Abortion is wrong

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Hopefully people don't start believing their quality of life is more important than anothers life based on IQ, sex, race, ect.

IQ, sex and age? We're NOT talking about that, disingenuous much? We're talking about a clump of cells worth as much as a toe nail clipping... The quality of life of anyone will always take precedence over that...

And if you think those numbers don't make sense because some romantic view you hold of the USA that's on you... 

MichaelElpers

A clump of cells whose function naturally develops into a human.  When has a toenail done that?  My point is that your treading on thin ice.  In china, people will abort females because they are females.  Slavery occurred because people would rather keep a quality of life change their view on demeaning anothers life.  Holocaust...many other examples.  Throughout history our biggest moral failures have involved devaluing other human life, are we still doing that?

In the U.S. the CDC reports pregnancy related death of a woman while pregnant or within 1 year of the end of pregnancy regardless of the outcome, duration, or site of pregnancy.  Many other countries do not report this way, some only report if they die in a hospital.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

We're talking about "unborn" as in "NOT BORN"... Yet you repeatedly compare a fetus to a born and independent person...  Even if that clump of cell has "a chance" to maybe become a full grown human, before it is born, it is not one and it is worth nothing... I don't care about China... The Holocaust and slavery were about already born person, and can't be compared to abortion even remotely, except for disingenuous people...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

The others may seem more egregious and obvious, but it is comparable in the sense that the argument comes down to how much you are valuing/devaluing human life. Which is why again I think its important more discussion is had on the value of the a human life.  The answer isn't obvious as some believe conception, others believe birth, and others believe anywhere in btwn.  The answer shouldn't be subjective, which is why pro-life people wouldn't agree if you don't want one don't get one.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

If we're talking about value (moral) then we cannot get out of the subjectivity of it... You can value an unborn as you like, no one will force you (nor should they) to have an abortion... And for the same reasons, no one should force anyone to go through an unwanted pregnancy, it's none of our business, period. 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I don't believe one person can say value at conception, another say at 20 weeks, and another at birth and everyone be correct.  We force moral values onto people through law all the time.

Plaffelvohfen

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen

I don't believe one person can say value at conception, another say at 20 weeks, and another at birth and everyone be correct.  We force moral values onto people through law all the time.

Can you give me examples?

Dee

@MichaelElpers

I don't believe one person can say value at conception, another say at 20 weeks, and another at birth and everyone be correct.  We force moral values onto people through law all the time.

But yet you keep doing it. The “moral value”  of the unborn is immaterial regarding my position regarding a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.

Just like @Plaffelvohfen can you give examples

MartinGocic

@Dee
You should try and talk like that in Iran for example,see whats gonna happen. 

John_C_87

Plaffelvohfen said:

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen

I don't believe one person can say value at conception, another say at 20 weeks, and another at birth and everyone be correct.  We force moral values onto people through law all the time.

Can you give me examples?

1. The owning of Marijuana being morally illegal, yet it is the air pollution created by the burning of marijuana that is a potential wrong.
2. Guns are morally responsible for death so punishing a criminal is not the end of law, Jesus needs to be created by law punishing people who simple share the weight of lethal force with both the good and the bad value of lethal force.

John_C_87

3. Female pregnancy abortion being by law illegal as murder, yet all woman who ovulate kill multiple babies by the planed the babies planed murder. The argument by law is moral only woman who have not had sex should be allowed to murder babies.

Dee

@MartinGocic

You should try and talk like that in Iran for example,see whats gonna happen. 

Oh right , so you’re against people having a different opinion to yours , thought so

MichaelElpers

@MichaelElpers

Almost all laws have moral subjectivity to it, murder, slavery, allowing women to vote ect.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

Who are you addressing?

MartinGocic

@Dee ;
No,just making some recommendations.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Laws against murder, theft, speeding and running red lights exist to protect public safety, and to provide security in one’s person and property.  They are not enacted out of a belief that it’s a religious or moral sin to roll through a stop sign...

The familiar implied definition of “morals” was not lost on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas  forebodingly lamented that overturning Texas’ sodomy laws – and all similar laws – “decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.”

Scalia clearly understood the connotation behind “legislating morality,” legislating citizens’ private consenting behavior, usually related to sexuality.  He clearly was not saying that the Lawrence decision would put an end to all laws against murder, theft, rape, or speeding.

