goblin and Reflectionist is revealed.

[Fizzbit]

...and the maturity level of Green Goblin and Reflectionist is revealed.

As if you were ever able to conceal yours?

[Oberon Storm]

The fetus is not a parasite. You do not defaecate fetus eggs and they do not infect other people. The fetus behaves like a bloody fetus. They are entirely different things. Please stop dramatizing for effect. Also, stop saying that is less than human just because it happens to be a fetus. Yes, it's similar to any other fetus, but that's because its a vertebrate in development. But it won't magically turn into any other creature while in the womb. It is a human in the earliest stage of existence. Its genetic structure is no different from yours. Don't dismiss it as anything less than human just because its in a very early stage of development. It is not a 'thing.' That's an incredibly cold and disconnected thing to say. If you don't abort it, it will grown into an individual and live life as any other human would (defects or not).

The only thing that really makes abortion halfway acceptable is not the fact that the fetus is a "parasite" (not true) or less than human (also not true). It's the fact that an embryo or fetus can't feel, think or reason in its earliest stages. Which is why I'm against late term abortions - only first term. If you're going to have one, man up and have it early. By the time you're into the third term, the kid is pretty much alive. It's just stuck in a womb.

Cold and disconnected it may be, but that doesn't change it. I use the term for the very reason it is cold and disconnected. How am I not supposed to detach myself when those that are pro-life want to try and hammer into me that it is a human separate from it's mother?

Assume that abortion is morally wrong, but we allow it as otherwise abortions would still occur but in a more dangerous way.
Then, why not legalise, for example, theft? If people calmly handed their money over to licenced thieves, say once a year or whatever, there would be no danger of people being killed in armed robberies and so on, or murdered for their belongings.
You claim that doesn't logically follow? With the assumption that abortions and theft are both wrong, and the facts that legalised versions of both would be safer for all involved, it seems to follow quite naturally to me.
Now, legalising theft is clearly absurd; thus we have a reductio ad absurdum, and the argument for legalising abortions solely for safety reasons falls apart.

This doesn't work for me because I see abortion and theft as apples and oranges.

Central to the position of abortion is the concept that the fetus/embryo is not it's own person, but rather is an extension of the mother. It's a nice sentiment, but biologically it's untenable. Is a Crocodile embryo in an egg it's own creature or not? Is a newly born marsupial developmentally the equivalent of a single trimester in human terms not it's own creature?

Clearly, both of these examples demonstrate that an embryo is not an extension of the mother, and any such sentiment has no foundation in the fields of biology. The only valid interpretation is that the the embryo or fetus is it's own creature, but is wholly dependent on the mother.

Seeing as how crocodiles are biologically not mammals and marsupial is itself a separate classification from mammals this is just more apples and oranges.

[Toan]

No - we're not going back to this crap.

There's a topic in this thread. Let's stay on it.

EDIT: Thanks CFS.

[Green Goblin]

Figure I'll take a swing at those guys too, Chief

The fetus is not a parasite. You do not defaecate fetus eggs and they do not infect other people. The fetus behaves like a bloody fetus. They are entirely different things. Please stop dramatizing for effect. Also, stop saying that is less than human just because it happens to be a fetus. Yes, it's similar to any other fetus, but that's because its a vertebrate in development. But it won't magically turn into any other creature while in the womb. It is a human in the earliest stage of existence. Its genetic structure is no different from yours. Don't dismiss it as anything less than human just because its in a very early stage of development. It is not a 'thing.' That's an incredibly cold and disconnected thing to say. If you don't abort it, it will grown into an individual and live life as any other human would (defects or not).

The only thing that really makes abortion halfway acceptable is not the fact that the fetus is a "parasite" (not true) or less than human (also not true). It's the fact that an embryo or fetus can't feel, think or reason in its earliest stages. Which is why I'm against late term abortions - only first term. If you're going to have one, man up and have it early. By the time you're into the third term, the kid is pretty much alive. It's just stuck in a womb.

