CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should abortion be legal?
Should abortion be legal before the first 22-25 weeks of pregnancy. Keep these points in mind: definition of life i.e. when does life begin, is pro-life a purely religious stance and therefore violating separation of church and state, for pro-lifers if you protect the rights of the child would you continue to fight for its rights if it were gay? Those are just a few common points I've seen brought up and thought I'd put them out there.
Often when elderly people fall into comas and reach a "vegetable state" where their heart continues to beat but they're brain does not function they are taken off life support. This is legal and not considered murder. How is this any different from aborting a fetus before its brain begins to function? Its heart may beat but it is not yet living, you would say it was dead if not for the fact that it has never lived.
This isn't really a veracious comparison. A fetus has an entire lifetime ahead of it, while those you describe have no potential for future living. For me, this is not a valid argument.
I am not suggesting that it is completely the same. Obviously it isn't. What I mean to point out is that living people who have already been born are considered dead when they're brain is dead, not when their heart is. Therefore the beginning of life in the womb cannot have begun until the brain has become active which science has shown to be around the 22-25 week if I'm not incorrect.
You are protecting the potential of life but right now I'm establishing if those against abortion can fully support the claim that life begins at conception.
With the terminally ill coma patients, they have no chance of recovery, so when they are taken off life support it is more of a matter of letting nature take it's course. Abortion on the other hand is purposely inferring with the natural development of the unborn child.
Thank you for addressing my first argument but again I have to clarify. These people I am referencing when I say "vegetative state" are not terminally ill. They are legally dead http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_death see brain death. They are not letting nature take it's course because it has already happened. Once their brain is dead they're dead. You can't knowingly or purposefully kill people that aren't already dead in hospitals without being charged for murder. So when the brain is inactive there is no life and that means fetuses have no life until the 22nd week. You are protecting potential life over actual life. All the eggs in my ovaries have potential life but they have no rights just as a fetus should have no rights before the 22nd week.
I do not support a free for all, but I do not support an all out ban on abortion. If Mom is at risk for trauma and the baby is to young to survive, or the baby will die anyway, I would support the abortion.
Abortion should be legal with consent form from the clinic, parents and the legislative council. For example, say there was a young girl, or any girl at all who was raped and impregnated with her attacker's fetus. This female should not be forced to carry a reminder of the crime that was committed against her. I am in no way saying that because the fetus was conceived in rape, that it's life holds any less value than a child that was conceived with intention by both consenting parties, but to birth a child is a huge decision that will most likely change the mother's life and identity greatly. Morality is obviously a huge factor in this law, but we have to take the mother's life into consideration.
It is easy to say that if the mother and father are old enough and educated enough to perform the act of sexual intercourse, then the mother is old and educated enough to carry the baby full term with the support (emotional and financial) of the father. What if the sexual education that they received isn't sufficient beyond the basic knowledge of how to perform the act? What if they weren't aware of the dangers of unprotected sex and the possible consequences that come with it? If a sexually transmitted disease such as AIDS which could be passed down to the baby is an issue for the mother, then would it not be best for the fetus to be aborted early in the pregnancy if they had a high chance of leading a lifestyle where they are hindered by AIDS or are HIV positive?
My final point is that of insufficient means to carry the baby full term. If an anti-abortion law is to be passed, then surely the government should also provide for the mother during the 9 months in which she has to carry the baby if she is financially incapable of doing so herself. Someone who isn't able to provide for one person, surely can't be expected to support themselves and a fetus financially. With the cost of the medical checkups, additional medication and frequent ultrasounds alongside a hefty amount of extra food, it is unreasonable to assume that every mother or couple is able to support the baby financially, especially single mothers who are unable to find work.
In conclusion, I believe that abortion should be legal in the first 6 weeks of the pregnancy, before the fetus's heart starts to beat, and with consent from a representative of the legislative council in the area, the clinic and parent(s)/guardian(s) if under the age of 18.
Of course, only abort if necessary. Countries with a quickly growing population but only have a small territory should really consider this, if all else fails, such as trying to expand, etc. Couples should make sure that they only have enough children to provide for, so there won't be any poverty or famine in the place.
