Picard Wtf

That is not a legal matter. It's a scientific fact.

Laws can be changed.
Facts can not.
Facts should guide how we write and rescind laws.
The arguement here is that the FACTS justify changing the current law.

It is a fact that, by the definition of life, an embryo is alive at the moment of conception. That is not a religious oppinion, it is a scientific fact.
At the moment of conception, it has a unique complete human genome. Thus it is a human life. That is not a religious oppinion, that is a scientific fact.
In order to justify abortion as not being murder, you have to accept a religious beliefs, that the embryo/fetus is not a human until it's born? No physiological changes occur during birth, merely where the baby is located. That is not a scientific belief, it must be a religious one. It may not be a Christian belief, but it is a religious one.

And if you believe a fetus is not a human life, yes you are. That belief has no basis in science. It is a feeling that you believe, deeply. A deeply held belief with no basis in science is pretty much the definition of religion. In fact, your belief contradicts science.

I never said a fetus wasn't human.
Society has to have laws.
The law allows it.
Change the law if you have a problem with it.
Good luck in that endeavor

"The law allows it.
Change the law if you have a problem with it.
Good luck in that endeavor"

Changing the law is exactly what we are debating here. You keep using "it's the law" as a reason to not change the law. That is not even an arguement. Now of course "we" on this site do not have direct power to change the law directly. But we have these public debates in order to try and convince others. And over time, if we get a few people to think more clearly, and they in turn get others to think more clearly, eventually the law can get changed.

Now, personally, I approve of abortion up to about 5 months. And after that (except in the case of medical complications) I consider it morally wrong. Now, my oppinion is not based entirely on facts, that's just how I feel (I.e. its essentially a religious beliefs). What I actually want you to do, is take a step back and ask yourself what you believe, and why you believe it. And if you are entirely comfortable with your position, I posit to you, that you haven't thouroughly thought it through. Abortion is a complicated issue with convincing arguements from both sides of the spectrum, and I do not believe there is a single right answer, and it is impossible to legislate for all the possible variables. But it is a fun topic to debate (from either side) if you enjoy debate. But I don't think we can take this any further on an intelligent level. This is the point where the debate would devolve into insults.

I am very comfortable with my decision to support a woman's choice to end an unwanted pregnancy.
You approve up to 5 months so what in the current law needs to change?

Why do you think I haven't thought it through? That is what I accuse the hard core pro-lifers of. So I am interested in why you think I haven't thought it through.

And what if a woman wants to kill her newborn, is it still okay because you support a woman's choice?
Furthermore, except in cases of rape, a woman had her choice whether or not to have sex and risk pregnancy. Does having made the wrong choice once now entitle her to make another choice to commit murder?

If the woman killed her newborn, and it happens, she would be dealt with according to the laws.

With your logic a woman that takes a morning after pill is committing murder.

Nice try at equivocating. The subject was whether or not the unborn was human or not. IT is a scientific fact that they are. The real question at hand is how should we treat humans?

We should allow humans to kill humans.

Thanks for the honesty.

I didn't say only the poor get abortions, but the majority of them. I too think the government should (and for the record I it does) provide free birth control. But I don't think it should out of a "moral obligation" to the women. Sensible non violent population control is just good public policy. It is best to prevent the "need" for abortion by preventing the pregnancy first.

Actually the morning after pill is not an abortion pill like many think. In most cases where pregnancy would have occurred (about 75%) the egg had not yet been released and would have been fertilized by sperm that had managed to survive. The morning after pill prevents the eggs release. In the other 25% of cases where pregnancy would have occurred, it still does. (Keep in mind, in many of these cases, a pregnancy simply would not have occurred anyhow because of the timing).
But even in that case, you are admitting something. That it is a human life. And if that is an issue for you, it should be an issue regardless of the circumstances of conception.
Maybe whether or not it is a human life is an issue for you. Perhaps human life is not always sacred.