@Rebeca I am sorry I phrased my comment badly and for the lack of information.

You can take emergency contraception after you have been raped in order to drastically reduce the chances of you being pregnant as result of the attack.

Of course, I appreciate that when someone has been sexually assaulted they may not be in the physical and/or mental state to do such things. Nor do some hospital provide the service. Nor do all hospitals provide this service and so abortion, as I've said before may be the only option.

However, when it comes to statistics 2% of abortions are due to those who have been raped.

@Powerless
1) You have not read my comments at all. Quote me where I said a fertilized egg has human rights. I did, however, say a fetus has human rights, which occurs past conception. A fetus has the major body organs, in my opinion, that is enough...

2) Chickens, cows, dogs don't have abortions. Do not know where you got that information from.

3) Again, you have no read my comments. At no point have I talked about animal pregnancy. What I said is how can we as a society say a fetus has no rights in whether it has the chance to live or not while there are animals like dogs and cats, who are not human but still have the right to live.

@Auri is Life, I've read all of your comments.

You stated: "I am asking on what moral ground is it okay to terminate another's life." This is assuming that terminating a pregnancy is ending a human being's life. Therefore you're equating a fertilized egg, embryo, fetus, or anything pre-birth as a human being.

You stated: "Just because you are not fully developed, does not mean you can disregard its right." This is saying that an undeveloped human has rights, which because it is an undeveloped human, I read as you saying has the rights of a human.

In the post I quoted above though, you say that fetuses have the rights of a human being. The term "fetus" is typically used around 9 weeks after fertilization although the development process between the embryonic stages and fetal stages are a blurry area where certain features may or may not be present depending on many factors. Regardless, the embryo/fetus isn't even an inch long yet nor can it come close to feeling pain.

So I guess I'll rephrase my question - why do fetuses, even at this early stage, deserve the rights of full human beings?
Ignore my comments about animals as I think I just phrased my argument poorly and at this point it really doesn't matter.

Regarding your statements to @Rebeca though, I have some more questions.
If you claim that fetuses have the rights that full developed human beings have, then why are rape and the health of the mother exceptions? Even in these cases, based on your claim, you'd still be committing murder of an innocent person to help salvage the health of another. With this argument, you're not only claiming that murder is then justifiable, but you're also claiming that the adult woman's life is valued more than the person inside of her. This seems to contradict your own argument since you claim that a fetus has the right of a human being, like the mother. If that were true, then why would you not let nature run it's course and allow the birth/development of the baby even at risk to the mother?

@Powerless

1) Consider this scenario: Male is called M and Female is called F

M comes home one day and beats his pregnant wife. As a result of M's attack, F's baby is killed. In this situation, M can be prosecuted for the murder of the fetus and the assault of the women. If it had survived but the fetus' development was impacted by the attack, it would be double assault.

Under the law, the fetus is considered equal to the woman and has basic human right, though it has not developed into a full baby yet. Also, note double assault. The fetus is a separate entity and not one with the mother, which is how most people justify abortion, and how its a woman's right.
That is why the fetus should have human rights and why abortion is immoral

2) Contradiction happens all the time. Killing is not okay, it's immoral. However, in self-defence or in the Army killing is pardoned. You see? I cannot vouch for women who have been raped or even imagine the things they go through. Being raped without the added consequence of pregnancy is bad enough, something women their entire will go through processing and recovering from if they do that is. Now add the pregnancy to the equation and the already distress and the chance of miscarriage is a lot higher. Under no circumstance will I ever deny these people abortion. It may be a contradiction, but like my example, they happen all the time.   

"Let nature take its course" - we would not be here talking about abortion if nature had its say. Also, saving the mother is the what the doctors will always do. I have no control over it and will not argue against it, tough enough being a doctor as it is. Above that, if a mother does die then the fetus is in life threating danger so it would be logical to save the mother first and then try and save the fetus.

