So what is the argument for pro-life??

I support abortions under any circumstances and I also support the killing of an infant where there were no facilites of abortion.

My argument has no double standards and neither do the religious people who consider condoms and birth control to be "wrong". But this middle man called "pro-lifer" who happens to use contraception himself is something I cannot understand. You are practically "stopping" an almost certain birth with contraception and so is the case with abortion. Secondly the "person" dying will never know that he didnt live a life, that person has absolutly no responsibilities in society and there is no one dependant on him. He does not even know if he exists lol.

It is the flesh and blood of the parents and they should have the initial right to do whatever the hell they want to do with something their own body "releases". Once they decide to raise a child then that person should begin to have individual rights.

I also find pro-life to be a very sexiest view, I would love to see a world where man bear children and then see what the pro-lifers have to say(I know female's can be pro-life as well but it's mostly male who are pro-life for non-religious reasons).

Note: This thread is not meant to challenge any of the religious doctrines on abortion, this is specifically for those who are against abortion despite not following any dogmatic religious belief.

You are practically "stopping" an almost certain birth with contraception and so is the case with abortion.Gambler_3

I support abortions under any circumstances and I also support the killing of an infant where there were no facilites of abortion.

My argument has no double standards and neither do the religious people who consider condoms and birth control to be "wrong". But this middle man called "pro-lifer" who happens to use contraception himself is something I cannot understand. You are practically "stopping" an almost certain birth with contraception and so is the case with abortion. Secondly the "person" dying will never know that he didnt live a life, that person has absolutly no responsibilities in society and there is no one dependant on him. He does not even know if he exists lol.

It is the flesh and blood of the parents and they should have the initial right to do whatever the hell they want to do with something their own body "releases". Once they decide to raise a child then that person should begin to have individual rights.

I also find pro-life to be a very sexiest view, I would love to see a world where man bear children and then see what the pro-lifers have to say(I know female's can be pro-life as well but it's mostly male who are pro-life for non-religious reasons).

Note: This thread is not meant to challenge any of the religious doctrines on abortion, this is specifically for those who are against abortion despite not following any dogmatic religious belief.

Gambler_3

This argument , I cannot take seriously. You think it is OK to kill an infant, who is a living human being, if the parents wanted but lacked the means to an abortion. 

You then go own to complain about sexism, which means you think that the idea that a certain sex is superior to the other is wrong. 

 To review:

Infanticide? Fine and dandy.

Sexism? Unacceptable. 

That's a very strange progression of civil rights. 

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]You are practically "stopping" an almost certain birth with contraception and so is the case with abortion.ChiliDragon

This argument , I cannot take seriously. You think it is OK to kill an infant, who is a living human being, if the parents wanted but lacked the means to an abortion. 

Frattracide

While technically a living human being, philosophically you can say that for the first few months atleast a baby is not really a human being. It has absolutely no feelings and kiiling it would not disrupt the balance of the universe in any greater way than killing an ant beneath your boots. Heck the ant one might be worse as there maybe more ants dependant on it!

But really this is a very impractical scenario now where there are no means for abortion. I only included that part for the inevitable response from the intelligent fellows we have here that was bound to come at me to show a double standard in my stance as well.

People simply need to accept thatthe procedure of making children is such that we have to change the way we think. Murder is wrong is simply not the way to think here, nature is a cruel wasteful mess and it didnt spare the human reproduction method in the least!

The vast majority of contraceptives prevent conception by preventing fertilization. Abortion comes in after conception and ends it then. Chronologically that makes a big difference. Pro-lifers would say that one of them prevents new life while the other ends new life.ChiliDragon

Sexual intercourse is the first step in making life and the process doesnt just end with "conception". There is still a long way to go, the mother could easily get a miscariage without any of her fault so there is certainly no guarantee of new life yet. So since contraception and early abortion fall within the same cycle, they have to be treated the same way.

I mean from the logic of a pro-lifer, every oppurtunity of sex that we reject is actually a potential murder.:shock:.....:? 

I mean from the logic of a pro-lifer, every oppurtunity of sex that we reject is actually a potential murder.:shock:.....:? 

Gambler_3

No the other prevents as well as it is still far from developed.

Sexual intercourse is the first step in making life and the process doesnt just end with "conception". There is still a long way to go, the mother could easily get a miscariage without any of her fault so there is certainly no guarantee of new life yet. So since contraception and early abortion fall within the same cycle, they have to be treated the same way.