Often when elderly people fall into comas and reach a "vegetable state" where their heart continues to beat but they're brain does not function they are taken off life support. This is legal and not considered murder. How is this any different from aborting a fetus before its brain begins to function? Its heart may beat but it is not yet living, you would say it was dead if not for the fact that it has never lived.
If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.
If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.
If we can agree that life has not begun until week 22-25 when the brain becomes active then it is not the taking of a human life, it is the taking of a potential life. Is it murder every time a woman has a period and loses an egg? Or every time a man ejaculates? If it is not living yet it is not murder.
No no no, life begins the second the baby is conceived, that is just fact. The "life" that starts at 22-25 weeks is not a biological term, it a political term. Biologically, the baby is alive. Politically, it doesn't have rights because the smart voters of our great nation have a problem with understanding that small things can be alive to.
The fetus may be alive but does that necessarily mean it is living. Just like my first example when someone is brain dead they are alive but not living. When taken off life support they are not murdered. The fetus has never had consciousness, there's no reason to believe it has a soul although that is highly disputable.
Cells are alive but that doesn't make them intelligent beings and that is the case with fetuses in the early months of pregnancy. Living things that aren't people.
You see, its a living human, that's the bottom line. Person hood, living, etc. those are all terms that change based on your political/spiritual ideology. What is consciousness? I mean, seriously, neurosurgeons barley even understand basic anesthesia, how can you expect the average person to fully understand consciousness let alone have a basic grasp on it?
It is human life, you don't have the right to ends its life simply because your political or spiritual ideology doesn't give it rights.
I'm not talking about political or spiritual ideologies. I'm talking about scientific facts. When people are brain dead they are scientifically legally dead. Doctors can take them off life support and face no legal action ie murder charges. They wouldn't do this unless they were absolutely sure the patient was dead. Fetuses pre-22nd week are for all intents and purposes brain dead and the doctors are not in fact killing them they are simply stopping the process from progressing. Just as a condom prevents it from progressing or abstinence stops it from progressing.
you cannot say that life begins the seconds the baby is conceived. the baby before it is being conceived, is living in the womb of the woman and a dead baby in the womb has no life outside. what you don't know is that when fertilization begins in the womb, life begins for another creation. what brings a human being to the world is because of the process it went through in the womb. Abortion is just getting rid of a person you are depriving the person his or her life whether 22-25 weeks or 8 years old or a hundred years old. so far the egg is formed.
What? Mentally disabled people are not in a vegetative state nor are they unconscious. I'm talking about being brain dead not mentally disabled. I'm not saying we pull the plug on anyone we don't legally do already. People who have a beating heart but no brain activity.
And every egg in my body has potential to live but I'm not giving them any rights. Yes fetuses are further along but scientifically they're just as unborn as my eggs until the 22nd week. Why do they deserve any rights
Mentally disabled people are not in a vegetative state nor are they unconscious. I'm talking about being brain dead not mentally disabled.
But a fetus is not brain dead either.
And every egg in my body has potential to live but I'm not giving them any rights.
An egg cell left alone will not grow up. A sperm cell left alone will die. But combine them both and you have created a living creature capable of thinking
In every sense of the term a fetus is brain dead to a certain point in the pregnancy. There is no brain activity=brain dead. Unlike people in a vegetative state they will become "brain alive" for lack of a better term but my point in all this is fetuses pre-22nd week are NOT BEING MURDERED. If it has never been alive it cannot be murdered therefor abortion is not murder it is however the disruption of the egg's development. Like I said in another dispute condoms and abstinence also interfere with the egg developing. You could say "well an egg has never been alive so it's different" but a fetus has never been alive either. It might be closer to life but it's still not there
What? Mentally disabled people are not in a vegetative state nor are they unconscious. I'm talking about being brain dead not mentally disabled. I'm not saying we pull the plug on anyone we don't legally do already. People who have a beating heart but no brain activity.
And every egg in my body has potential to live but I'm not giving them any rights. Yes fetuses are further along but scientifically they're just as unborn as my eggs until the 22nd week. Why do they deserve any rights
Politically, he/she is not because he/she doesn't have limits (Limits on action), responsibilities (The fetus does not take care of something, and holds accountability for that/or is not responsible for any happenings), and legal liability (He/She is not legally bound and obliged to pay debts). HOWEVER, that's not the reason why I'm for abortion.