Just for you, Lena

parasite |ˈparəˌsīt|
noun
an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

a fetus lives inside a woman and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. A fetus IS a parasite, by definition. "Parasite" is NOT divided via taxonomy. It's like carnivorous/herbivorous/omnivorous.

Assume that abortion is morally wrong, but we allow it as otherwise abortions would still occur but in a more dangerous way.
Then, why not legalise, for example, theft? If people calmly handed their money over to licenced thieves, say once a year or whatever, there would be no danger of people being killed in armed robberies and so on, or murdered for their belongings.
You claim that doesn't logically follow? With the assumption that abortions and theft are both wrong, and the facts that legalised versions of both would be safer for all involved, it seems to follow quite naturally to me.
Now, legalising theft is clearly absurd; thus we have a reductio ad absurdum, and the argument for legalising abortions solely for safety reasons falls apart.

The problem is that abortion is not morally right OR wrong. It's morality differs in a case by case basis as well as by someone's perspective.
With theft, a person is being made a victim by loss of property. With abortion, the embryo is not a person and as such, has not been afforded rights. Meanwhile the mother exercises her right to not be an incubator for nine months.

Central to the position of abortion is the concept that the fetus/embryo is not it's own person, but rather is an extension of the mother. It's a nice sentiment, but biologically it's untenable. Is a Crocodile embryo in an egg it's own creature or not? Is a newly born marsupial developmentally the equivalent of a single trimester in human terms not it's own creature?

Clearly, both of these examples demonstrate that an embryo is not an extension of the mother, and any such sentiment has no foundation in the fields of biology. The only valid interpretation is that the the embryo or fetus is it's own creature, but is wholly dependent on the mother.

Somehow I feel this entire debate would be put to rest if humans laid eggs
The difference between a reptile, a marsupial and a gestational mammal make your analogy fall apart.

Edited by Green Goblin, 03 February 2009 - 04:41 PM.

[Showsni]

The problem is that abortion is not morally right OR wrong. It's morality differs in a case by case basis as well as by someone's perspective.
With theft, a person is being made a victim by loss of property. With abortion, the embryo is not a person and as such, has not been afforded rights. Meanwhile the mother exercises her right to not be an incubator for nine months.

Whether the assumption is true or not is an entirely different argument; this one is just against the people saying "we know it's wrong, but it's better to be legal and thus safe anyway."

[Selena]

No, a fetus is still a fetus. A vague laymen's sentence does not get into the full biological sense of the term. In fact, the whole argument pretty much gives the middle finger to science. A parasite and a fetus are two distinct forms of life. A fetus does not follow a parasitic life cycle at all. 99.9%* of all genuine parasites are species that invade a different species for varying amounts of time. Biologically, the host species is not equipped to handle their presence or encourage their growth.

In the case of a fetus, it is genetically human from the very start, containing genetic information from both mother and father. It is not an invasive species. It is the end result of reproduction. While it does consume nutrients from the mother, a female human is biologically engineered to carry said fetus and encourage its growth. Health issues may arise, but for entirely different reasons than the ones presented by parasitic entities. A fetus does not reproduce in the traditional ways a genuine parasite does. If not aborted (and barring medical issues), it will become fully independent and live just like everyone else.

Again, I am pro-choice and I fully endorse a woman's right to choose. However, it would be nice if people were honest about things. It is not a parasite and it is not less than human. It is aborting a human in development and terminating its life. That doesn't mean you have to be emotionally attached or sentimental about the process, but pretending it's something else is basically a lie. And perhaps a coping mechanism.




* The 00.1% left over is the weird term used when describing a twin that fails to separate from its dominant sibling, but that parasitic twin is dead and will never become independent or continue to grow. Unlike a fetus. So it's mostly just a growth by the time it'd be taken out of its host-sibling-thing. And 'parasitic' in that case is used very loosely.