Thank you, Mr. Scalia for getting us back on topic.  Laws against murder and other public safety concerns are not examples of “legislating morality.”

Dee

@MartinGocic

As in don’t talk abort abortion rights in Iran , you must feel right at home there 

MartinGocic

@Dee
Definitely not since i have nothing to do with that country,but when it comes to tradition and keeping their country stable,they deserve respect.

Dee

Definitely not since i have nothing to do with that country,but when it comes to tradition and keeping their country stable,they deserve respect.

“Tradition” LOL .....You mean like treating women as the equivalent of dogs ....respect away but I have little respect for those who think women are second class citizens   

@MartinGocic

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;
Laws against murder, 
More concerning is the law against grouping people together in America by admission of a crime. 

@ Dee
Woman in Iran do  have pregnancy abortions as woman held in a united state with all other woman who ovulate. There is just a failure in creating all woman as equal in a united state by you. The Iranian woman like all other woman who maintain an international boarder choose not to allow a person into there nation by not placing themselves at risk and nurturing the egg to keep it alive. 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

You didn't address slavery, women's rights, or the things John_C posted.

MartinGocic

@Dee
The women there are actually happy with their lives and do not feel oppressed,unlike some who whine and complain about everything (mostly spoiled and entitled women,never had any personal trauma,always dissatisfied and care only about material things). Do some research before saying such ignorant things.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

I never address John's comments as they are nonsensical... He uses his very own thesaurus and terminology, he might as well be writing in Old Klingon... As long as he will persist in doing so, I won't address his comments...

As to slavery, women's right, I actually did in my first sentence : Laws against murder, theft, speeding and running red lights exist to protect public safety, and to provide security in one’s person and property.  They are not enacted out of a belief that it’s a religious or moral sin... (you can include slavery and women's right in there).

Dee

@MartinGocic

• The women there are actually happy with their lives and do not feel oppressed,

• Independent.....

• A group of seven Iranian men and women who created and starred in their own version of a video for Pharrell Williams’ song ‘Happy’ have each been given suspended sentences of prison time and 91 lashes.

• unlike some who whine and complain about everything (mostly spoiled and entitled women,never had any personal trauma,always dissatisfied and care only about material things). 

• You need to move to Iran maybe seeing as the women don’t “whine” according to you 

• Do some research before saying such ignorant things.

• The only ignorant one here is you who thinks treating women like dogs is the recipe to happiness ......you’re an ignorant uneducated  
  

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I'll agree with you that John's comments are almost always impossible to read which is why I dont usually respond to them either.

I dont think something like giving women the right to vote falls under public safety.  Not sure what personal security would encompass.

대왕광개토

MartinGocic said:

@Dee
The women there are actually happy with their lives and do not feel oppressed,unlike some who whine and complain about everything (mostly spoiled and entitled women,never had any personal trauma,always dissatisfied and care only about material things). Do some research before saying such ignorant things.

"The women there are actually happy with their lives and do not feel oppressed" counts only as an opinion unless you give evidence that supports it. "Do some research before saying such ignorant things" is not even convincing when you don't cite any research.

대왕광개토

John_C_87 said:

@Plaffelvohfen ;
Laws against murder, 
More concerning is the law against grouping people together in America by admission of a crime. 

@ Dee
Woman in Iran do  have pregnancy abortions as woman held in a united state with all other woman who ovulate. There is just a failure in creating all woman as equal in a united state by you. The Iranian woman like all other woman who maintain an international boarder choose not to allow a person into there nation by not placing themselves at risk and nurturing the egg to keep it alive. 

You don't have to write your statements in an incomprehensible way. Nobody(almost) is addressing your claims because they can't understand what you are saying.

John_C_87

@ Great, Great, Gwang – gae

It is the gained experience of writing for people, on the tendency of people that describes a need to be able to deny a truth by misunderstanding.

@MichaelElpers

I don’t think something like giving women the right to vote falls under public safety.  Not sure what personal security would encompass.

Originally a male person had to own land to vote in America, we can argue a woman must own land as a United State Constitutional right to have been able to cast a United State constitutional vote in America. The idea of giving a right to vote as united state to all woman is where woman had lost their original united state constitutional rights in America, as they have never had obligation to serve the preservation of united state constitutional right for all.