Biologically, the fetus is alive. Life is the existence of an organism. It is also unlawful, therefore murder. However, how is it suppose to consent to it? Remember that it can not feel; the body and its functions are simply under development; It's not all that you're murdering, but rather simply ending the process.
You didn't get my argument. I said the murder is illegal, why is abortion legal. In others words, I'm saying both acts takes a human life for no cause.
I really don't see the point in legalizing abortion. It's cheaper to kill a child than to adopt. Seems a bit counter-intuitive to the survival of the species to me.
EDIT: If it wasn't clear, I'm more in favor of adoption and, perhaps, a bit more 'keeping it in your pants', or at least use protection.
Adoption is a completely viable option but that's not what up for debate. Abortion is, and just because there's another choice doesn't mean we should take away the right of the mother to choose unless there is logical factual evidence against it.
No one wants an abortion. It's not an easy decision or a happy one but do we force men to marry women they impregnate? Do we force them to deal with the mother for 9 months and care for her and make sure she and the baby do well? No because men don't have to keep it in their pants. They can get a girl pregnant and hit the road. Women aren't getting pregnant on purpose and then getting abortions, they're in bad situations and it's a last resort in most cases. Sometimes even a result of being raped or from incest.
If no one wants an abortion then why do so many people seem to be for just that very thing? As for the pregnancy it's not just the fault of the man, you know. For the sake of that last sentence, I'm using the norm, not exceptions such as rape etc. Women can be just as much at fault since, you know, both parties consented. And not every man is going to 'hit the road' due to a pregnant woman, either.
There are fathers who would want to keep the child even when the mother wants to abort it. What about their rights? The child is, biologically, half theirs.
As for the concept of rights and such logical fallacies as 'good' and 'evil', that's another debate entirely.
No one plans on growing up and getting an abortion. It's a tough decision and not one anyone wants to make. But it's a choice some feel necessary, not what they want but what they need.
Of course it's not just the man's fault. My point is the only ones who have to deal with 9 months of pregnancy are the women. The men get to choose so why can't the women. If a man can abandon the girl he got pregnant with no repercussions why can't the woman take action to save herself.
If there is a dispute about the father wanting the child that should obviously be discussed but ultimately it's the woman's body and you can't get a woman pregnant and expect her to keep it for 9 months just for you. Keep in mind I'm making this argument with the knowledge that the fetus is not alive until after the 22nd week. If you want to debate that then please do but no pro-lifer has logically nor scientifically disputed my vegetative state argument but I welcome any arguments
When Abortion was legalized in 1970, people thought that it will reduce crime rate as Less unwanted kids = Less poverty+abuse = Less criminals
20 years after, they found out that they were right, crime rate has reduced by about 50%. But upon closer study, they found out that though crime was reduced, its intensity steeped from simple petty thieves to unsightly thugs.
For we now define human life as something disposable, the amount of murder rates increased dramatically, together with underage sexual relationships and children born out of wedlock. This rotten lifestyle has propagated criminals that becomes younger and younger for every generation.
I am not currently arguing about crime rates. I am arguing when life begins in the womb and further if the potential of life deserves the right of the already living. I believe life begins around the 22nd week (refer to vegetative state argument) and that potential life deserves no rights.
And btw I'm pro abortion and have never had sex and am not a criminal. I simply believe in science and I defend it. I doubt murder has any correlation to abortion laws. The only crime that should be looked at in correlation to abortion laws is the amount of illegal abortions preformed. You know, the ones done with coat wires. Those have decreased dramatically and have saved many actual lives. The already born ones with brain activity I mean.
I understand that you're against abortion which is an option in this debate but the controversy of abortion I'm trying to discuss in this particular debate is whether pro-lifers can support the argument that life begins at conception with science, facts, and or logic that disputes my vegetative state argument.
I'm saying we're debating a sub topic because abortion is such a huge issue. I should've been more clear when making the debate but I actually wanted to get to all aspects of the abortion argument but no one has sufficiently argued against my first point with and factual or logical evidence and I would rather not move on until that happens because it's one of the core arguments of pro-lifers.
And I still don't see your point with crime and legal abortion correlations.
I'm trying to discuss in this particular debate is whether pro-lifers can support the argument that life begins at conception with science, facts, and or logic that disputes my vegetative state argument.