[Green Goblin]

Can you at least admit that it's behavior while in the womb is parasitic? It's not a coping mechanism, btw. It's a way of describing it's behavior. Is it not EXACTLY like webster's definition? It's the entire REASON behind wanting an abortion. THAT THE WOMAN DOESN'T WANT IT IN HER BODY TAKING UP SPACE. If there were a way to take the embryo out and cost-effectively raise it up until it's ready to sustain on it's own, then there wouldn't even be an ISSUE. Not wanting the child itself is an easier fix. Adoption.

[Arturo]

The way it works is certainly reminiscent of parasitism, and saying it is is certainly much more accurate than the common argument of "it's a part of the body of the mother", which clearly isn't. It would be the perfect parasite if the woman didn't have a whole system of organs dedicated to creating and maintaining embryos until they reach full development. Or if our objective as species wasn't to have as many of those parasites as possible.

Classifying an embryo as its mother's parasite makes as much sense as saying it about an unweaned baby. Because both fulfill the definition perfectly.

Edited by Arturo, 03 February 2009 - 06:31 PM.

[Egann]

@ Selena and G.G: Yes, parasite is technically the right word to describe a fetus. (GG has that right) The problem is that the word "parasite" has a thousand connotations which don't match-up with the fetus. (Selena has that right.)

The real problem is that English (despite having a vocabulary several times that of most other language) does not have a word which can appropriately describe the situation with both correct denotations and connotations.

Is a Crocodile embryo in an egg it's own creature or not? Is a newly born marsupial developmentally the equivalent of a single trimester in human terms not it's own creature?

Clearly, both of these examples demonstrate that an embryo is not an extension of the mother, and any such sentiment has no foundation in the fields of biology. The only valid interpretation is that the the embryo or fetus is it's own creature, but is wholly dependent on the mother.

Seeing as how crocodiles are biologically not mammals and marsupial is itself a separate classification from mammals this is just more apples and oranges.

Somehow I feel this entire debate would be put to rest if humans laid eggs
The difference between a reptile, a marsupial and a gestational mammal make your analogy fall apart.

I doubt the two of you really appreciate how blurred the lines here really are. Just after abortion was legalized there was a great deal of controversy over "test tube babies" which were fertilized outside of the womb. The real controversy wasn't over the newness of the ability to artificially inseminate (that's become commonplace) but rather the use of human zygotes in destructive scientific tests. Should an embryo fertilized outside of a woman's womb be considered it's own creature?

Another complication is artificial uterus. I'm not sure where the progress stands, but last I heard (back in 2005, it's almost certainly old by now) they had partially completed an artificial womb for lab rats. If a human embryo was developed to the equivalent of birth in an artificial uterus and was then separated from the artificial uterus, at what point does it become it's own creature?

In such instances where the mother is simplified out of the situation, it is clear what the case is. The problem is that the most common ideas on this thread all say that when the mother is re-introduced into the situation, the nature of the case is fundamentally altered. A good argument for why this change occurs I have yet to hear. In fact, the fact that the mother can be simplified out of the situation -even if it is presently only hypothetical- is a powerful argument in my favor.

[Oberon Storm]

In such instances where the mother is simplified out of the situation, it is clear what the case is. The problem is that the most common ideas on this thread all say that when the mother is re-introduced into the situation, the nature of the case is fundamentally altered. A good argument for why this change occurs I have yet to hear. In fact, the fact that the mother can be simplified out of the situation -even if it is presently only hypothetical- is a powerful argument in my favor.

The effects on the mother's body maybe?

[Reflectionist]

In such instances where the mother is simplified out of the situation, it is clear what the case is. The problem is that the most common ideas on this thread all say that when the mother is re-introduced into the situation, the nature of the case is fundamentally altered. A good argument for why this change occurs I have yet to hear. In fact, the fact that the mother can be simplified out of the situation -even if it is presently only hypothetical- is a powerful argument in my favor.

