You have to support appeals to emotion because emotions are what enable us to distinguish right from wrong. What you don't want to support are appeals to irrational beliefs that trigger emotions. Beliefs such as the separation of mind and body, the soul or spirit, life after death, and deities. You should support the facts and the fact is that a zygote is a human being, with a unique genome. It's level of maturity is irrelevant in the context of abortion.
Not quite. :no:
In fact, it is emotions that often lead to actions we consider wrong. For example, Murder is the killing of another human being. Yet we don't consider it "murder" when done in the line of police and military duty, or accident; only during the commission of a crime either of passion, greed, or revenge.
The issue of abortion is entirely a matter of consent. Everyone has a right to consent as well as an obligation to obtain consent.
Not according to our current law. The male has no say in the process, the female has the final decision because it is her body and her nine month burden.
Nor is the male freed from subsequent obligations, for example the female can sue (and typically win) child support from the male for the next 18 years.
Neither of those require any consent from him.
The way consent works is:
1. It must be explicitly given; it cannot be assumed.
2. It only applies to the person it's given to; it does not automatically transfer to other persons.
3. It can be withdrawn at any time for any reason or no reason at all.
In order to give consent, you must not only be a participant, but
capable of giving informed consent. Otherwise, as either a juvenile or determined to be incompetent, the only consent required is that of the parent or legal guardian.
Zygotes can't give or withdraw consent. Embryos' can't give or withdraw consent. Fetuses can't give or withdraw consent. Thus, even were we to accept your argument, per the above the mother has the power to do so.
As a human being, an embryo has the same rights and obligations as everyone else. That includes a right to life and an obligation to obtain consent. Without it's mother's consent, the embryo's impregnation of it's mother is an assault. The right to consent necessitates a right to self defense; with lethal force as a last resort. In the case of a non-consensual pregnancy, abortion is the only resort.
Here you assume the developing cells are a "human being" from inception, and therein lies the rub...because you are equating developing cells (human life) with a Human Being, which is a much more complicated thing.
For example; while every single cell in your body is a human cell, and each is a living entity...consuming, growing, replicating...it is not a Human Being.
Now it's important to be clear that the one-and-only purpose of abortion is to end a non-consensual pregnancy. It is NOT a right, permit, license to murder the unborn or to murder already born children. The unborn still have a right to life so every effort must be made to save them while performing abortions. Deliberately killing a baby, especially after it's been removed from it's mother, is straight up murder.
Unborn babies have the highest chance of survival in the late term so, rather than banning all late-term abortions, we should ban the use of cruel and lethal abortion methods.
Here you go down the rabbit hole of emotional appeals, comparing a fully developed and born "child" with a zygote (first trimester), an embryo (first and second trimester), and fetus (third trimester).
Unlike your emotional appeal, the law is based on a rational understanding of the differences occurring in each phase of development...which is why abortions are limited depending on the stage of development, and not treated like a "Child" from inception.
Soooo.. it seems that you are presenting an emotional appeal rather than a rational argument and "feelings" do not trump another individual's rights when it comes to what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.