I mean from the logic of a pro-lifer, every oppurtunity of sex that we reject is actually a potential murder.:shock:.....:? 

Gambler_3

Anyone can die at any moment, so the argument seems a little odd that because there could be a miscarriage it's OK.  Religious people believe that life begins at conception, and they believe that taking an innocent life is wrong; hence, they are against abortion once the baby is conceived, but not before the baby is conceived, because (by their metric) there is not yet any life at that point.

I'm a little confused as to why this reasoning is difficult to follow.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

I mean from the logic of a pro-lifer, every oppurtunity of sex that we reject is actually a potential murder.:shock:.....:? 

ChiliDragon

The process begins with the sexual intercourse and ends when the baby has successfully left the mother, the time of the mother becoming "pregant" has no real significance as far as I am concerned. The mother still has everything to do after getting pregnant to make sure that the child does not die, you simply cannot force her for that. Ofcourse the parents have everything to do once the child is born as well but there is the option of giving it away and releasing the burden of brining up a child, no such option exists during pregnancy.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

No the other prevents as well as it is still far from developed.

Sexual intercourse is the first step in making life and the process doesnt just end with "conception". There is still a long way to go, the mother could easily get a miscariage without any of her fault so there is certainly no guarantee of new life yet. So since contraception and early abortion fall within the same cycle, they have to be treated the same way.

I mean from the logic of a pro-lifer, every oppurtunity of sex that we reject is actually a potential murder.:shock:.....:? 

GabuEx

Anyone can die at any moment, so the argument seems a little odd that because there could be a miscarriage it's OK.  Religious people believe that life begins at conception, and they believe that taking an innocent life is wrong; hence, they are against abortion once the baby is conceived, but not before the baby is conceived, because (by their metric) there is not yet any life at that point.

I'm a little confused as to why this reasoning is difficult to follow.

And that innocent life isnt actually that innocent, it gives alot of pain to another individual and would on many occasions seriously dent the mother's physical beauty for good. I would think an innocent life is someone who didnt do anyone any wrong, it doesnt matter that the life here isnt doing it on purpose, I mean a virus never has bad intentions against humans does it? But it must be ridden off.

My argument has no double standards and neither do the religious people who consider condoms and birth control to be "wrong". But this middle man called "pro-lifer" who happens to use contraception himself is something I cannot understand. You are practically "stopping" an almost certain birth with contraception and so is the case with abortion. Secondly the "person" dying will never know that he didnt live a life, that person has absolutly no responsibilities in society and there is no one dependant on him. He does not even know if he exists lol.

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

My argument has no double standards and neither do the religious people who consider condoms and birth control to be "wrong". But this middle man called "pro-lifer" who happens to use contraception himself is something I cannot understand. You are practically "stopping" an almost certain birth with contraception and so is the case with abortion. Secondly the "person" dying will never know that he didnt live a life, that person has absolutly no responsibilities in society and there is no one dependant on him. He does not even know if he exists lol.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

My argument has no double standards and neither do the religious people who consider condoms and birth control to be "wrong". But this middle man called "pro-lifer" who happens to use contraception himself is something I cannot understand. You are practically "stopping" an almost certain birth with contraception and so is the case with abortion. Secondly the "person" dying will never know that he didnt live a life, that person has absolutly no responsibilities in society and there is no one dependant on him. He does not even know if he exists lol.

Gambler_3

Its still wasted material that could result in a child, no? The potential is there.

And that is true by your own standards. In protected sex there is the potential of a child being conceived. But the sperm and the ovules never (if successful) reach each other. The only difference between protected sex and masturbation is that in the first ovules are near by.

What I am saying is that if we embrace your view a slipperly slope is inevitable. Where you drew the line is not less arbitrary than where pro-lifers have drawn the line.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

My argument has no double standards and neither do the religious people who consider condoms and birth control to be "wrong". But this middle man called "pro-lifer" who happens to use contraception himself is something I cannot understand. You are practically "stopping" an almost certain birth with contraception and so is the case with abortion. Secondly the "person" dying will never know that he didnt live a life, that person has absolutly no responsibilities in society and there is no one dependant on him. He does not even know if he exists lol.

Teenaged

Its still wasted material that could result in a child, no? The potential is there.