@Powerless

1) Consider this scenario: Male is called M and Female is called F

M comes home one day and beats his pregnant wife. As a result of M's attack, F's baby is killed. In this situation, M can be prosecuted for the murder of the fetus and the assault of the women. If it had survived but the fetus' development was impacted by the attack, it would be double assault.

Under the law, the fetus is considered equal to the woman and has basic human right, though it has not developed into a full baby yet. Also, note double assault. The fetus is a separate entity and not one with the mother, which is how most people justify abortion, and how its a woman's right.
That is why the fetus should have human rights and why abortion is immoral

2) Contradiction happens all the time. Killing is not okay, it's immoral. However, in self-defence or in the Army killing is pardoned. You see? I cannot vouch for women who have been raped or even imagine the things they go through. Being raped without the added consequence of pregnancy is bad enough, something women their entire will go through processing and recovering from if they do that is. Now add the pregnancy to the equation and the already distress and the chance of miscarriage is a lot higher. Under no circumstance will I ever deny these people abortion. It may be a contradiction, but like my example, they happen all the time.   

"Let nature take its course" - we would not be here talking about abortion if nature had its say. Also, saving the mother is the what the doctors will always do. I have no control over it and will not argue against it, tough enough being a doctor as it is. Above that, if a mother does die then the fetus is in life threating danger so it would be logical to save the mother first and then try and save the fetus.

@Auri is Life - Your entire first argument is using the law to justify what is moral or immoral. The law can be changed. Many can see the law as wrong. Many laws can be argued as immoral or unjust in and of themselves. Using manmade law to determine what is moral or immoral just isn't a valid way of justifying morality. I'm looking for some logical or philosophical way of justifying why a fetus deserves the same rights as a developed human being. If not that, then when does "personhood" begin, like I mentioned in the initial post, since acquiring personhood grants human rights?

What you're claiming as contradictions aren't contradictions. They're logical fallacies or, as I pointed out above, you're using the law to determine morality. "Killing is not okay, it's immoral" and then pointing out how you're pardoned for killing in the army doesn't "contradict" the claim that killing is immoral, it just shows that the law allows murder during war. The law says nothing about the morality of it.

But back to abortion... I'm still just trying to hear some justification as to why a fetus deserves to be treated with the same rights as a developed human being. This is one reason why I am pro-choice, because I have yet to hear a convincing logical/philosophical argument as to why they should be treated equally.

@Powerless
1) Want something philosophical?
Modernity has killed any sense of morality.

2) You asked why should we give a fetus its rights.
Law does change, hence why it legal to have an abortion. But we still class it as a person when in court. Therefore it has basic rights. How killing a fetus has become a sense of emancipation I do not know.

3) I have absolutely no care if you think its moral or not because you can't see the forest for its tree. Nothing will change your mind because of that. I can do nothing more for you, dear.

4) I have played Devil's Advocate for the sake of discussion and not once has anyone give me an example of how abortion is moral or one the remotely well thought out.

But you can try if you want.

1) Consider this scenario: Male is called M and Female is called F

M comes home one day and beats his pregnant wife. As a result of M's attack, F's baby is killed. In this situation, M can be prosecuted for the murder of the fetus and the assault of the women. If it had survived but the fetus' development was impacted by the attack, it would be double assault.

Under the law, the fetus is considered equal to the woman and has basic human right, though it has not developed into a full baby yet. Also, note double assault. The fetus is a separate entity and not one with the mother, which is how most people justify abortion, and how its a woman's right.
That is why the fetus should have human rights and why abortion is immoral

I don't know about the law in your country, but e.g. here (Sweden) you cannot be prosecuted for murder on a fetus. By your law, though, shouldn't every miscarriage be investigated to determine if the mother (or someone else) was responsible, in similarity to how the death of any child is treated?

My view is pretty simple, it should be the womans choice, it shouldn't be for others to say what she can/can't do.

As for rapists, they should be castrated, then do life in prison, probably in a dungeon.

