You're a clump of cells.

Hey, at least some of them are genuine discussions

No no... they'll never admit that. That would put an end to their baby parts industry.

There's a lotta sickos out there, lotta sickos.

alr bro

Babies aren't fully developed individuals.
Bacteria cells are.

Neither are children, but it's not acceptable to kill them.

Except children are conscious.
Fetuses aren't.

They have heartbeats and living, growing cells.

Well by that case it's wrong to eat kebab because the lamb was alive.

Human lives are inherently more valuable.

Heres the thing.
It's either a clump if cells that can't be consid6a person
Or its too late

You're a clump of cells, and morally, you can't be considered human.

If we do ban abortion
People are just gonna do it illegally and UNSAFELY anyways
Just look at that time we banned alcohol

True, but it's still wrong.

By clump of cells I mean something that isn't really human.

It is human. It has human structure and cell types.

It's a little thing that isn't really developed as much as when it can't really be aborted

It counts as life – just like any cell – but you probably wouldn’t claim that felling a tree is murder, even though it, too, is alive (because cells).

Murder is the illegal and/or morally wrong killing of a being. Felling a tree is neither illegal nor morally wrong, so it's not murder, it's killing. Abortion is both morally wrong and illegal in some cases, therefore it is murder. Not to mention it's a human life. So no, felling a tree isn't murder.

To clarify: by murder, I did not mean the legal term, but simply killing (I'm sorry for any potential bad wording or misspelling, repetition etc. English isn't my 'main' language).

I don't think felling a tree is either killing or immoral; it was just an example to show that it is not ending 'life' that makes abortion morally wrong to you.
I assume your reasoning for why abortion is immoral is that (valuable) human life is being ended. I, too, believe that human life is inherently valuable, though not at every stage.
For example, I don’t believe that a sperm cell is just as valuable as an adult human being, and I’m pretty sure you’d agree with me on that.
On that basis, I would argue that an abortion (up to a certain point) is not very different from felling a tree.

I do agree that sperm is not nearly as valuable, but life begins at the conception of the fetus, the second that egg gets fertilized and dropped into the uterus lining and begins to develop, that's when life begins. I say it's very different from felling a tree. The difference is that us humans need wood, ergo we need to fell trees. There's no rhyme or reason to abortion at any stage when you can simply either abstain from having sex or put the baby up for adoption. There's no reason ever that abortion is okay. Ever.

What about overpopulation? Humans breed like rabbits, earth will no longer be big enough to hold it if we, as a species, kept growing at this rate.

Birth rates are going down, Thanos.

Then I'm willing to bet that they'll go back up. Then we'll need a new home or a solution to overpopulation.

Not happening in my lifetime or yours.

It's still going to happen

It's not like you can do anything about it. Murdering babies is not the way.

The babies, when concieved, are only "alive" after several weeks have passed.

I missed the part where that's my problem. Just like how the Sun will explode one day.

We still have to try to fix the overpopulation problem. We all know it's coming. You can't shrug it off

Their cells are still alive and dividing.

What about cleaning a bathroom? The bacteria is alive and dividing.

Dogs were made to be man's best friend. I never once condoned eating dogs or cats.

We need to eat cows to live. They were made to be our food source. We don't need to abort babies to live.

What about dogs? Japan used to eat them.

We don't need to eat cows to live, its a kind of luxury. There is a reason we are omnivorous.

As I've told you liberals a thousand times before, humans are created in God's image, therefore they are more valuable.

Cows are also created, yet we eat them.

Overpopulation is not a thing. We can grow the world's food in an area slightly larger than Texas. Humans barely cover 0.2% of the earths land (assuming 1/4 acre each). The only places that are overpopulated are cities.

Could you give a source for your claims?

Just because we don't have the resources to feed overpopulation, doesn't mean people are still going to have kids.

I think this is the wrong way to approach the debate, as Ridley regards abortion as murder; to them, it therefore sounds as though you are claiming that genocide is justified as a solution to overpopulation.

I'm saying we should use abortion for unwanted unborn children, not killing anyone in sight.

I’m aware of that and I do agree, but as I’ve already said: for people like Ridley, it amounts to genocide.
We should make the most of moments like this, when people are open to discussion, to perhaps change their minds.

And that argument won’t work very well if they believe that abortion is so morally wrong in itself. We shouldn't jump so much ahead, we need to work with their baseline.

Is abortion always wrong?

No. Abortion is sometimes medically required. Like when a underage girl gets pregnant. That scenerio means that the girl is not ready for childbirth and the girl undergoes some form of harm to her body if she does give birth, not to mention that a young girl cannot care for a baby.

Yes.