Because, you know... a "pregnancy" is really just a fetus of infinite importance floating around in a useless shell that once had the rights of a human being and knows what those rights are... no... you're right, Egann. The only participator in a pregnancy is clearly the fetus. What were we all thinking? The "mother" just doesn't factor into the fetus' life, and thus, we can just simplify her out of the equation entirely! What is human and has human rights already ceases to be human in favor of a parasite that doesn't know anything about 'rights' and probably won't care for another 16 years.

Let's just simplify the mother out of the situation.

After all, Egann on the Legends Alliance Forums in the middle of the internet has yet to hear a "good argument" on why the existence of the mother alters the situation of the fetus...

[Egann]

In such instances where the mother is simplified out of the situation, it is clear what the case is. The problem is that the most common ideas on this thread all say that when the mother is re-introduced into the situation, the nature of the case is fundamentally altered. A good argument for why this change occurs I have yet to hear. In fact, the fact that the mother can be simplified out of the situation -even if it is presently only hypothetical- is a powerful argument in my favor.

The effects on the mother's body maybe?

? I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. Do the medical effects on the mother warrent a fundamentally different understanding of the situation? No, it is an added variable, not a required variable, and it should be treated as such.

Because, you know... a "pregnancy" is really just a fetus of infinite importance floating around in a useless shell that once had the rights of a human being and knows what those rights are... no... you're right, Egann. The only participator in a pregnancy is clearly the fetus. What were we all thinking? The "mother" just doesn't factor into the fetus' life, and thus, we can just simplify her out of the equation entirely! What is human and has human rights already ceases to be human in favor of a parasite that doesn't know anything about 'rights' and probably won't care for another 16 years.

Let's just simplify the mother out of the situation.

After all, Egann on the Legends Alliance Forums in the middle of the internet has yet to hear a "good argument" on why the existence of the mother alters the situation of the fetus...

Oh, that's just rich. Not only is the first paragraph a straw man (see my reply to Chief Fire Storm), but the last paragraph is absolutely wonderful.

Let me get this straight, you're saying that just because an argument isn't posted here doesn't mean that there isn't one. That's true, but if a person doesn't know that argument off the top of their head, then it can't really be said that that person knows what he or she believes and why, now can it?

Effectively, you've turned the "you can't prove a universal negative" observation into a "there must be some reason why I'm right." Where I'm from that's called rationalizing.

Edited by Egann, 03 February 2009 - 09:13 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Because, you know... a "pregnancy" is really just a fetus of infinite importance floating around in a useless shell that once had the rights of a human being and knows what those rights are... no... you're right, Egann. The only participator in a pregnancy is clearly the fetus. What were we all thinking? The "mother" just doesn't factor into the fetus' life, and thus, we can just simplify her out of the equation entirely! What is human and has human rights already ceases to be human in favor of a parasite that doesn't know anything about 'rights' and probably won't care for another 16 years.

Let's just simplify the mother out of the situation.

After all, Egann on the Legends Alliance Forums in the middle of the internet has yet to hear a "good argument" on why the existence of the mother alters the situation of the fetus...

Oh, that's just rich. Not only is the first paragraph a straw man (see my reply to Chief Fire Storm), but the last paragraph is absolutely wonderful.

Let me get this straight, you're saying that just because an argument isn't posted here doesn't mean that there isn't one. That's true, but if a person doesn't know that argument off the top of their head, then it can't really be said that that person knows what he or she believes and why, now can it?

Effectively, you've turned the "you can't prove a universal negative" observation into a "there must be some reason why I'm right." Where I'm from that's called rationalizing.

Humor.

Not one of your strong points.

[Selena]

Everybody focus on the debate points and stop with the more personal nonsense, please.

[Toan]

? I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. Do the medical effects on the mother warrent a fundamentally different understanding of the situation? No, it is an added variable, not a required variable, and it should be treated as such.

