Politics and stuff

What is that difference?

Why does state of development make it different? Fetuses, born babies, toddlers, and some disabled adults are all underdeveloped human beings. And guess which one is the only one we can kill on demand.
Why does the fact that it can survive on its own make it different? A human baby cannot survive on its own, nor can a toddler, yet we cannot kill them on demand. Several adults with disabilities and injuries cannot survive on their own, yet we cannot kill them on demand.

Oh yes, if you are a five year old who can talk, write, and count to fifty, you are just as underdeveloped and helpless as a handful of cells living in a womb. That is clearly an argument that makes a lot of sense and is definently a reason to be pro life. Its not like there's any counterargument like the fact that most abortions are done before the fetus in question has a nervous system or any form of internal organ. Great argument 10/10. I am ready to annoyingly tell every pregnant mother I know to have 6 kids because of a few busted condoms.

I never said they were just as underdeveloped. I said they were not fully developed. So what about it being underdevelopment makes it any different?

And how does a nervous system make it different? It’s a human with or without one.

Also, no, most abortions (and C-sections) happen when the baby has developing organs, even a heart.

1 (sorry this is off topic but what do C-sections have to do with this? Are pro-life people against those too or is that just a side note?)

2 Ah ok I checked, most abortions take place at less than 13 weeks. I was wrong about the nervous system development which starts at four weeks.

3 The nervous system is the way that humans can feel pain and think. It doesn't really matter though in my argument anymore because of the thing above.

and 4, This was mostly satire, I don't really care if you are pro life or not, I just don't agree with your opinon. I'm just going to ignore you for now.

That was just a side note.

So because it cant survive on it's own means it's not a person? Should we just euthanize the old, the infirm, the kids with cerebral palsy?

No there isn't. If the criteria for life is that you can't survive on your own, then people on IV drips or any sort of medical devices would qualify as dead as well.

What I consider to be worthy of protecting is anyone, at any age, who has a future if given the opportunity to live it out. Abortion destroys a future, which is one of the many reasons for which I oppose it.

From a less ethical, and more scientific view: We're ovoviviparous mammals who reproduce sexually. Just because new life is developed in the womb. At the moment of fertilization the DNA in the sperm and egg combine to form a new cell that has an entirely unique DNA sequence of its own. Since all cells of an organism have identical DNA, the embryo cannot, at any point from the milliseconds after conception to birth, be part of the mother's body. It is dependent on her for life, yes, but again that is merely a consequence of our specific reproductive cycle.

What are your rebuttals to these two arguments?

- I cannot tell the difference between the two scenarios unless ageism is factored into the equation, and I dislike discriminating against people for factors outside of the choices they make.

- Thanks for understanding, even if you disagree.

- In the vast majority of abortion cases the woman made a series of decisions that led her to be in a situation where she became pregnant. While it's a burden no one should bear unwillingly, murdering someone does not make her situation better...obviously you'll disagree with me on whether abortion is murder, but I'm sure you at least understand why I make this particular argument. Additionally, foster care systems and other alternatives do exist if the mother is unwilling or unable to care for the child afterwards, and there are legal systems in place (and should be expanded, in my opinion) to protect pregnant women from losing jobs or educational opportunities. Taken together, that is why I hold that it's far worse to permanently end one future than temporarily (nine months being "short" relative only to a lifetime) impacting another.

- If you agree that it is a unique human organism, then how does it not possess its own individual right to life? Unless your position is that the age and mental acuity of a human being at its current point is what differentiates us from lesser creatures I see no reason why any human at any point should be denied its basic human rights. The only difference between it and you or me is its current level of physical development. At any given point in time it may be radically different from us physically and in mental acuity, but if you were to spool time forward ten years then it would be one of the children we cherish as our succeeding generation on this earth. If its life will have value at some point in the future, then it has value now.

I respect your position and ability to not devolve into a capslock fanatic during a debate, so please don't take these lengthy replies or confrontational verbiage as intended to be personally offensive. Some measure of bluntness is needed when discussing such emotional topics, methinks.

Are you saying that there was not this many abortions last year?

WHO is the source

What an idiot.