Even now it is woman who refuses as loud if not louder than any to not create themselves as all equal as a united state. I do not have an expectation for this to changed willingly. What is expected to change is the wrong and not the principles of disagreement. Female specific amputation does not end the excuse of using a meaning of life’s beginning. It simply ends the self-incrimination placed publicly as a united state.

John_C_87

Laws against murder, 
More concerning is the law against grouping people together in America by admission of a crime. ]

 Plaffelvohfen said. I never address John's comments as they are nonsensical..

There may be a lot more involved that just English if you cannot make sense of my concern. A lot more. The concerns you do not reply is not a requirement that must be answered. The point made is clear in relationship to right and wrong of all woman. The whole argument can be made under female specific amputation and the only thing that is lost is self-incrimination as a united state, It is that one fact that is so, so very sad.

EmilyRouse

@SkepticalOne ;

Sorry for such a late reply, I found my schedule rather busy.

I can understand that; People can change their minds. But this doesn't make them exempt from the consequences of their actions. Sex is a process that is our way of creating children. A pregnancy is a common result of sex. It's not something that should be a surprise. People may not have intended the consequence of a pregnancy- but they knew of it's possibility. It's like signing a waiver. You know that whatever happens, it's your fault, and you can't hold anyone else responsible. The fetus is a result of someone’s clear actions. An STD, however, is a disease. It isn't the purpose of sex. Although a fetus may not be wanted, that isn't a reason to deny it life.

But claiming a fetus not life creates the same issue. If human life isn't defined by being biologically human, what defines it? Sentience can be argued- one could claim an infant isn't sentient. Someone with a disease such as Alzheimer's may, eventually, be argued not sentient. By allowing abstract concepts to define what it means to be human, we provide opportunity for our own rights to be stripped. You can argue autonomy is what creates humanity; But again, there are people who rely on others. A conjoined twin, for example, in some cases is stuck with their twin for life. They aren't autonomous of each other, but they are both undeniably individuals. Pregnancy is the fetus temporarily relying on the mother for nutrients as it develops. Why do we consider those nine months of our lives lost adequate reason to take away the right to life? What defines humanity? If you define it, as I do, by a complete set of human DNA (also including individuals with down syndrome of course, because although they may have different DNA due to the condition, they still have human DNA), you have a clear boundary. DNA is always DNA- you cannot say human DNA isn't human, thus, you cannot deny human's humanity. Defining humanity as anything else is abstract. It's personal. What is sentience? What is autonomy? How can you draw a distinct line for such things? Setting those as guidelines creates potential for other rights to be stripped. Would you rather protect the youngest and weakest of human beings, and have nine months of slightly restricted autonomy, or have no protections over them and fluid guidelines as to what makes you human, allowing the potential for people to kill infants and elderly, people in comas, etc.

SkepticalOne

@EmilyRouse

Its been a while since our conversation has been active, and I don't know exactly what you're responding to (and I am too lazy to search the thread for it). So forgive me if I stray from or repeat myself.

Sex has only the purpose an individual assigns to it. If you think sex should be solely for reproduction, then you are entitled to give it that purpose in your life, but not the lives of others. "Purpose" is dependent on the individual.

You apply a bit of  effort to pointing out exceptions to typical traits of a human persons. I think you've misunderstood my view though. It is the capacity for these many traits and not the traits themselves (or DNA) that I accept as worthy of dignity. A bowl that cannot hold liquid isn't a bowl - at least not a functional one. A group of cells that has not developed the capacity for consciousness is not a person. However, unlike the bowl, once personhood has been achieved we do not throw an individual away. The suggestion that my view allows murder of the vulnerable is simply absurd. The 'youngest and weakest' are protected by virtue of being a person.

The problem with human DNA as a determining factor for personhood is that it is in things like cancer, and not in things which are deserving of dignity - meaning cancer would have respect over beings more deserving - such as highly sapient species (dolphins, primates, elephants, etc), self-aware AI (fairly probable, IMO) or  extraterrestrials (assuming existence). It takes more than human DNA to make a person.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

While I somewhat disagree with you, I think you made good points.

While I agree the purpose of sex depends on the individual, Based on evolutionary standards I believe that sex is primarily an action for reproduction, and it is pleasurable in order to keep the reproductive process going.

