A better question is why should she be forced to sustain that life with her organs and her life. Would you say that the egg that was fertilized is her egg? How does anything that becomes of that with her resources become hot her property?
A tapeworm is not equal to a human. A tapeworm is a parasite, a fetus is the product of natural biological reproduction.
Why does she have the right to kill what is in her body? The tapeworm is not her body and it is not her property nor her life.
But why?
So does a fetus.
Indeed! :mrgreen:
No, the woman does not "willfully" donate her bodily resources to the fetus. The fetus aggressively consumes them despite what the woman may or may not want. Unless, of course, she removes it from her body. The only time she WILLFULLY donates her bodily resources to the fetus is if she willingly chooses to allow it to remain in her body.
Got me, I believe so because of religious reasons. God said man was to inhabit the earth and has the right to kill and eat animals. On a secular natural order of things, humans are omnivores, our digestive system was designed to eat meat. Things in the natural exist to prolong their species. All other species outside humanity are inferior to us and in the game of "survival of the fittest" we have the right to kill and eat them. Human life > animal life.
Wrong, the fetus steals nothing. The mother's body willfully donates nutrients to the fetus.
Which is why abortion is only justified in cases of self defense when the mother's life is proven to be in danger.
Yes she does. Her body willfully donates her bodily resources to the fetus. Her hormone levels change to suit the new life inside of her. Her body does not reject the fetus and nurtures it. She biologically willfully donates her bodily resources, she may not psychologically donate her biological resources. However, it is all intended to be over with in less than a year, and her comforts do not merit murdering her child that her body has accepted and willfully gives nutrients too.
Well lord knows I can't argue with 'god'.
No, the fetus steals them. There is nothing the mother does that could even remotely be considered "willful" in giving up her bodily resources to a fetus. Aside from willfully choosing to allow it to remain in her body.
So my life needs to be in danger before I can remove a tapeworm? Because chances are, it's not going to endanger my life.
One's body does not "willfully" do jack ****. "Willful" is implicitly an action of the mind. My body doesn't "willfully" grow toenails. It just grows toenails. There's nothing "willful" about it.
Does the fetus have any kind of offensive capabilities where it burrows into her blood stream and leeches off the mothers nutrients? No. The baby has the placenta which the woman accepts, and the woman's body freely gives nutrients to the fetus. Biologically, there is "willful" donation of bodily recourses to the fetus. The woman's immune system does not attack her child, and her body expels it when it is time for it to continue developing outside.
Nope, however your life has to be in danger in order to kill a human fetus.
You are confusing the psychological with the biological. Your body has a biological will that is driven by DNA. Your mind has a mental will that is driven by your brain/soul. When a woman gets pregnant, her biological will is to accept the fetus and nurture it, and then further nurture it with breast milk after it is born. Regardless, why does the woman's psychological will have the right to kill a temporarily residing human life that is perfectly biologically natural? She doesn't.
Sorry to butt in, but this is a 14-year-old line of reasoning; it's the same as when I teach a class that gravity happens because the rock 'wants' to fall to earth, or that intramolecular bonding happens because all atoms 'want' full shells of electrons. It's nice for conveying an idea, but please don't actually anthropomorphise it like this.
Actually, the foetus does do some 'burrowing in'. Step #7 is relevant here, I feel. 'The woman accepts' is another anthropomorphism.
No, he's saying that it is 'biologically willful'.