And that is true by your own standards. In protected sex there is the potential of a child being conceived. But the sperm and the ovules never (if successful) reach each other. The only difference between protected sex and masturbation is that in the first ovules are near by.

What I am saying is that if we embrace your view a slipperly slope is inevitable. Where you drew the line is not less arbitrary than where pro-lifers have drawn the line.

Well, there is the fact that a child being conceived is a unique individual that *should* be offered a chance at life.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

My argument has no double standards and neither do the religious people who consider condoms and birth control to be "wrong". But this middle man called "pro-lifer" who happens to use contraception himself is something I cannot understand. You are practically "stopping" an almost certain birth with contraception and so is the case with abortion. Secondly the "person" dying will never know that he didnt live a life, that person has absolutly no responsibilities in society and there is no one dependant on him. He does not even know if he exists lol.

Gambler_3

Its still wasted material that could result in a child, no? The potential is there.

And that is true by your own standards. In protected sex there is the potential of a child being conceived. But the sperm and the ovules never (if successful) reach each other. The only difference between protected sex and masturbation is that in the first ovules are near by.

What I am saying is that if we embrace your view a slipperly slope is inevitable. Where you drew the line is not less arbitrary than where pro-lifers have drawn the line.

Sex is also done by two individuals for pleasure many times.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Well, there is the fact that a child being conceived is a unique individual that *should* be offered a chance at life.Gambler_3

Children are dependent on the mother for over a decade after their birth too.

Hez dependant on the mother, if she is not willing to take the pain and hassle for several months than you cannot force her. As simple as that...Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

My argument has no double standards and neither do the religious people who consider condoms and birth control to be "wrong". But this middle man called "pro-lifer" who happens to use contraception himself is something I cannot understand. You are practically "stopping" an almost certain birth with contraception and so is the case with abortion. Secondly the "person" dying will never know that he didnt live a life, that person has absolutly no responsibilities in society and there is no one dependant on him. He does not even know if he exists lol.

Teenaged

Its still wasted material that could result in a child, no? The potential is there.

And that is true by your own standards. In protected sex there is the potential of a child being conceived. But the sperm and the ovules never (if successful) reach each other. The only difference between protected sex and masturbation is that in the first ovules are near by.

What I am saying is that if we embrace your view a slipperly slope is inevitable. Where you drew the line is not less arbitrary than where pro-lifers have drawn the line.

Sex is also done by two individuals for pleasure many times.

And yes sex is mostly done for pleasure.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Well, there is the fact that a child being conceived is a unique individual that *should* be offered a chance at life.GabuEx

Children are dependent on the mother for over a decade after their birth too.

Look I am not the one who is supporting this reasoning. When a child is conceived that is also not enough on it's own to create a life, there's a long process still ahead so how does abortion and using condom different again?

And yes sex is mostly done for pleasure.

Gambler_3

Just like you, I take the line and move it to include all acts which willingfully "waste" material needed for reproduction.

While you may object that sex has nothing to do with masturbation the same applies for sex versus conception. Since sex most certainly isnt only meant for reproduction (pro-lifers dont believe it is meant only for reproduction necessarily).

By the above logic, a couple in a long-distance relationship can have as much phone sex as they want, but as soon as they start living together they should either stop having sex or start having as children. Reproductive morals based on geography and proximity? :?ChiliDragon

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Hez dependant on the mother, if she is not willing to take the pain and hassle for several months than you cannot force her. As simple as that...foxhound_fox

Abortion does NOT cause any significant suffering, the baby would never know of what happened. Blame nature or god(whatever your belief) about having such a wasteful procedure. Do you even know that when a child is concieved, there are billions of other "unique" kids that are forever lost and will never see the light of day?? To clinge on this responsibility thing on some fetus who doesnt even have a nervous system is as superficial as it gets.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Look I am not the one who is supporting this reasoning. When a child is conceived that is also not enough on it's own to create a life, there's a long process still ahead so how does abortion and using condom different again?

And yes sex is mostly done for pleasure.

Teenaged

Just like you, I take the line and move it to include all acts which willingfully "waste" material needed for reproduction.

While you may object that sex has nothing to do with masturbation the same applies for sex versus conception. Since sex most certainly isnt only meant for reproduction (pro-lifers dont believe it is meant only for reproduction necessarily).

Yes sex isnt only for reproduction, that's why we abort since having a child was never our purpose. 

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Look I am not the one who is supporting this reasoning. When a child is conceived that is also not enough on it's own to create a life, there's a long process still ahead so how does abortion and using condom different again?