@Powerless
1) Want something philosophical?
Modernity has killed any sense of morality.

2) You asked why should we give a fetus its rights.
Law does change, hence why it legal to have an abortion. But we still class it as a person when in court. Therefore it has basic rights. How killing a fetus has become a sense of emancipation I do not know.

3) I have absolutely no care if you think its moral or not because you can't see the forest for its tree. Nothing will change your mind because of that. I can do nothing more for you, dear.

4) I have played Devil's Advocate for the sake of discussion and not once has anyone give me an example of how abortion is moral or one the remotely well thought out.

But you can try if you want.

You still have not given me a single bit of evidence or any argument defending your viewpoint. If you don't want one, that's fine, but claims without evidence don't do much.

The core question that comes to fruition with the abortion debate is what determines what stage of development constitutes having human rights.
There are multiple criteria that can be looked at for what determines "personhood" and those are what need to be examined first.

1) Shared genetic information - One argument for why fertilized eggs, embryos, fetuses, etc. should be treated as humans is because they share the genetic code of an adult human being. If the genetic code of the entity matches that of a human adult, then it should be treated as such. The flaw in this argument is that there are multiple cells that contain the genetic code of an adult human being. Your skin cells contain your genetic code, but nobody would advocate for their treatment as human beings, otherwise any time we shed our skin we'd be committing mass murder. While this sounds obtuse and exaggerated, it accurately portrays the point that genetic information =/= personhood.

2) Potential for life - Another argument is that if something has the potential for human life, then it should be treated as a human being, such as the potential for life behind a fertilized egg, embryo, fetus, etc. There are two main problems for this point. 1) If the "potential for human life" constitutes personhood, then we should be treating eggs and sperm as human beings as well. This would make any form of contraceptive murder and anytime an ejaculation takes place without the intent of impregnating we'd be committing mass murder as well. 2) This argument doesn't take into consideration the fact that just because something has potential for human life doesn't mean it will become a human life, especially since it is not self-sustaining.

3) Human instinct - Although human instinct doesn't necessarily deem what is right or wrong, it does give us a look at what we deem as important. If you were standing in a laboratory setting that was on fire with a lab technician in one corner and a cart full of 1,000 embryos being prepared for IVF in the other, which would you save? Instinctively, you'd save the lab technician, since we generally see this as the better choice. This hints that our instinct views a fully developed human being as more important than 1,000 embryos. In other words, 1,000 human embryos =/= 1 full developed human life.

4) No consensus among scientists - There's no scientific evidence to determine when personhood begins, which leaves a lot up to personal belief and interpretation. Scientific evidence is overwhelming though to argue that personhood most definitely does not begin at conception. And although personhood, according to scientists, is much up to interpretation based on your evaluation of scientific evidence, in order to have an informed opinion on development, one must be familiar with the developmental process.

5) Rights vs. Respect - Just because I don't believe that fertilized eggs, embryos, or fetuses deserve the rights of fully developed humans does not mean that they do not deserve a type of respect. Take the American Flag for example. In America, there is a sense of respect for the flag. We aren't supposed to let it touch the ground, burning it is heavily frowned upon my intense patriotic people, it's folded in a certain way, we stand and commemorate it, etc, but this does not mean that it has rights. The same goes for eggs/embryos/fetuses. While they don't deserve rights, they do deserve a sense of respect given what they are.

Another aspect of the debate is just based around logic, scenarios, and individual liberties.

5) Woman's body, woman's right - Many pro-life advocates claim that this argument is invalid because "it is not her body." But again, this is simply not true since there is no clear consensus as to when that fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus becomes an independent entity. Much of what this argument is demonstrating is that a woman has their right to choose because it, being her reproductive system, is her body and she has the right to use it as she pleases. Regulating abortion is regulating the reproductive system of women. We could also put this into context of the egg/embryo/fetus as well in the sense that these entities cannot live independently from the mother outside of the womb and can therefore be treated as a type of parasite (I don't mean this in a negative, demeaning sense, but by the literal interpretation of what a parasite is).

