Ah, okay, I see the confusion. I probably shouldn't be trying to post on here after sleep deprivation, so this will be my last post for a while. Please bear with me as I'll try to catch up before passing out.
You make large assumptions here. If you remove a tumor, it's because someone came to you to remove a tumor. Most likely your reason for removing it is you're being paid to do so; that it may save a life could also be a motivation, but it's not the sole reason a person will undertake such an action, nor should it be assumed that this is the driving motivation for the action. These assumptions will get you into trouble when trying to discuss action by coloring it with your perception of motive.
A baby is aborted because of a request to have a baby aborted, as a preventative measure for the possibility of birth, not to counteract the guarantee of such; nothing is guaranteed. By your reasoning, you seem to be saying that because the potential for future life is there, life is already there and, moreover, that life is independent of its mother, despite a total inability to live on its own or, indeed, having anything resembling independence or individuality. If you accept that point of view, then any form of birth control prior to conception is equally destructive, killing babies before they've even had a chance to experience being a nerveless, brainless packet of cells growing in a womb.
Even abstinence is outright refusing to assist babies in taking their first breaths, those selfish, murdering bastards with their genital restraint! They're almost as bad as those men and women who kill cancer patients by not going to medical school to become doctors, thereby never gaining the skills they need to treat cancer patients.
Really, how far do you want to go with that kind of argument? It's an extension of pre-crime theorizing; whatever might happen in the future hasn't happened yet. It's nonsensical to act as though it's already tomorrow today. You can't charge an assassin with murder for a planned assassination he was going to execute next week; you charge him with conspiracy to commit murder, probably illegal possession of weapons, etc. You know, things he's actually done.
There's a difference between action and inaction, though. Let me try to explain.
Many would agree that if you see someone drowning in a lake, you should go out and save them. This implies that via inaction, if you do absolutely nothing, that person will die. However, this does not require you to stand out by the lake all day to make sure nobody drowns. That would be an action, voluntarily taking a step towards that end.
On the one hand, you have pretty much certainty of a death if you fail to act. On the other, you're relegated to the madness of the might-have-beens.
That's probably not a very good explanation, so if need be, I can go further into it when I'm awake.
Then why did you essentially support this argument by saying killing someone is meaningless if they were going to die anyway regardless of your actions? If someone else is going to do it even if you don't, then your doing it is similarly meaningless and, as such, there should be no problem doing it, right?
This was my mistake for the wrong word. What I meant by "meaningless" would probably be better summed up in "pointless." If I hated someone, but they were dying already of something and would be dead by the end of the day, I'd watch to make sure they're dead but I wouldn't see any reason to kill them myself just to make sure they know it was me. Especially when they're going to die anyway.
I was trying to say that the very act in killing someone was to make sure that they're dead. I didn't mean that it's right and/or moral to kill someone.
Apologies that that was unclear.
I put in bold the part that I am addressing. What you said is not true. Doctors remove benign tumors all the time that do not pose a serious risk to a person's life. The doctor and patient choose to remove it for comfort sake, appearances, etc. If people started protesting the removal of tumors because they are 'alive' and growing, I'd be calling that stupid as well.
You're right, I forgot cosmetic surgery.
She feels she has the right because since it can't live independent of her it isn't a person.
See, there's a bit I have trouble with also, because a baby can't live independently either. However, a parent is considered to be responsible for their child, to the effect of jail time for negligence and/or abuse. If you have a child, you're required by law to take care of them. It would follow that the same would be required for the fetus.
I think I remember stories about a child suing his father because his dad was doing something that knowingly caused birth defects and the child ended up deformed, but I can't remember where or how; it might have just been a fiction story.
I can't say I like the way that works either. It leaves things far too ambiguous and adds to the confusion about this whole topic. I figure if we go the route of abortion being okay because of X Y or Z reason disconnecting gestation from birth, then in a situation like the above the murderer shouldn't be charged with double homicide.
He should instead be charged with 1 count of murder and 1 count of illegal/unsolicited/whatever-word-you-want-to-use abortion.
Very logical. I like this idea.
Alright, off to bed. Sorry if this post isn't clear, and a small request: Please don't assume that I'm for the bill just because a lot of things don't make sense to me. I take a decent amount of pride in being neither Democrat nor Republican.