user0987

Saying "human life begins at conception, therefore aborting a fetus is murder", is a non-sequitur. Just because something is human, or when that human life begins, doesn't give any credence to the idea abortion is wrong.

"Killing an innocent life that you helped to create because you are scared of potential health risks is wrong."
-The "innocent life" is not a person, and doesn't have conscious ,and thus, there is no victim, thus saying it's wrong, is merely subjective.

"The baby is not a violator."
-Calling it a "baby", is a false equivalency fallacy, and an appeal to emotion fallacy.

Just because pregnancy can be prevented, doesn't give any credence to the idea that abortion is wrong.

Abortion is does not kill a person, it is not unlawful, and it's not malicious., therefore, abortion is not murder.

No, I'm saying murder is not dependent on when human life beings, therefore, saying it's murder because of that, is fallacious.

Those traits are what distinguish a person from a mere object.

I don't know how to explain it any more simply than that.

No. Murder is the unlawful, killing of a person, with malice. Abortion is not unlawful, it's not killing a person, and it's not malicious. Yes, it would be wise to consider murder as wrong.

If they are incapable of consciousness, then they are not a person. Plants are alive, but they aren't people either.

Consciousness does not develop before the third trimester. It's an abortion if the fetus is terminated before birth. It's murder if it's unlawful, if the fetus is a person, and if it's malicious. No, somebody in a vegetative state is not a person.

There are no babies killed before birth, and if a fetus is killed before birth, then it's an abortion. Once again, it's only murder if it's unlawful, the killing of a person, and malicious. Malicious meaning characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm. No, being lazy is not malicious. Again, killing somebody in a vegetative state is not murder, because that "somebody" is no longer a person, they are merely an object.

"unborn child" is an oxymoron, and an appeal to emotion. It's not a child, it's a fetus, and it's not a person, and thus nobody's rights are being violated, hurt, or being forced to do anything against their will. There is no victim.

Legal rights are irrelevant to whether something should be legal or not, and "normative" rights as you call them, are subjective, and thus irrelevant to the scope of this discussion. No, I have not implied morals are defined by government, and my arguments for abortion are philosophical. The fact that murders of pregnant women can be counted as double murders, only demonstrates the double standards of the law, and thus, does nothing to support the 'right to life' of fetuses. The Supreme court has clearly ruled that the 'right to life' clause in the U.S. Constitution, does not apply to fetuses.

If you stop a pregnancy before birth, it's an abortion, period. I don't know to what extent 3rd trimester fetuses have consciousness, but for sure it's not meaningful consciousness. No, a fetus 1 minute before birth is not the same as a baby. There is a whole host of biological differences between the two. The birthing process kick starts many of the fetus's life support systems, like the respiratory system, the digestive system, immune system, and the fetus is removed from it's natural fetal sedative state. Birth is not the defining moment when a fetus becomes human. Fetuses were always part of the human genus. Embryos, zygotes, sperm were always human. Nothing I've said is inconsistent. Obviously, a coma patient that's expected to recover, is not a vegetable. If you killed a coma patient that was expected to recover, you would be killing a person, which would likely be a violation of that person's will. You can say that's a horrible thing, but I never said that. By the way, this website is for arguments, not a bunch of questions. If you don't have any actual arguments, then with all due respect, you're in the wrong place.

You can assert my opinion is wrong, but unless you can actually demonstrate that claim to be true, it's an unwarranted assertion. The egg, sperm, fetus, etc., of human parents, were never not part of the human species. It's a fetus at conception, not a person, and a garage full of parts, is not a car. Vulnerability does not give any credence to the idea that abortion should be banned.

THIS WEBSITE IS FOR ARGUMENTS, NOT ASKING A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS. If you are having trouble understanding this, then I suggest you go to the library, and take out some books on arguing, reasoning, and logic.

"Abortion is quite obviously murder"
-This is an appeal to self-evident truth fallacy.

The USA has no right to bomb other countries in the name of promoting western influence. If anything, the West is the biggest instigator of hostility in the world, which is the reason the USA was attacked on 9/11.

Nobody can even demonstrate that God exists, and thus, it cannot be demonstrated that God is needed.

People don't seem to understand that eugenics can be used without being forced onto anybody. I don't see anything wrong with it, up until it puts the human species's survival in jeopardy due to the lack of genetic variation.

Obviously.

This only applies to incestual couples that procreate.