Question: If life doesnt start at the womb, then where?
And I still don't see your point with crime and legal abortion correlations.
Read my statement:
For we now define human life as something disposable, the amount of murder rates increased dramatically, together with underage sexual relationships and children born out of wedlock. This rotten lifestyle has propagated criminals that becomes younger and younger for every generation.
Legalized abortion is a gift for individuals who cannot face their foolishness. But it is a poison for the society who's morality are slowly decaying
Life does start at the womb after the brain becomes active around the 22nd week. It does not, however, start at conception.
People don't see human life as disposable because of abortion. If I were to get an abortion I would not see it as the disposable of a life but rather the prevention of it. Where as murdering someone would be ending a life that has already begun. Most people who get abortions have the same view. The moral of this generation is changing due to x amount of things that can't even begin to be pinpointed. If abortion became illegal there would be plenty of women taking desperate actions that could harm themself and the baby if they attempt it too late in the pregnancy. You can't make laws people don't believe in, look at the prohibition. It was illegal to drink but there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that was stopping anyone. Make abortions illegal and all you have is dangerous black market abortions. Society gonna continue to get crappy and not because of abortion, because of TV and video games and bad role models like Justin Bieber.
Life does start at the womb after the brain becomes active around the 22nd week. It does not, however, start at conception.
Let me guess, you are also going to say that it is only a "potential to be a human"
sigh
There is no such thing as "potential" only "beginning of life". And you had to accept that.
People don't see human life as disposable because of abortion.
Not in a conscious state.
But if you take it in a philosophical point of view. A baby is the purest form of humanity. Free from sin of the world. If you have the stomach to declare it as something not human, then I see no unbiased reason why "someone" will be of value to you.
I would not see it as the disposable of a life but rather the prevention of it. Where as murdering someone would be ending a life that has already begun.
Exactly what I meant. You degraded the very essence of purity and called it "mere potential". I cannot stomach such sickness where you can kill a baby whos only sin is to be born while you will go against execution of criminals
The moral of this generation is changing due to x amount of things that can't even begin to be pinpointed
Cant even be pinpointed or you are denying the source?
If abortion became illegal there would be plenty of women taking desperate actions that could harm themself and the baby if they attempt it too late in the pregnancy
I can see the need, I cannot see the righteousness.
You can't make laws people don't believe in, look at the prohibition
Aye, but I can stand for what is the truth. And doesnt mean its legal, doesnt mean its moral
Make abortions illegal and all you have is dangerous black market abortions. Society gonna continue to get crappy and not because of abortion, because of TV and video games and bad role models like Justin Bieber.
The inability to stop the trade is not an excuse to promote immorality.
Since I can't bold I'll use numbers to address each point
1. Call it however you want but the stem cells in the womb before that all important week is not living and it doesn't care that it's being aborted. It's not being mirdered. It's not losing life it's never getting it. There is potential life and that's what thi is. If you don't want to accept facts and still think the baby has hurt feelings over this I can't really say much to change your mind.
2. I'm NOT declaring a baby not human. Stem cells are not human, they're not a baby, they have no brain. I do however consider humans to be humans because well, they are. You are the one looking at this philosophically by calling it a baby. Scientifically it's not. It's cells. The cells could become anything but naturally become a baby. If directed they could become a liver so stop calling it a baby.
3. You're still acting with belief stem cells are a baby what can I say. Also, who cares about sin? I may be an atheist but look, if it's a "sin" to have an abortion THEN DON'T HAVE ONE. But some people AKA a lot of people don't subscribe to your beliefs and shouldn't be subjected to them. Separation of church and state. Mormons dot believe in drinking alcohol but hey! It's not illegal to drink alcohol. If you're only argument is religious and belief base with no science then you have no basis to push your belief system on the rest of Americans.
4. Umm I said can't even be pinpointed so I'm hmm 101% sure I meant can't even be pinpointed. Later I have some examples of contributors but there are a huge amount of contributing factors and abortion is probably not one of them at least to the mass public. Maybe to some religious people but generally people view it as science. You can't scientifically make a human not a human but you can scientifically look at a fetus as not a human because it's just a pocket of cells. I'm not gonna reason myself into murder is my point, reasonable abortion on the other hand-totally possible.