And yes sex is mostly done for pleasure.

Gambler_3

Just like you, I take the line and move it to include all acts which willingfully "waste" material needed for reproduction.

While you may object that sex has nothing to do with masturbation the same applies for sex versus conception. Since sex most certainly isnt only meant for reproduction (pro-lifers dont believe it is meant only for reproduction necessarily).

Yes sex isnt only for reproduction, that's why we abort since having a child was never our purpose. 

And by not having sex which I would have with condom or some other form of contraception nothing changes either. Still no child.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Look I am not the one who is supporting this reasoning. When a child is conceived that is also not enough on it's own to create a life, there's a long process still ahead so how does abortion and using condom different again?

And yes sex is mostly done for pleasure.

Teenaged

Just like you, I take the line and move it to include all acts which willingfully "waste" material needed for reproduction.

While you may object that sex has nothing to do with masturbation the same applies for sex versus conception. Since sex most certainly isnt only meant for reproduction (pro-lifers dont believe it is meant only for reproduction necessarily).

Yes sex isnt only for reproduction, that's why we abort since having a child was never our purpose. 

And by not having sex which I would have with condom or some other form of contraception nothing changes either. Still no child.

It wasnt about not having sex, it was about having sex with or without contraception which wont be the same things.:|

And by aborting nothing is lost either....

It wasnt about not having sex, it was about having sex with or without contraception which wont be the same things.:|

Gambler_3

Here's how this thread has gone because i think we lost focus (or just me):

You applied criticism to pro-life people that if they think that abortion prevents life, then they shouldnt have protected sex since that also prevents the child that could have resulted.

And I butt in to say that this could be stretched to include masturbation too.

The reasons you gave as to why masturbation is not comparable to protected sex were:

a) The material is not lost

b) Nothing changes if I masturbate than what would "happen" if I hadnt

All of this applies to protected sex:

a) The material is not wasted. Or rather it is much wasted as it is in masturbation Just because ovules and sperm get closer doesnt render it a loss.

b) Nothing changes if I have protected sex then what would "happen" if I have no sex at all.

Bottomline is: I understand you are purposefuly "shifting" the line pro-life people have set, to show that there can be no line.

But idk I just felt that you are not doing it just to show that but that you actually expect pro-lifers to actually not have protected sex if they are to be pro-life.

Personally if I convinced the pro-lifers with such an argument I would be like "*facepalm* that...... wasnt the point -_-"

Sex is mostly done for pleasure. Gambler_3

Who are you to tell others about their responsibilities? It's their life, their body and "their DNA". Sex is one of the biggest pleasures in life and to bring in this whole superficial responsibility of a fetus is totally anti-freedom, it's as bad as any dogmatic religious doctrines.

Abortion does NOT cause any significant suffering, the baby would never know of what happened. Blame nature or god(whatever your belief) about having such a wasteful procedure. Do you even know that when a child is concieved, there are billions of other "unique" kids that are forever lost and will never see the light of day?? To clinge on this responsibility thing on some fetus who doesnt even have a nervous system is as superficial as it gets.

Gambler_3

@ tennaged

No my main point about masturbation is that it is an individual act that cannot create children. It is something completely independant of sexual intercourse.

But I dont know why we are arguing over this? Many pro-choice people actually bring this "then masturbation is also wrong" thing to furthur support their argument. I mean it doesnt hurt my argument in the least to give it that masturbation is not accpetable under pro-life rules but I dont support something I dont believe in just to strengthen my argument.

@ tennaged

No my main point about masturbation is that it is an individual act that cannot create children. It is something completely independant of sexual intercourse.

But I dont know why we are arguing over this? Many pro-choice people actually bring this "then masturbation is also wrong" thing to furthur support their argument. I mean it doesnt hurt my argument in the least to give it that masturbation is not accpetable under pro-life rules but I dont support something I dont believe in just to strengthen my argument.

Gambler_3

I just feel that you really "demand" of pro-lifers to not have protected sex. And the reasons why you do this could point towards masturbation too.

The masturbation itself may not be able to create life but its products could be used later on for that.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]By the above logic, a couple in a long-distance relationship can have as much phone sex as they want, but as soon as they start living together they should either stop having sex or start having as children. Reproductive morals based on geography and proximity? :?Gambler_3

@ foxhound

How many times does a couple have sex all their life? And how many children on average do educated people have? Ya now go figure if it's a huge assumption or not, I dont even think it's an assumption at all, it's just so obvious.:?