6) "Morality" of pro-life - The pro-life position claims that it is immoral to terminate a pregnancy for many reasons we've already discussed but they don't take into consideration the morality of the situation that the child, parent(s), and family would be involved with if the pregnancy was carried out to term. A pregnancy can result in serious physical and mental harm to the mother. A pregnancy can result in a child being born to a mother or to parents that are in no position to take care of or look after a child, leaving the child to be ignored, malnourished, and neglected, causing permeant damage to the child. The pregnancy could damage the quality of life of both the child and the mother because of the timing of the birth. Children who are born should be wanted to receive the proper love and care from their parents.

7) Other info - Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces maternal injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions. Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. Reproductive choice protects women from financial disadvantage. Unwanted children resulting in unplanned pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding. Nearly all abortions (90%+) take place within the first trimester where many of the characteristics for what deem a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus a "person" don't exist yet.

These are just some of my arguments for the topic. The point it, it is not a settled science. There are multiple philosophical angles, logical trains of thinking, and scientific evidence that one can look at to explain how life doesn't begin at conception, that fertilized eggs/embryos/fetuses do not classify as a "person." Because it is not settled, the pro-choice position allows for women to make those calls for themselves so that they can do what's best for them. Just because you think it is immoral doesn't mean that a woman who wants an abortion thinks that it is. If you think it is immoral, don't have an abortion, but do not force others with different viewpoints with clear logical, philosophical, and scientific backing to adhere to your viewpoint.

@Powerless
I don't understand. Claims without evidence... I gave you a real-life scenario in which a fetus by law is acknowledged as a separate entity with rights. Just because I placed no names does not mean it did not happen.

1) Cornified cells like skin have a nuclei so it devlops properly. After this is done it destroys it self to make space for protein. This makes the cell to die, however, still providing support and warmth. This is why you can scrub away dead skin or be fun when you get a cut.

2) To disregard a fetus' right because it's not self-sustaining is not a valid point at all. Children out of the womb are not self-sustaining, most teenagers are not self-sustaining. To some extent, even some adults still sustain off their parents. So by your conclusions, these people are not worthy of humans rights. We are not self-sustaining animals.
Also, when you say "potential" to become a human, what are you implying? I assume you mean in the case of miscarriage. To that, I say we mourn it as if we have lost the life of a human life.


3) What you save first does not show value or importance. What if you place a woman and a man in a corner and choose to save the woman, is the man not important? It all comes down to the situation. What if the person who was doing the saving was also going through the IVF procedure and knew their potential child was on that cart. For a mother or potential mother its instinct to protect her child no matter the cost.

4) Agree, it all comes down to interpretation. Hence why this debate is so subjective.

5) Your right vs respect arguments lacks a conclusion. What sort of respect do you mean in terms of the fetus? And what do you mean by "for what it is"?

6) A newly born child relies on the woman to breastfeed. Does that mean the women has ownership of the child? Can she kill that child as it still relies on her for food? No. So it does not matter if it's inside or outside the body, the point still stands that a fetus is not part of a women's body, it just happens to grow inside it. No one has asked when a woman's body is expected but when the baby is expected.

7) In a perfect world, all children will recieve love and care. However, even planned pregnancies can lead to children being neglected, abused or abandoned. Nor is the man and women alone in pregnancy or when looking after a child. We are lucky as a society that there are charities and government programmes to help raise children.

At no point will I ever say it should be illegal. I rather someone have an abortion in a clinic than use a coat hanger and kill the fetus and themselves. I simply believe it to be immoral.