Unfortunately, you're oh-so-very wrong here.

Yes, the medical effects on the mother DO warrant an entirely different understanding of the situation. Period.

If a woman has consensual sex, the couple uses protection, and still gets pregnant, well, that's a shame. What if she doesn't want it? That's where the argument comes in.

If the same woman gets an ectopic pregnancy, she MUST abort, because regardless of whether or not the abortion happens, the fetus WILL DIE. It cannot live there, and if it attempts to, it will take the mother with it into death.

So essentially if you still stand by your argument of "added variable", "remove concern for the woman who is another human being" argument, you're advocating "saving" the morality of abortion in exchange for not one dead fetus, but a dead mother as well.

I'll repeat myself again. Yes, the medical effects on the mother DO warrant an entirely different understanding of the situation. Period.

[Egann]

? I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. Do the medical effects on the mother warrent a fundamentally different understanding of the situation? No, it is an added variable, not a required variable, and it should be treated as such.

Unfortunately, you're oh-so-very wrong here.

Yes, the medical effects on the mother DO warrant an entirely different understanding of the situation. Period.

If a woman has consensual sex, the couple uses protection, and still gets pregnant, well, that's a shame. What if she doesn't want it? That's where the argument comes in.

If the same woman gets an ectopic pregnancy, she MUST abort, because regardless of whether or not the abortion happens, the fetus WILL DIE. It cannot live there, and if it attempts to, it will take the mother with it into death.

So essentially if you still stand by your argument of "added variable", "remove concern for the woman who is another human being" argument, well, congrats. You're one model Christian.

Uh, no. You miss a distinction vital to understanding the position properly, but actually catching it may feel like hair-splitting unless you're used to positions which are very meticulous with their details.

Vital variables are variables which are intrinsically required by a system.

Influential variables are variables which can influence a system

There is a distinction between vital and non-vital variables and influential and non-influential variables. While a vital variable is, by definition, an influential one, not all influential variables are vital. What I said was not that the mother was not a non-influential variable, but rather it is a non-vital variable. There is a distinction.

In other words, a mother's womb is not an intrinsic requirement of human reproduction. Only "a womb" is. The condition of that womb is definitely an influential variable, but needing the womb to be of a specific type is not a vital variable.

Edited by Egann, 03 February 2009 - 10:05 PM.

[Toan]

Let's try this again, without your fancy variable mumbo-jumbo.

The question you posed was "Do the medical effects on the mother warrent a fundamentally different understanding of the situation?"

The answer I posed, and still stand by, is yes. Regardless of where the fetus is located, abortion must be legalized in some fashion for her to safely abort in the situation I posed above. If abortion is not legalized, they will both die.

So again, I will argue that the medical effects on the mother do warrant a fundamentally different understanding of the situation, where it is indeed moral to abort a fetus.

[Poore]

If a woman has consensual sex, the couple uses protection, and still gets pregnant, well, that's a shame. What if she doesn't want it? That's where the argument comes in.

Well...that's kind of what sex is, you know, designed to do. Even if you use protection, the main purpose of sex, regardless of the pleasure you derive from it, is reproduction. If you engage in sexual activity and still get pregnant, that's part of the deal. The only way to definitely not get pregnant is to definitely not have sex. Saying "Oh, I tried my best but I still goofed up and got preggers - off to the clinic!" is like failing a test that you studied really hard for, then paying the professor to chuck it in the garbage and ignore it.

That's the mindset I was talking about earlier that I disagreed with. There are times when an abortion is either medically or emotionally (i.e. rape) necessary, but if you have consensual sex, regardless of the measures you take to prevent it, there is always a chance you will get pregnant. You are making the decision freely, of your own will, and you should be aware that there might be consequences.

[Arturo]

If a woman has consensual sex, the couple uses protection, and still gets pregnant, well, that's a shame. What if she doesn't want it? That's where the argument comes in.