Your whole point would have some validity if their was some thrid person(perhaps god) who "destined" a child to be born through certain couple and that couple decided to interfere and not let the child be born. But that is obviously not a world you believe in. I "created" the child and I can end it before the child becomes a fully functional baby.

It's too bad you lose respect for people who are pro-choice, you almost sound like an extremist here. I will simply have to agree to disagree with you. 

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

@ tennaged

No my main point about masturbation is that it is an individual act that cannot create children. It is something completely independant of sexual intercourse.

But I dont know why we are arguing over this? Many pro-choice people actually bring this "then masturbation is also wrong" thing to furthur support their argument. I mean it doesnt hurt my argument in the least to give it that masturbation is not accpetable under pro-life rules but I dont support something I dont believe in just to strengthen my argument.

Teenaged

I just feel that you really "demand" of pro-lifers to not have protected sex. And the reasons why you do this could point towards masturbation too.

The masturbation itself may not be able to create life but its products could be used later on for that.

I never "demand" anyone of anything. Words are my only weapon...

@ foxhound

How many times does a couple have sex all their life? And how many children on average do educated people have? Ya now go figure if it's a huge assumption or not, I dont even think it's an assumption at all, it's just so obvious.:?

Your whole point would have some validity if their was some thrid person(perhaps god) who "destined" a child to be born through certain couple and that couple decided to interfere and not let the child be born. But that is obviously not a world you believe in. I "created" the child and I can end it before the child becomes a fully functional baby.

It's too bad you lose respect for people who are pro-choice, you almost sound like an extremist here. I will simply have to agree to disagree with you.

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

@ tennaged

No my main point about masturbation is that it is an individual act that cannot create children. It is something completely independant of sexual intercourse.

But I dont know why we are arguing over this? Many pro-choice people actually bring this "then masturbation is also wrong" thing to furthur support their argument. I mean it doesnt hurt my argument in the least to give it that masturbation is not accpetable under pro-life rules but I dont support something I dont believe in just to strengthen my argument.

Gambler_3

I just feel that you really "demand" of pro-lifers to not have protected sex. And the reasons why you do this could point towards masturbation too.

The masturbation itself may not be able to create life but its products could be used later on for that.

I never "demand" anyone of anything. Words are my only weapon...

Thats why I put the verb in quotes. I know you didnt demand anything. I just couldnt find another word.

You really are making little sense here Gambler, you logic is incredibly flawed and you are making some really fallacious points.

What does a couple having lots of sex in their life have to do with anything? Protected sex is there for people to enjoy it with a much less chance of getting pregnant (or STD's). And sex has evolved both as a means of procreation AND pleasure, it is a big assumption to make claiming it is "done mostly for pleasure" when in fact, it is the central way in which humans reproduce... and there wouldn't be 6.6 billion of us if that wasn't the case.

What? You just say my point has "no validity" and then don't do anything to back it up? CIass A debating there.

"I created the child and I can end it."

Oh what a wonderful little piece of heaven we have here. So, you can just murder your child at any point because you created them? THAT is flawed logic if I've ever seen it, and completely undermines your entire position.

I don't lose respect for people who are pro-choice, only people who think abortion is a means of retro-active birth control. Obvious strawman is obvious. Calling me an "extremist" could be considered an insult in many regards. And I am definitely not going to start terrorist action because of this. I find it abhorrent that the Canadian government pays for abortions, but all I can do about it is vote for someone who doesn't support it.foxhound_fox

The child never had a right since he was never born, you have to prove if he had some right to life. The religious people say that since god gives life, he is the one who gave the unborn "rights" and that's a fine argument.

Not at any point, they should decide on knowing that they have concieved a child whether they want to give it life or not. 

I guess I didnt understand what you said. What does "retro-active birth control" means??

The child never had a right since he was never born, you have to prove if he had some right to life. The religious people say that since god gives life, he is the one who gave the unborn "rights" and that's a fine argument. Gambler_3

Not at any point, they should decide on knowing that they have concieved a child whether they want to give it life or not. Gambler_3

I guess I didnt understand what you said. What does "retro-active birth control" means??Gambler_3

If you endorse the killing of infants that were birthed by poor mothers, wouldn't that suggest that you believe abortion should be mandatory in third world countries? :?

