You are right that plant cells (like bacteria and all other
cells) can divide, produce food, and are alive. Just like a fetus;
a developing fetus is a simpler lifeform than many plants and
animals, at some stages simpler than algae.
While my toes are not sapient, you may not cut them off because
they are useful to me. What use is the life that TS will provide to
TS' would-be child?
The fetus is not even sentient yet and is not in a position to
suffer loss. Animal cruelty laws prevent us from inflicting pain,
because as sentients they feel pain. They provide for their humane
killing as pests, because they are not sapient or not as sapient.
Yet more advanced than many fetuses.
In the second instance, as a mother you should consider your
ability to be useful to your baby and not the other way around.
You are forgetting, when a parent live vicariously through her
own child. this child can provide joy and unconditional love far
greater than a man can give.
If TS is indeed HIV positive.. this is perhaps her only chance
of pregnancy. If she aborts this one.. she may never have one
again. Which man will want her ? Perhaps if she can find another
HIV positive guy.. how likely is that in Asia ?
A woman is instinctively protective of her child the moment she
realise her pregnancy. Her body kicks into defensive mode, all her
senses heightens.. hence the "morning sickness". Rapid changes to
her physical form begins at point of conception.
If that fetus is indeed just a piece of extra flesh, she will
have no qualms in removing it.. like a piece of fibroid ( which is
very common in a woman's womb), however..a woman experience much
distress/dilemma when forced to make a choice to destroy her child,
going against her natural instinct.
While we humans are finding ways to live a longer, healthier
life through medical research and breakthroughs... why are we also/
at the same time seeking ways to nullify a child's right to life..
so we can kill/end it without remorse ?
Failing the sentience/personhood test does not means the
fetus/embryo/zygot is not deserving of protection or the priviledge
to continue life.
So really.. lets call spade a spade.. pro-choice is truthfully..
Pro-death.
As for Animal cruelty law, it really depends on which
philosopher you ascribe to...Rousseau/Bentham.. who believes in
natural law.. and/or the ability to suffer.
Personally.. I prefer Emmanuel/Locke ...who opposes the idea
that human beings have duties to non-humans.. we do eat them
afterall..steal their milk.. take away their youngs for our own
enjoyment.
"cruelty to animals is contrary to man's duty to
himself, because it deadens in him the feeling of sympathy
for their sufferings, and thus a natural tendency that is very
useful to morality in relation to other humans is weakened."-
Kant.
If you see a man torment an animal.. you feel anger towards that
man.. to see such vileness in a human. Will you want to be his
friend ? No. So cruelty to animal is bad for humankind.
"In the second instance, as a mother you should consider your
ability to be useful to your baby and not the other way
around."
..a mother is always useful to the child.. to ensure they
survive .. how is that not mutally benefitting ? how do you think
human beings are not extinct by stone age ? They don't have
diapers, no artificial milk, no advance medical facilities.. nor
internet. Right ?