I am a staunch opponent of abortion, it being the murder of an unborn baby; so I challenge whoever supports it, to debate with me how it can possibly be right.
-A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body, even when in her mother's womb.
-Abortion is discrimation in the worst form, because it murders a child who came "at an inconvenient time."
Exactly: was. Not is. Therefore irrelevant in the context you used it. Again, please use the terminology correctly.
Yes, the decision has to be made by someone else, but the question remains: is it morally permissible to have an abortion?
Indeed, that's the question. You know my position on the issue, as I do yours.
Somewhat related question: Am I correct in the assumption that when pro-lifers speak of "life", they/you mean human life, specifically? Not life in general, including other animals, plants, fungi, microbes, etc.?
A fetus constitutes a part of a person,
When you say "a part of", do you mean it as "a piece of" something bigger? Or do you mean something else?
Ntech:
A fetus has its own unique DNA, something unique to a separate life-form. If it were a part of its mother, its DNA would be hers.
FishPreferred:
So? A tumor has its own unique DNA, something unique to a dysfunctional cellular reproductive mechanism. If it were a part of its host, its DNA would be his/hers.
Ntech:
Yet it doesn't constitute, in whole or in part, a person.
(Emphasis added by me)
I could read it this way: You say that a unique genetic identity is a characteristic of a separate individuum/life-form. But you don't consider it, not even in part ("doesn't constitute, in whole or in part" ), a characteristic of being a person. How close is my interpretation to your position?
