Abortion

Sexual desire is biological.

That goes against what you said earlier - that person is not your body. So is it 'my body, my choice' or not?

That does not go against what I said earlier.

Let me give you an example If you agree to rob a bank with some guys

Where did you get that assumption? I am not trying to do that at all. In fact I want to hear what you have to say about this response to your argument.

You're comparing sex to a gang robbing a bank? Eek. Nothing in this analogy resonates with me. Sex is, more often than not, about pleasure and intimacy, and not family building. You have overemphasized one aspect of sex while overlooking the vast majority of sexual experiences. 

Either you maintain control of your arm (and someone dies), or someone else effectively owns your arm. The kidnapping does not mitigate your decision. 

Well we already know the scientific start of life is at conception. So we can assume that the start of person hood can very from conception, up till when the baby is born. 

We're not talking about the start of life, though that's another issue that we could discuss. Life came before (the sperm and ovum are alive), and the zygote is simply a fusion of those two, so I'd hesitate to say that a life begins at conception. I'd even hesitate to say it's independent because it most definitely is not. It's distinct from what came before in a myriad of ways, but so are subsequent stages of development. Why are those distinctions sufficient to assume that life starts at conception, whereas other distinctions have no bearing on whether this is or is not a new life?

Yes I know it is a different subject. I was just pointing it out for context. And if your talking about specific life, then it does actually start at conception. 

https://www.mccl.org/post/2017/12/20/the-unborn-is-a-human-being-what-science-tells-us-about-unborn-children

"When a sperm successfully fertilizes an oocyte (egg), a new cell, called a zygote, is generated by their union. The zygote represents the first stage in the life of a human being."

So, I ask: where is that research that demonstrates what is biologically defined as the beginning of personhood? Or, to be more precise, what traits have been proven by researchers to impart personhood? 

“Research” isn’t able to answer that question since it’s fundamentally a philosophical question.

Nothing in Nature is just made purely for pleasure.

Yes it does. That is my whole argument. Whether someone forced you to be in that situation or not. 

You also made an analogy with pregnancy being like a saw game....little concerning.

 But by any definition of “personhood” that involves development (and not something we have at conception such as a unique DNA sequence) a 26 week old who has been born is less of a person than say a 39 week old that hasn’t been born yet because they are significantly less developed. 

I agree. I'm not posing this question to make an argument against the pro-life stance, only to question why it's assumed by many that personhood biologically starts at conception. I also agree that it's arbitrary to select other points along the development scale. It's not my aim to defend any specific biological perception of when personhood begins.

For the purposes of this discussion at least, I'm not really interested in discussing the philosophical or moral application of personhood, though I appreciate your point, even if I disagree with elements of it.

This is based off a famous thought experiment which came long before the gruesome Saw movies. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it before:

Link

Just to be clear, taking rightful control of your body is 'murder' in one case and not the other? Ok

Jumping the gun to Reductio ad Hitlerum, nice to see Godwin's Law in effect.

You're talking about someone literally signing a contract,

with the lives of actual people at stake.

Presumably these kids will eat canned food, rather than being vampires who will feed on their caretaker.

A thought experiment I use is a variety of the trolly problem, in which building catches fire and you have a choice of which to save: The hundreds of fertilized embryos from the fertility clinic, or the half dozen kids in the daycare. Everyone would save the people, and no one would hold them at fault for letting hundreds of human beings die. This exemplifies that it is self evident that personhood and the protection of people is of higher value than the mere fact of humanity.

As of right now, I am not arguing against rape cases, I am only arguing against consensual sex cases as of right now.

So, I ask: where is that research that demonstrates what is biologically defined as the beginning of personhood?

So although I would choose the dozen kids, were I given a some modified thought experiments, I would be churning out answers that are not strictly moral. 

Birth. 

Personhood is defined as: the quality or condition of being an individual person.

Individual is defined as: a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: 

Person is defined as: a human being regarded as an individual

Human being is defined as: a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species:

The legal definition of “personhood” is: 1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

Biologically, physiologically, geographically, and legally personhood begins at BIRTH!

This statute is backed by the 14th Amendment. Again, BIRTH!

Are we having a girl or an abortion?

I have yet to meet anyone who would stand by their beliefs that the unborn are of equal value and in turn save the greater number of them.

Zero people know the unborn.

For clarity, I am not referring to the exceptionally rare late term abortions. Rather I'm referring to birth control thru the end of the second trimester.

I am yet to see some save an unknown stranger from a third world country over their own child, yet you wouldn’t use this intuition as a means of dehumanising the impoverished would you?

Zero people know the unborn.

Is it conceivable to you that a woman who has tried her entire life to conceive a child would value their unborn more than some child who she does not know?

In saying this it seems that you are implying that there is some difference between a first trimester and third trimester unborn in terms of moral worth. Could you identify what defines such a difference? If you believe abortion is slavery, shouldn’t you object to it at every stage?

If your objection to abortion is that a human being ceases to be because if it, then that is true no matter how the pregnancy occurred. Is the unconscious person in the analogy not a human being? Is the unborn not a human being because it was conceived from rape? There is inconsistency in your position here. 

If your objection to abortion is that a human being ceases to be because if it, then that is true no matter how the pregnancy occurred. Is the unconscious person in the analogy not a human being? Is the unborn not a human being because it was conceived from rape? There is inconsistency in your position here. 

I am not arguing on rape cases, as of right now. 

I am only arguing against consensual sex abortions.