That was a claim without evidence. Again, you're using the law to defend morality and when "personhood" is, which I've said over and over is not a valid argument because many laws that are in place now could be debated as immoral (death penalty, three strikes law, non-violent drug conviction punishments, etc.) and the law isn't a defense of a position on when "personhood" begins. It's simply just a law that we have in place from whenever it was implimented or it's a law that was interpreted in a way that brought about this outcome. I'm not sure of what exact case you're referencing, but it's irrelavent to the philosophical position on morality and personhood. Stating a scenario that took place in our criminal justice system does nothing to give evidence for why a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus should be treated as a full developed human... it only states that it was treated as such in that one instance, which is not an explanation as to why or a defense for why.

As it comes to the list, you're not understanding the points that I'm trying to make here. I'm going through many different arguments and positions that people take in order to justify why fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses should be treated as developed humans.

1) One case is that the genetic information of the egg/embryo/fetus is that of a human and therefore should be treated as such. I broke down why that argument is invalid. All you did was reiterate my point. I'm not saying this is the position you're taking, but I'm going through positions I've heard and could think of and giving my take on why they're wrong.

2) You're misunderstanding my use of the phrase "self-sustaining." Self-sustaining, in my explanation, is referring to the fact that the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is not able to live seperate of the host that it's living off of (again, using a parasite reference). A newborn, a child, a teenager, and an adult are all self-sustaining in this sense. Of course children/teens are taken care of by their parents when they grow up, but they can just as well be taken care of by other parents, by the government programs you mentioned later on (as bad as they are), or even live on their own if they were competent enough. They don't need their "host" to survive like an egg/embryo/fetus.

3) You're misunderstanding again. No where did I claim that the other wasn't important, but rather that they're not human. If a person were to be in the situation I described, in a room with a man in one corner and a cart full of 1,000 embryos in the other (and this person has no intrinsict biases such as knowing the person, partaking in IVF themselves, etc.) the person is going to save the man because our instinct values a single developed human life over 1,000 embryos. This hints that our instinct does not view embryos as persons because we chose to save the man rather than 1,000 "people." This does not say that the 1,000 embryos aren't important or don't deserve respect (as I talked about in another point) but as I said, it shows that 1,000 embryos =/= 1 developed human.

The man and the woman scenario isn't a valid description of anything to do with this discussion. Here you're talking about importance or chance. The scenario is 1 person to 1 person in each corner and you don't know either. Maybe you save the woman, maybe you save the man, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the other is a person or not. The reason I used 1,000 embryos in my scenario was to show that even with 1,000, we still value a fully developed human life more.

The person going through IVF treatment in the scenario again is irrelevant to the discussion as they show intrinsic bias toward "their potential child" as you said. I'd argue that this just comes down to an evolutionary instinct. But again, this is a biased scenario where the two things needing saved aren't looked at for what they are, just 1,000 embryos and just 1 person. (I'd still argue that the person going through IVF would choose the person and not the embryos, but meh.)

4) *thumbs up* I'm 100% OK with this statement from you because you said later on that you would not make abortion illegal because you understand that people view abortion in different ways since there's no set science on it.

5) By the respect argument I'm just saying that although I don't see these entities (egg, embryo, fetus) as deserving the status of full personhood, they deserve a type of respect that we don't give just random objects. I used the American flag for an example. It as a flag has no moral significance, no intrinsic value, etc. yet we still give it respect and value based on what it symbolizes. I'd draw this in comparison to how we should treat eggs/embryos/fetuses. Just because they don't deserve full personhood/human status doesn't mean that we should treat them with respect.

6) The breastfeeding example is a false equivalency of "self-sustaining" that I talked about early. The child does not need the mother to breastfeed. The child could use a bottle, be taken care of by another man, be taken care of my another mother, etc. It does not need a host to live off of like a egg/embryo/fetus.