Well...that's kind of what sex is, you know, designed to do. Even if you use protection, the main purpose of sex, regardless of the pleasure you derive from it, is reproduction. If you engage in sexual activity and still get pregnant, that's part of the deal. The only way to definitely not get pregnant is to definitely not have sex. Saying "Oh, I tried my best but I still goofed up and got preggers - off to the clinic!" is like failing a test that you studied really hard for, then paying the professor to chuck it in the garbage and ignore it.

That's the mindset I was talking about earlier that I disagreed with. There are times when an abortion is either medically or emotionally (i.e. rape) necessary, but if you have consensual sex, regardless of the measures you take to prevent it, there is always a chance you will get pregnant. You are making the decision freely, of your own will, and you should be aware that there might be consequences.

You could use the very same argument for not taking medicaments for AIDS just because you knew there was a risk of infection, and you had sexual relationships neverthless.

[Fizzbit]

If a woman has consensual sex, the couple uses protection, and still gets pregnant, well, that's a shame. What if she doesn't want it? That's where the argument comes in.

Well...that's kind of what sex is, you know, designed to do. Even if you use protection, the main purpose of sex, regardless of the pleasure you derive from it, is reproduction. If you engage in sexual activity and still get pregnant, that's part of the deal. The only way to definitely not get pregnant is to definitely not have sex. Saying "Oh, I tried my best but I still goofed up and got preggers - off to the clinic!" is like failing a test that you studied really hard for, then paying the professor to chuck it in the garbage and ignore it.

That's the mindset I was talking about earlier that I disagreed with. There are times when an abortion is either medically or emotionally (i.e. rape) necessary, but if you have consensual sex, regardless of the measures you take to prevent it, there is always a chance you will get pregnant. You are making the decision freely, of your own will, and you should be aware that there might be consequences.

You could use the very same argument for not taking medicaments for AIDS just because you knew there was a risk of infection, and you had sexual relationships neverthless.

Well yeah but you can't abort the AIDS virus :\

[Fin]

But an injection of enough money directly into the bloodstream will cure it.

[Egann]

Let's try this again, without your fancy variable mumbo-jumbo.

The question you posed was "Do the medical effects on the mother warrent a fundamentally different understanding of the situation?"

The answer I posed, and still stand by, is yes. Regardless of where the fetus is located, abortion must be legalized in some fashion for her to safely abort in the situation I posed above. If abortion is not legalized, they will both die.

So again, I will argue that the medical effects on the mother do warrant a fundamentally different understanding of the situation, where it is indeed moral to abort a fetus.

That's a good example of the Package Deal fallacy. Just because I said that the generic position of legalized abortion (which is "it's always the woman's choice") requires something does not mean that that is required to be true of all abortions, even though typically the two are lumped and mixed together until no one can distinguish them. I am arguing specifically against the "woman's right to choose" model and not against abortion in general. Back on page one I said:

I don't mind doctors making tough choices to save a patient's life, but in practice it is [a] statistically nonexistent situation. In practice it [abortion] is used as an excuse for irresponsibility.

[Oberon Storm]

? I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. Do the medical effects on the mother warrent a fundamentally different understanding of the situation? No, it is an added variable, not a required variable, and it should be treated as such.

You asked for an argument why the situation changes when a mother is involved. I gave you the effects on the mother's body. Call it an "added variable" all you like. Make all the fancy distictions you like. It's all bullshit because "added variable" or not to disregard the mother's health and condition just because she isn't technically required is ignoring reality for the sake of a lump cells in a test tube.

Just like a fetus I wouldn't consider a test tube fetus it's own creature or human until it has a heartbeat and can breath on its own. And that goes for any kind of artificial womb you can come up with. I don't see how it matters anyway when the use of an artificial womb would, I imagine, for the specific purpose of bringing a living and breathing human child to term. The only reason I can think of that these would be aborted is because they were not going to survive. I thin you're needlessly overcomplicated things.