If so, that is not pro-choice.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

This argument , I cannot take seriously. You think it is OK to kill an infant, who is a living human being, if the parents wanted but lacked the means to an abortion. 

Gambler_3

While technically a living human being, philosophically you can say that for the first few months atleast a baby is not really a human being. It has absolutely no feelings and kiiling it would not disrupt the balance of the universe in any greater way than killing an ant beneath your boots. Heck the ant one might be worse as there maybe more ants dependant on it!

But really this is a very impractical scenario now where there are no means for abortion. I only included that part for the inevitable response from the intelligent fellows we have here that was bound to come at me to show a double standard in my stance as well.

People simply need to accept thatthe procedure of making children is such that we have to change the way we think. Murder is wrong is simply not the way to think here, nature is a cruel wasteful mess and it didnt spare the human reproduction method in the least!

My point was that the position is absurd. I think it is necessary to point out that an infant does have feelings. It can even express those feelings, just not in ways that are very complex, as those are acquired skills. When it is amused it laughs or smiles, when it is hungry, it cries and so on. This is not what makes your position absurd though. What I have a hard time taking seriously is the idea that killing someone is justified because you do not deem that person to serve a purpose.

Perhaps there is a homeless man who is without family or friends. This man would not contribute to society and at worst would be a burden. Sure he has feelings but, then again, so does that infant. And there are lots of ways he could be killed that would preclude his experience of his own death. By your standard, killing this man would be acceptable.       

Ah, yes the abortion issue. I don't think that I'm quite as extreme as you are Gambler but I do appreciate your attempt to have no double standards in you reasoning.

I used to argue that abortion was permissable because a fetus only became a person when it gained the appropriate mental faculties such as consciousness, sapience and introspection. This line of argument ends up implying however, that terminating children up to two, three or four years of age is permissable which I simply cannot affirm.

My two basic standpoints are as follows. 1. It is not okay to terminate a newborn baby. If it can cry then every primal instinct I have says not to kill it. 2. It's totally okay to kill an organism in the early stages of development. If it's just a zygote or a blastocyst or a lump of flesh that's essentially leeching off the mother's placenta like a parasite then bugger it. The children that I find scampering around are worth protecting, these are not.

The problem comes in trying to come up with a solid moral justification for some kind of middle-ground where my attitude all of a sudden changes. And honestly I don't think that I have one. Autonomy could be cited as a suitable feature of a baby that all of a sudden makes it precious, but really I don't think that I find infants precious because they can survive outside of the womb. Autonomy just happens to be a milestone that fits in with my moral intuitions about what forms of human life are and are not valuable.

Still though, my confusion aside, I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life. Rather I define myself as anti-fetus, because I do not find abortion permissable because of a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Instead I find abortion permissable because I have no good reason to give a damn about a fetus. foxhound sorry but I don't reckon that individuality on a genetic level plays any part whatsoever in the value of a person. Say you cloned me right now, would the fetus in development not be of any worth to you because it does not have any unique D.N.A.? I strongly doubt it. D.N.A. only matters because of what it ends up producing (i.e. a healthy full-grown person). It doesn't have any intrinsic value in and of itself.

At least that's my point of view on things.

Basically, the argument for pro-life is that a human comes into existence at conception, and therefore abortion is murder, or something similar to murder. While I'm not a rabid abortion rights advocate, and while I'm somewhat sympathetic to the pro-life movement, I'm not really convinced by their core argument. Even by saying that life begins at conception - conception isn't an instantaneous thing, so a grey area still exists vis-a-vis when life actually begins. I also feel as if there is no justification for equivocating a fetus to a person who has been born. At best it's a potential human, but by calling it such you are conceding that a fetus isn't actually a human being. 

The problem comes in trying to come up with a solid moral justification for some kind of middle-ground where my attitude all of a sudden changes. And honestly I don't think that I have one. Autonomy could be cited as a suitable feature of a baby that all of a sudden makes it precious, but really I don't think that I find infants precious.domatron23

Your first point is moot since nobody aborts so late that the baby is capable of surviving on it's own. I simply cannot see much difference between earliest possible abortion and birth control. We live in a world of regular checkups and it's not like a preganacy is going to go unnoticed for a significant time. People who cant seek proper meidcal help early on prolly have even more important things to worry about like food and water for bare survival.

And yes I agree it's not entirely an intellectual issue.