Originally Posted by Mariana Trench
False. 10-25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. [American Pregnancy Association, http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pre...carriage.html]
That is not equivalent to how ethical decisions can be made in real life. In that example, for one, you are choosing based on the benefit to society, not by the person's interests themselves (or their "right to life"), in a case where someone must
die, and where killing either person would plainly be considered murder.
When you are arguing that fetuses should not be aborted, it is for their own potential future benefit (or "right to life"). As there is absolutely no way of knowing what effect they as individuals will have on society, it is not a valid way to make this ethical determination.
The two situations are not equivalent.
They aren't meant to be. Its meant to illustrate that just because something is not at a certain level in its existence now doesn't mean you should just ignore its future.
Miscarriage happens without interference. Its natural. So it isn't relevant to an abortion debate. I get the point your making about my use of the word "guaranteed" but if it naturally is miscarried than there's nothing to be done or said about it.