Kingkool wrote:If you want to outlaw abortion, you had might as well outlaw the removal of cancerous tumors. They are the same thing, a mass of cells inside the mother which has different DNA than that of her own.
This argument doesn't follow. It's not illegal to destroy a mass of cancerous cells kept alive in a Petri dish or test tube, but it is illegal to kill a newborn infant. So assuming you do not want to legalize actual infanticide (do you?) then the above does not follow since the OP makes it clear we are talking about a fetus that is 5-days past its due date (older measuring from conception than most newborns) that would be delivered safely. (If we were talking about a mere embryo, then your comparison to an unconscious blob of cancer cells might be somewhat apt, but we're not.)
Kingkool wrote:I think that until the baby leaves the mother's body, it is up to the mother to decide wether or not to keep it. It is a matter of a woman's right to do what she wants with her body.
Fair enough. Let me ask you some other questions to better understand the underlying philosophy and ensure it can be consistently applied.
Consider adult conjoined twins. Imagine that one twin, Mary, can have an operation that can remove her conjoined twin sister, Jane. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the doctors can separate the twins by cutting more on Mary's side of the body but that it is expected Mary will live and her Jane will die (maybe because they share a blood supply and while Jane's heart does almost as much work as Mary's it isn't quite enough to support her separated body on its own maybe because Jane's side of the body has become fat and non-muscular from disuse because of the angle of their attachment meaning Mary carries most of the weight on her side for all those years.). Let's also assume that Mary wants the operation and Jane doesn't. Do you want it to be illegal for a Mary to hire a doctor and the doctor to perform the operation which leads to Jane's death despite Jane's protests? Yes or no? Yet, that doesn't resemble the abortion situation too much because the mother with the 5-day-late fetus can be surgically separated via c-section from her unborn child such that both mother and baby live just fine. So what if it is possible for the doctor to separate the twins such that they both live but Mary opts for an operation to have her sister killed and then removed, or Mary intentionally opts for a procedure that removes Jane in a a way leads to her dying rather than living?
Consider a landlord whose tenet loses his job and suddenly misses a rent payment. Imagine the tenet wants to walk somewhere safe to stay like a shelter a few towns over or family that lives somewhere else or maybe just down south wear it is warmer. But imagine there is a huge blizzard making it so that if the tenet is evicted and has to leave now with no money, so quickly after his job loss and almost immediately after his missed rent payment that of course he will freeze to death in the blizzard. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the landlord would lose a little money if he lets the tenet stay for a few weeks or month or so until weather conditions soften enough to allow safe travel with no money. We can also assume that the landlord has a few options available to him that will allow the tenet to live, such as maybe the landlord could give him some traveling money or loan him a car with gas and heat or the landlord could drive him where he needs to go such that the landlord could still get him out at slight inconvenience or financial cost. Do you want it to be illegal for the landlord to not take any of those options and instead evict the tenet immediately from the home to the tenets certain death? What if the landlord doesn't merely forcefully evict the tenet but actually shoots the tenet dead inside the house and then removes the dead body? Do you want that to be legal?
Imagine a mother just gave birth to a premature baby. She was just shy of 8-months pregnant let's say. To the midwife or doctor's, she seems happy, eager to be a mother and able to take. At a home a few days later she changes her mind and decides she doesn't want the baby and doesn't want to be a mother. She could bring the baby in to give up for adoption, but it would be somewhat inconvenient and may cost her some money such as the cost of gas to drive the baby or the cost of using her phone minutes to call around about it. So she just takes the baby outside and leaves her behind her backyard just over the property line. Maybe we can say she lives just slightly excluded enough that her neighbors wouldn't notice the crying for a few days while the baby starves to death. Do you want that to be legal? What if instead of leaving the baby to starve to death the mother kills the baby herself by drowning her in the bathtub or hiring a doctor or hitman to euthanize the infant (remember this is baby that has been born but only a few days prior)? Do you want that to be legal?
What about if the baby is being delivered vaginally, she is out and everything is going fine but the umbilical cord is not cut yet and the mother says to kill the baby before cutting the umbilical cord? What if the baby's not fully out yet but her head is half way out and then they kill it before the rest of the head falls out of the vagina and living baby is born? Do you want that to be legal?
One last one: Imagine Joe's brother Fred needs a kidney transplant to live. Imagine Joe agrees verbally to give the transplant, but does not sign any kind of written contract, even though he could have said no. Let's assume if Joe had said no from the get-go, Fred could have found a different donor and probably lived that way. Imagine the time is fast approaching hat Fred needs the transplant surgery to occur or he will die. Imagine they are getting ready for the surgery. For the sake of argument, let's assume the doctors have already started cutting open Fred's weak dying body to prepare to put the desperately needed kidney in there but at the very last second Joe changes his mind and refuses to let doctor's finish taking out his kidney. Doctor's advise him that if he doesn't do this it is too late to find another donor in time and his Fred will certainly die. For the sake of argument, we will assume Joe never explicitly stated that he would definitely go through with the surgery and not change his mind after he got this far, but he was offered opportunities to back out earlier when he said he would do it and declined to back out (which could be argued to be an implicit promise that he wouldn't change his mind). Do you want that to be legal for Joe to back out and thus let his brother die? What if they don't just let his brother die, what if Joe actually kills his brother before his brother regains consciousness from the unfinished surgery? What if Joe hires the doctor to chemically inject Fred's unconscious body with poison (maybe because Joe doesn't want the inconvenience of explaining to Fred about how he didn't go through with surgery and he would die soon when Fred wakes up or because there is some minor expense or other inconvenience Fred would avoid by allowing Fred to wake up)? Do you want that to be legal?
Anyway, thanks for your reply and your time, and I look forward to your answers to all these questions!