7) Just because planned pregnancies can lead to this stuff doesn't mean anything. They're planned. The parents want the children. They prepared to take care of and nurture them and anything resulting is out of their control or due to their incompetence. Of course crap happens and children can be neglected, abused, and abandoned, but if we know that these things are more likely or that we know the parent(s) can't take care of a child, then why force them to carry out a pregnancy to term/

I also think it's very naïve to think that society, charities, and government programs "help raise children." I'd again argue the morality point I made earlier in that pro-life advocates seem to care about "life" in the sense of bringing a baby to term but don't seem as concerned with the life of the child after it's been born. Having a child brought into foster care, moving from place to place with no parents or moving from home to home with different parents is not a proper way for a child to live.

Personally I am of a "split opinion" when it comes to this. In most cases, I'd say that abortion is wrong and should not be done, as this is a life we are talking about. It might not look like a human when the abortion is done, but in my opinion, it is still a life... which in pretty much every way makes the whole thing a murder. There is also the issue to consider "When can a fetus be considered a human being?"... In my opinion, abortion is kinda okay until the point when the heart starts to beat, but not after that.

When it comes to religion, there is a bit of a difficulty, I agree with the view of many religions that the parents should not have unprotected sex unless they are ready to become parents, simple as that. However, I also think that the parents should have a choice to do it if it happened "by accident".

The one time I would consider abortion okay would be if the woman has been raped and become pregnant that way, but that would be the only time I would ever say "Do it".

So, short story... Depends on the situation.

@Powerless

I know you made arguments about why people believe the fetus should have rights. But you also give your own opinion beneath them. That is what I am responding to.

1) your point about the Human Genome did not invalidate anything. Yes, no one would argue the for skin cell independence, this is because skin cells are not individual, its part of our genome not separated from it. I'll admit I do not understand the point you made, the part about skin cells threw me off and I can't wrap my head are how absurd it is. I'm sorry, but you going to have to clarify in better detail.

2) My point still stands. Okay, so the biological mother may not be taking care if it but if someone is then the argument still applies. It's not self-sustaining, it may drink someone else's breastmilk, it does not matter who takes care of it, but that someone does. Though I do like that point on the fetus not being able to survive without the host. Hard to argue against You'll be interested to know that there are science advancements that are taking place where they are recreating an artificial uterus. The impact of this, I guess is still unknown.

3) I'll give you that my point was really bad. However, you are implying that given the situation the human will be saved 100% of the time. I admit the majority of people will, but I would also bet that some would have saved the embryos. It like that question do you save 1 and let 100 dies or save 100 and let 1 die. It all depends on what people have been through. Of course, those of public service would save the man first. I have no idea what a technician at the lab would do. This is a tough argument. One that can easily be able to agree and disagree on.

4) Guess we both agree.

5) Okay, I do like this point. The issue is that when the woman wants the baby then as a society we accept it as if it was a developed human. This is why I bring up law. But when the woman does not want it then the fetus is regarded as nothing. This is the big issue I have.

6) I agree. But if we look at it scientifically, even with unplanned parenthood the women go through a biological change in that we see an increase in hormones that can change her as in she becomes more caring and nurturing in time for the child. The shows the perhaps that abortion is unnatural and goes against the natural order. However, society and culture also play an effect to what extent we follow science and nature.

7) It's unfair to assume that pro-life do not care about the child beyond birth. The issue of poverty, abuse, child neglect is an issue that needs to be looked at on its own, rather than being a branch of another subject.
Also, there are pro-choice who believe a woman has every right to drink or smoke while pregnant even though it stunts development and how it causes major health problems for the child. Neither side is perfect.

Maybe help raise children was the wrong phrase but you would be surprised how much aid there is and what you are entitled to as a parent.
Things like maternity leave and pay, shared perentaly leave and pay, maternity allowance, the list goes on. These aids are there from the time you are preganant and when the child goes to school.

Also you cannot disregard the law or justice system in this arguement because its the centre of our society and everything we do is revolved around it. Sure it may of flaws but does not mean its invalid as an argument. Nothing is every black or white. There needs to be a legitimate debate when it comes to the law.

Just my two pennys.