5. Separation of church and state. Church also means beliefs. You may believe it's immoral but in every factual and scientific way it's not so either prove something or protest by not getting abortions.
I compressed your message and argued them accordingly. If you dont mind
Call it however you want but the stem cells in the womb before that all important week is not living and it doesn't care that it's being aborted.I'm NOT declaring a baby not human. Stem cells are not human, they're not a baby, they have no brain. I do however consider humans to be humans because well, they are. It's cells. The cells could become anything but naturally become a baby. If directed they could become a liver so stop calling it a baby
I remembered you wanted me to prove it using science, right? very well then. According to biology, the characteristics of a living creature are as follows:
Living things are made of cells.
Living things obtain and use energy.
Living things grow and develop.
Living things reproduce.
Living things respond to their environment.
Living things adapt to their environment.
A fetus is composed of a single cell who learned how to obtain energy, use it to grow develop and reproduce itself in order. It knows how to respond and adapt to their environment. Did I mentioned that doctors all agree that life begins at conception?
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." -Dr. Jerome Lejeune (The Father of modern Genetics)
Science has always stand against abortion. It is funny how all those who supports abortion has already been born
I do however consider humans to be humans because well, they are. You are the one looking at this philosophically by calling it a baby. You're still acting with belief stem cells are a baby what can I say.Separation of church and state. Church also means beliefs. You may believe it's immoral but in every factual and scientific way it's not so either prove something or protest by not getting abortions.
You do not need Religion to be Moral. But it takes Morals to be called a Human. Different cultures has different definition of what is acceptable and what is not. But there is only one rule for morality and that is the golden rule: "Do not do to others what you do not want others to do unto you"
Under that rule, you are not only killing a fellow brother. But you are also branding him as something that is not human. Just as what the saying goes
"Throughout history, mankind has always invented lies to pretend that they are different from their brothers and escape the guilt of their sin. Once it was the whites to the blacks, today is the mother to her child" -Anonymous
Right from the start, the people who voted for abortion has already been doomed to be proven wrong. It is up to you to either deny it or accept the truth
I didn't think this needed clarification but, when I say "living" or "alive" I'm not using those words in a way you would call a plant alive. Unless you want to stop the cutting down of "living" trees and stop the killing of "living" completely then act like you know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about consciousness, see my vegetative state argument (see how we've come full circle in this debate. Also your "doctors all agree" link didn't work so I can't properly argue whatever it said
Also I really wouldn't care if I was aborted because I wouldn't have known I. For the "throughout history" quote I think every rational person knows these are different circumstances. Scientifically colored people are not inferior to whites but whites made up logic to make it so. Yet scientifically fetuses are not actual people with actual thoughts yet and you can't murder what isn't dead.
As for the last paragraph I could say the same to you, accept that a fetus isn't a human yet or deny it.
Sorry for the late reply, I debated with some other folks
I didn't think this needed clarification but, when I say "living" or "alive" I'm not using those words in a way you would call a plant alive.
It makes no difference. We are all still classified as creatures who knows how to eat, breath, live and reproduce. In fact, even the smallest bacteria shows conciousnes in our own ways.
The only thing that differs us is our ranks in the food chain. Where in you deny that a fetus is not a human.
Also I really wouldn't care if I was aborted because I wouldn't have known I.
Its just the same as saying: "I dont care if I were executed for a crime I did not commit as long as it is painless"
You had the luxury of a fancy death, but in the end, you allow immorality and injustice to win
Also your "doctors all agree" link didn't work so I can't properly argue whatever it said. Scientifically colored people are not inferior to whites but whites made up logic to make it so. Yet scientifically fetuses are not actual people with actual thoughts yet and you can't murder what isn't dead.
Search for "When does Life begin?"
Science has abandoned you. Your ways of denials disgust me.
Right now I'm talking about whether or not the child is alive before it's brain is formed enough to be active. Refer to my vegetative state argument before you argue. No one pro-life has addressed this argument so far with logical and/or scientific support.
If the baby isn't living yet it has no rights. Including the right to life.
If I was aborted I wouldn't give a s* because I wouldn't exist. I'm trying to make this a logical, scientific debate which pro-lifers seem to be struggling with.
Due to separation of church and state I really don't know what my or anyone else's beliefs have to do with abortion laws. It should be a matter of science not faith. But to let you know I am an atheist.
