Go ahead and show conservatives this meme during an argument.

people like to see things as right or wrong, black and white. but most things aren't. we like to assume that people, even those with potential/developing peoplehood, have a Right to Life. it's an arrogance we have because no one is around to say otherwise. if "lower" life forms don't have a right to life because they're plants or not-people or [name a reason], then how do we defend ourselves when "higher-life" (future) extraterrestrials might think it's fine to knock us off? this is a real problem with the abortion debate. wherefrom does our Right to Life stem?

if we don't have an inherent right to life, then abortion can be based solely on everyone's benefit, decided by the people involved. of course if we don't have a right to life, it puts the whole concept of murder in a wildly different light. even now, with murder generally held to be illegal around the globe, there's quite a bit of it going on. i wouldn't want more of it.

we might best assume that everything has a right to life, or at least a claim to life, and deal with the huge implications of that. good luck to us figuring that out.

Even if the fetus had a right to life. Nobody has a right to use somebody else's organs to sustain their life without consent.

what do you mean?

I mean the fetus is using the mother to survive without her consent. This is illegal. For example if I am driving recklessly and hit you with my car, damaging your kidneys, and I wake up in the hospital with my Kidney attached to you. The government cannot force me to stay connected to you.

doesn't it depend on how the fetus came to be? if it was conceived during consensual intercourse, which almost everyone knows carries the risk of conception, wouldn't that be essentially giving her consent?

No you cannot consent to outcomes and even if you could consent is not permanent and can be revoked at any time. In this case via an abortion and even if consent couldn't be revoked we cannot take abortion rights away from people who were raped or had a breakthrough case on birth control.

but isn't consent permanent once a child is born? the law frowns on a parent telling their kids that it's okay to exist and then changing their mind if the child becomes a burden.

and i think many people are against sex before marriage because they see that you do consent to outcomes (consequences) of actions if you know those outcomes are possible. people who engage in activities and hope to evade any resulting outcomes are criminals, gamblers out of control, immature people, many kids, etc.

A born child isn't using somebody's organs to stay alive and technically you can put the child up for adoption.

No, it doesn't. Because that's simply not a factor when getting an abortion (typically.) Contraception may not have been effective. Boyfriend may have sabotaged the condom. May have been raped. What caused it is irrelevant to the situation at hand. You have living tissue that will become sentient/sapient life if permitted to continue growing. At the time of the abortion, it lacks any capacity whatsoever to feel/think. In that time, it is considered humane to abort the zygote/fetus before it develops a Central Nervous System.

of course it does. conception by rape is different from conception by consensual sex. and ineffectual contraception (and even boyfriend sabotage) is something that anyone can imagine. sex is simply more consequential than most people treat it. we could say 'well whatcha gonna do?' or we could behave more responsibly. a position where abortion is illegal except in cases of conception by rape, and putting unwanted children up for adoption, would be a far better position than either party holds right now.

Couple problems.
1) Our adoption system is already backlogged to 120,000 kids every year waiting for adoption. Your proposal would make this number dramatically increase. Mind you, they would be coming into a system where the right wing wants to take away as much social welfare as possible. Bless their Christian Hearts.
2) Per the argument of the right-wing regarding gun control... (I will change guns with abortions in this quote.) "Whether or not you make [abortions] illegal or not. Criminals will still get [abortions.] Only problem now, is that people won't be safe." Doing your own abortions is dangerous and can cause lasting damage to the mother and/or the fetus if it survives. I'd rather have it done in a clinical setting where the job is done correctly, humanely, and safely.

What if she took reasonable precautions not to get pregnant, but still did? Or is this where we agree that heterosexual sex is the problem and no woman should ever have sex with a man unless she is trying to get pregnant?

Tax the church to pay for all the saved abortions 18 years of foster care.

My mum had an abortion. She’s pro life now for some reason. She’s never told anybody except her parents. She didn’t even tell my dad. Only me

1) Laws are created by people. So it could just as easily be made unlawful - see Texas.
2) At 23 weeks the brain is developed to the point that if it were that of an adult in a coma, the would NOT be considered brain dead.
3) Definitions are made by people. People included malice in the definition. Definitions can be changed by people - see gender.

The constitution is the Supreme law of the land and since the 14th amendment guarantees a woman's right to an abortion whatever Texas or any other other state that's passed the heartbeat has to say is irrelevant.

If you get an abortion at the 23 week mark you we're probably planning on carrying it to term. In that situation something very tragic could have happened. For example their partner might have left and they don't want to raise a child in that environment, the baby could have become in-viable and it would be dangerous to carry it to term, maybe a financial problem erose and now you can't afford to keep the child. At the end of the day nobody has a right to use anyone else's organs to sustain their life without the other person's consent. And before you say "They consented when they had sex" not only is that not true. But if it was, consent is not permanent and can be revoked at any time

And until those defintions change or Roe V Wade is overturned on the federal level you can't make the argument that it's murder.

I am not arguing it is murder, another man made definition. I am stating it is made illegal by man and can be changed by man. The science also supports that at 23 weeks the brain activity meets the requirement for "life" in a person outside the womb, so why not inside the womb?

Refer to the second paragraph of my first argument.

2) Yeah, that's just short of six months. Women typically dont get abortions done a this time. This argument is irrelevant.
3) So you're willing to accept people who identify as different genders than what they were physically born as?

So, if police officers typically do not kill unarmed individuals, an argument for reform is irrelevant? Of course not. Neither is talk of reform for abortions completed after 23 weeks.

I accept whatever you wish to identify as. No issue for me. Doesn't change the fact that you are born with or without a y chromosome, however.

Women aren't police. Zygotes aren't people. This comparison is horrendously weak. This is also a completely different dynamic.

Throw out the comparison. My objective is to say that abortions after 23 weeks are not irrelevant. If even 1-10% of abortions are after 23 week, and science has determined brain activity sufficient to determine life in a post birth person in a coma, why should that be acceptable?

All abortions? Or, just the non-complicated ones?

I favor the brain development metric for abortion limitations myself.