I've read a lot of this topic (Not everything sorry) and I do apologise if this has been brought up but.

Say two people are in a relationship, Women gets pregnant and relationship ends.

She decided to have an abortion for reasons XYZ but man wanted to keep the baby.

What then?

is it still a case of my body my choice?

Why then does the women have the power over life and death?

Reason I ask is because it happened to a friend of mine - he didn't consent to the abortion but alas it went ahead and he couldnt do anything about it because well, he isn't carrying it.

@Powerless

I know you made arguments about why people believe the fetus should have rights. But you also give your own opinion beneath them. That is what I am responding to.

1) your point about the Human Genome did not invalidate anything. Yes, no one would argue the for skin cell independence, this is because skin cells are not individual, its part of our genome not separated from it. I'll admit I do not understand the point you made, the part about skin cells threw me off and I can't wrap my head are how absurd it is. I'm sorry, but you going to have to clarify in better detail.

2) My point still stands. Okay, so the biological mother may not be taking care if it but if someone is then the argument still applies. It's not self-sustaining, it may drink someone else's breastmilk, it does not matter who takes care of it, but that someone does. Though I do like that point on the fetus not being able to survive without the host. Hard to argue against You'll be interested to know that there are science advancements that are taking place where they are recreating an artificial uterus. The impact of this, I guess is still unknown.

3) I'll give you that my point was really bad. However, you are implying that given the situation the human will be saved 100% of the time. I admit the majority of people will, but I would also bet that some would have saved the embryos. It like that question do you save 1 and let 100 dies or save 100 and let 1 die. It all depends on what people have been through. Of course, those of public service would save the man first. I have no idea what a technician at the lab would do. This is a tough argument. One that can easily be able to agree and disagree on.

4) Guess we both agree.

5) Okay, I do like this point. The issue is that when the woman wants the baby then as a society we accept it as if it was a developed human. This is why I bring up law. But when the woman does not want it then the fetus is regarded as nothing. This is the big issue I have.

6) I agree. But if we look at it scientifically, even with unplanned parenthood the women go through a biological change in that we see an increase in hormones that can change her as in she becomes more caring and nurturing in time for the child. The shows the perhaps that abortion is unnatural and goes against the natural order. However, society and culture also play an effect to what extent we follow science and nature.

7) It's unfair to assume that pro-life do not care about the child beyond birth. The issue of poverty, abuse, child neglect is an issue that needs to be looked at on its own, rather than being a branch of another subject.
Also, there are pro-choice who believe a woman has every right to drink or smoke while pregnant even though it stunts development and how it causes major health problems for the child. Neither side is perfect.

Maybe help raise children was the wrong phrase but you would be surprised how much aid there is and what you are entitled to as a parent.
Things like maternity leave and pay, shared perentaly leave and pay, maternity allowance, the list goes on. These aids are there from the time you are preganant and when the child goes to school.

Also you cannot disregard the law or justice system in this arguement because its the centre of our society and everything we do is revolved around it. Sure it may of flaws but does not mean its invalid as an argument. Nothing is every black or white. There needs to be a legitimate debate when it comes to the law.

1) I'll restate my point and hopefully it'll make more sense. One way that some pro-life advocates claim that a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is a "person" is because they have the genetic makeup of a human being. Because they have the chromosomes/DNA of a human being, they should be treated as an individual human being. My response to that is that there are individual cells in our body that contain the genetic makeup of a human being as well, such as our skin cells, yet we do not treat these as individual human beings. Therefore, if we do not treat skin cells as individual human beings, even though they have the genetic makeup of a human, then we can't assume that because a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus has the genetic makeup of a human being that they should be granted personhood.