Absolutely! I also think it's very interesting that people believe religion tells them abortion is wrong. For Jewish and Christian people, the Torah and Bible equate a fetus to a thing, not a person, and Judaism says not only is abortion necessary sometimes, when it will risk the mother's physical or mental health, or put her in an excessively rough place financially, but sometimes it's a DUTY! As for Christianity, the Catholic church did not feel that life began before "quickening", or fetal movement, the last hundred years or so, when they changed their position. But for a thousand years before that, abortion was not considered a bad thing. Most religions feel (historically, before people couldn't mind their own damn business) that the choices of the already-born woman come before the choices of an unborn fetus.
I didn't know about all of this but it is indeed interesting! Thank you :)
And I also find it funny how murder is a sin yet whole wars are created due to religion and the soldiers can come home and be washed clean of their sin. So you can murder thousands of people for worshipping a different god and it's all good as long as you go to confession but if you prevent one pocket of stem cells from becoming a conscious child all of the sudden it's "straight to hell for you". I'm fine with people being religious and having faith but the moment you try to interfere with the lives of others based on your contradicting beliefs I'm gonna have to say something
I believe that there are times when abortion can be considered as a justified option (rape, incest, or threat of the mothers life). But aside from those situations i am against abortion. I have a friend who was comforting a friend of hers who had just found out she had gotten an STD. My friend told her that it could have been more serious such as getting pregnant, but her friend retorted that pregnancy are easier to get rid of. I think that is a scary mindset of have. To treat abortions like common occurrences. No matter what situation it occurs in, an abortion is a tragic occurrence. It should not be used as plan B for people who made bad choices. We can argue forever about what moment life begins, but lets be honest, we all know what that zygote is going to turn into. a kid. You are stopping the natural process of life.
And as for doing it in the name of women's rights, have you ever heard of sex selective abortions. That is when a baby is aborted solely because it is a female and the parents want a boy. Aside from the obivous civil issues with that, in countries where this has become more mainstream, there is a huge imbalance between the genders with is not a good sign for the future generations.
Pro-choice people like myself do not like abortions. Please don't be confused. They are not a thing to be taken lightly. Yet they should not be illegal. And it's not just people who make bad choices, condoms fail, birth control fails. And I argue so strongly when life begins because it's the difference between murder and pulling out some stem cells from an unwilling incubator. I'll stop the natural process of life all I want because in the end if no one is harmed (not the mother, and there's no child to e harmed) then there is no immoral wrongdoing. Every egg in me could turn into a kid and that zygote could turn into a kid. They all could but in the end the mother can choose to use birth control to stop an egg from living and she can choose to use abortion to stop the zygote from living. You're protecting someone who isn't even alive yet over the interests of the mother who is. And why? Because all women who wan abortions are white trash idiots who get 10 a year and just don't like condoms? I don't know what you imagine these women to be like but they are perfectly normal smart women in many cases who just happen to have either made a bad decision or their protection failed. If you've never made a bad decision go ahead and judge but otherwise keep it to science.
As for sex selective abortions that is a WHOLE other argument. Personally that sounds completely wrong and abuse of the surgery but if it's before the 22nd week it's not murder. There's also DNA designers who can adjust the DNA of the baby to be whatever you like, gender, eye color, hair color, etc. This is bad too but the technology could also be used to prevent Down syndrome and other debilitations that many struggle their whole life with. Most things are good but people will find a way to abuse them anyway, it's how humans work. And in countries like china they would kill their baby if it turned out to be the wrong gender because of the one baby rule. In the womb or out it's horrible but at least it's painless in the womb. And if countries have a problem with an unbalanced gender population and have trouble keeping the population up that might not be so bad seeing as the world is overcrowded and reaching carrying capacity anyhow. In the end the populations will balance theirselves out to survive but if reproduction decreases for a few decades it's not the worst thing in the world
I am against abortion because I respect life, particularly human life deeply and out of compassion not because I believe a 2000-3500 year old book to be the word of God.
Pro-life is not neccesarily motivated by religion it can just be from ethics.
Babies are viable by 20 weeks, so Roe V. Wade is completely inhumane anyway. Also, most abortions are not due to medical necessity, they're most often due to selfishness, and the unwillingness to carry and allow the baby to be adopted.