True Healthcare Is On The Left

At least nobody was murdered in that scenario.

so two deaths is better than one as long as no one got "murdered"?

https://www.gotquestions.org/abortion-Bible.html
"As horrible as it would be to become pregnant as a result of rape and/or incest, is the murder of a baby the answer? Two wrongs do not make a right."

Also, If a woman gets pregnant, she absolutely has every right to terminate the pregnancy.

Oh yeah, I know (literally in Toby's case) I'm not super optimistic they will though but I know it's still worth trying.

That's false. The constitution gives no such thing as a right to homicide.

I didn't say it did.

Have you literally never read the Constitution?
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, liberty, or property, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Also, two wrongs do not make a right. Being the victim of sin (rape) does not justify committing future sins (murder).

"A zygote is a eukaryotic cell" to quote Wikipedia. As soon as the thing becomes more than just one cell, it immediately ceases to be a zygote.
"If I make you sign a business contract at gunpoint, you're not legally obligated to honor it, because you didn't enter into the agreement willingly." That's not comparable. Unlike murder, there is nothing inherently immoral about violating a business contract.
"It's not about two wrongs making a right." So you weren't saying that being an involuntary participant in the act of getting pregnant justifies ending the life of the unique individual inside? Even though you did right here "0 ups, 11h, 1 reply
If a woman gets pregnant as a result of being raped, she absolutely has every right to terminate the pregnancy".

There are certain situations in which it would not be immoral to violate a business contract. For example, it would not be immoral to violate a business contract that said "Kill one million innocent unborn humans each year, of which only 0.97% (or 1 in every 103) will have been due to rape or incest, 5% (1 in every twenty, or five times more than the amount due to rape or incest) will be after they have been alive and developing for 16 weeks, and only 0.1% (one in every THOUSAND) will be due to any health risks for the mother. That means, if you were to have killed a thousand humans, the amount of humans that were killed due to rake, incest, and health issues combined would amount to eleven. 98.9% of the people you kill won't be for any of those 'righteous' causes. Did I forget to mention that you would be killing 3 thousand humans daily, of which, only 29 will have been conceived as a result of nonconsensual intercourse AND intercourse between close relatives COMBINED, and only 3 will present any danger to the mother. The other 2,968 daily homicides that you will perform are due to the mother not wanting to raise the baby, even though there are thousands if not millions of people who would want to raise it and the mother consented in all 2,968 of those instances, but hey, who are you to question the wishes of your customers. We have free cookies every Sunday. Wanna join?". It would definitely not be immoral to violate that business contract. The immoral activity would be complying with it. Note: that "free cookies" part was just a joke.

"Getting pregnant against your will justifies you terminating that pregnancy." Wrong. If Human A did something very bad to Human B, that would not give Human B a right to do something horrendous to Human C.

"Maybe you don't think there's anything wrong with going back on your promise, but I do." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
"Getting pregnant against your will justifies you terminating that pregnancy."
https://www.gotquestions.org/abortion-Bible.html
"As horrible as it would be to become pregnant as a result of rape and/or incest, is the murder of a baby the answer? Two wrongs do not make a right. The child who is a result of rape/incest could be given in adoption to a loving family unable to have children on their own. Again, the baby is completely innocent and should not be punished for the evil acts of its father."

"And that doesn't change the fact that the woman is under no obligation to continue the pregnancy." Probably because it isn't a fact. Outside of the context of capital punishment, all people are morally obligated to not perform homicide.

That sounds right to me, as long as the pregnancy doesn't threaten her life.

I would save whoever I encounter first.

Good job it's not up to you then, eh?

Why does the mother's health and safety matter more than the child's?

What would you do, then? Leave someone to burn alive?

It depends on whether the serial killer would kill me after I save him/her.

Interesting🤔

The baby's body is not the mother's body.

then why doesn't it count as multiple deaths when any woman dies?

At the point abortion happens, there is no baby.

Yes, but it is connected to it and completely dependent on it. By being inside the Mother's body it is having a direct impact on her wellbeing and causing irreversible changes.

The individual organism is not part of someone else's body.

The baby being dependent on the mother should not determine whether or not that baby is human.

Why do some lives matter more than others to you? You are acting like Hitler.

Unlike you and Hitler, I believe that all lives have equal value. That is why I oppose abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty.

By opposing abortion you are not treating the life of the pregnant person as having equal value to the fetus.

Abortion isn't murder.

Making false statements will arrive at nowhere.

It's only your opinion that it's false.

Really? Where is any due process involved?

"is the murder of a baby the answer?"

Who's murdering babies?

"At the point abortion happens, there is no baby."

At the point of conception, there is a baby.

"By opposing abortion you are not treating the life of the pregnant person as having equal value to the fetus."

How so?

"At the point abortion happens, there is no baby."

"At the point of conception, there is a baby."

That's like arguing that a seed is a fruit. The fetus would develop into a baby but at the point of conception and at the point of abortion, it is not a baby.

"By opposing abortion you are not treating the life of the pregnant person as having equal value to the fetus."

"How so?"

If you are forcing someone to a) put their life at risk, b) be forced to endure pregnancy and childbirth against their consent and c) be subjected to pain and irreversible bodily harm you are not then treating that person's life with value.

Where did you get the idea that fetuses are torn apart as a standard procedure?

No, abortion is the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

That was insensitive of me, I forgot you'd had your sense of humor surgically removed.

Of course I know what satan is! It's a popular meat substitute, idiot.

No it isn't.
That is an extremely rare situation that only happens if the pregnancy cannot continue safely, it is not how standard abortions are carried out.