2) You're only continuing to use the term "self-sustaining" in the sense that I clearly said I did not mean. Again I will say that by self-sustaining I mean that the individual entity, in this case a child, teenager, or adult, has the bodily capibility to survive on its own. It is able to move its mouth in a way to eat. It has the ability to digest food and water. It is able to produce it's own proteins and hormones. It's able to create its own antibodies. The bodies of children, teenagers, and adults can self-sustain themselves in this way. When it comes to someone else feeding them or giving them food, that is a totally different use of the word "self-sustain" as that can be attributed to incompetence, ignorance, lack of resources, etc. Of course a newborn doesn't have the knowledge/capability of finding its own resources, but again, that's a different use of "self-sustain" then what I'm talking about which is exactly why I used the comparison of a parasite and its host.

3) No where did I say that the person would be chosen over the 1,000 embryos 100% of the time, but I would assume that a rational, mentally well person would. This point was about human instict, not necessarily right or wrong (since it can't be assumed that human instinct is "right" or "wrong"). My point was just to show that our own human instinct values a fully developed person over 1,000 embryos which means that we don't see 1,000 embryos as 1,000 individual people.

6) Of course abortion is "unnatural." No where does anyone claim that it is (besides in the cases of miscarriage). But nearly everything we eat, drink, etc. shouldn't be considered "natural." Humans no longer need to be "natural" in the generic sense.

7) I didn't mean all pro-life advocates, but many seem to be this way that I've debated with in the past. Many are so caught up with the "right to life" when it comes to a birth but are disinterested with the consequences that follow, especially with the statistics I mentioned before that follow unplanned pregnancies. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in some that claim to value the "life" of a person yet disregard many other things that affect peoples' health that could be tied into a load of other hot button political topics (defunding Planned Parenthood, climate change, social programs like welfare and SNAP, etc.). I guess I am making an assumption, but most who fall in the pro-life category typically fall into the conservative side of the political spectrum who advocate for the defunding, disbelief, or disregard for the aformentioned things.

Based on what our debate seemed to start out to be about, I would say that we can disregard the law. The morality and definition of "personhood" seemed to be our main focus, which has nothing to do with the law. Heck, we agree that the law should be that abortion be legal and up to the individual to make the decision that's best for them. If it were about the law, we wouldn't be debating at all.

@Powerless
1) Your point does not make sense. Skin cells begin with having DNA in them so it can form in the first place. But once they have formed it no longer has any DNA as it destroys itself. Most cells contain DNA but that does not mean it uses it all. Only specific parts are used so each part of our body can function properly. The different cells in our body express a fraction of our genes and it represses the other. 

2) A fetus and mother relationship is not at all like a parasite and its host. The role of the placenta is what makes this relationship so dynamic. When a mother is healthy then the placenta will increase the rate it absorbs nutrients but if the mother's health at any point is compromised then the placenta will reduce how much it absorbs for her well being and take only the amount that is needed to develop.
There is also research that shows that a fetus will use its own stem cells to help repair the damage it does to the mother's heart. It may not use its mouth to eat but the fetus is much more than a parasite or some sort of a tumour that many believe it to be.

3) Personally, I do not like the idea of using human instinct is a good form of argument as it is so unpredictable, similar to human rationality. I do see your point though. I would save the man before the embryos too. But my reason is not that I don't see embryos as life but the nature of IVF and ethics. This argument is the equivalent to saving the mother before the fetus I assume. That's something I can agree on.

6) Perhaps you are right here. However, if you stray too far what is natural the line between moral and immoral becomes blurred.

7) An interesting perspective, but also a different debate.

I'm growing tiresome on this point about the law. I will not budge on this point and nor will you. Every time we have argued our side its always been with the same argument. We have to agree to disagree on this. For me, morality and law are so intertwined in our society. For you, it's not.

Honestly, I think I've said everything on the side of how abortion may be considered immoral. I have given this side of the argument because it's important that someone does and that we should always question our selves on issues that are so emotive and that we do not cower away because feeling may get hurt. We can only do great things as a society if we stick to the moral path.

What I have argued does not necessarily reflect my own personal attitudes.

It was fun discussing with you powerless, peace brother