Also, I'd like to ask why you think "However, unlike the bowl, once personhood has been achieved we do not throw an individual"
Why do we think a bowl ceases being a bowl when it loses it functionality, but a person stays a person when they lose their "functionality" (consciousness, ect).

The only reason i could think of is that a person has memories, so while a bowl can in essence be remade into the same bowl, it's not autonomous so the fact that it is the same version as it previous self is meaningless.  But then would a person still be a person if they lost functionalities and memory?  Just wondering what you think.

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

While I somewhat disagree with you, I think you made good points.

While I agree the purpose of sex depends on the individual, Based on evolutionary standards I believe that sex is primarily an action for reproduction, and it is pleasurable in order to keep the reproductive process going.

Also, I'd like to ask why you think "However, unlike the bowl, once personhood has been achieved we do not throw an individual"
Why do we think a bowl ceases being a bowl when it loses it functionality, but a person stays a person when they lose their "functionality" (consciousness, ect).

The only reason i could think of is that a person has memories, so while a bowl can in essence be remade into the same bowl, it's not autonomous so the fact that it is the same version as it previous self is meaningless.  But then would a person still be a person if they lost functionalities and memory?  Just wondering what you think.

Offspring is a possibility of sex, but, more often than not, sex results in no children. My wife and I are passed the point of bringing more children into the world, yet we are still capable. Why should we, or anyone, be slaves to fertility? 

As for my analogy...keep in mind this is merely my view - 'personhood' is an irrevocable state of being attached to the possession of a vessel capable of holding a consciousness. By this view, losing consciousness (either permanently or temporarily) is irrelevant. Additionally, dismissing people because they've lost mental functionality would be harmful to the concept as it would mean revoking the dignity permanent rights guarantee.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

****Why should we, or anyone, be slaves to fertility?

You're not, you can get procedures done that prevent pregnancy.  

 ****'personhood' is an irrevocable state of being attached to the possession of a vessel capable of holding a consciousness.

I want reason for why you view it this way.

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

****Why should we, or anyone, be slaves to fertility?

You're not, you can get procedures done that prevent pregnancy.  

I agree with that sentiment except that ending pregnancy is also an option. 

***'personhood' is an irrevocable state of being attached to the possession of a vessel capable of holding a consciousness.

I want reason for why you view it this way.

If personhood isn't irrevocable and specifically about what makes humanity special, then it is pointless. That being said consciousness is what makes humanity special and it cannot exist without a cortex. I feel it is quite reasonable to allow the development of this prerequisite substrate as a tentative demarcation of personhood.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

I agree with that sentiment except that ending pregnancy is also an option. 

And there lies one of my issues.  I claim often that people get pregnant because they're irresponsible about the ways in which they try to prevent it, and people always tell me I'm lying.  The sentiment you displayed above informs that I'm not wrong. The fact that people are so nonchalant about ending human life baffles me.

If personhood isn't irrevocable and specifically about what makes humanity special, then it is pointless. That being said consciousness is what makes humanity special and it cannot exist without a cortex. I feel it is quite reasonable to allow the development of this prerequisite substrate as a tentative demarcation of personhood.

Animals also have consciousness.  The rest of your argument is 1. based in that you believe humanity is special, which many people don't inherently believe (you need a better explanation for) 2. That dismissing them would revoke human rights guarantees and would be harmful.

Neither give a philosophical reason to why human life shouldn't be declared mute if a person lost consciousness.  I agree it would be harmful to society and human image, but that is merely a reason to institute your claim, not one that reasons why the claim is correct.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers ;
While I agree the purpose of sex depends on the individual, Based on evolutionary standards I believe that sex is primarily an action for reproduction, and it is pleasurable in order to keep the reproductive process going.
No not anymore......
Sex is not a medically safe means of human evolution or reproduction, on top of that only the people who have sex, a way where a woman becomes pregnant are directed to self-incriminate as a united state, this about the planned termination of a life crossing an international border something the state medical licensing had allowed . Medically science never even considered self-incrimination as united state the alternative to the description of termination of life with pregnancies when performed outside the woman's body by donated egg it was just simply death before birth..... 

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

I agree with that sentiment except that ending pregnancy is also an option. 

And there lies one of my issues.  I claim often that people get pregnant because they're irresponsible about the ways in which they try to prevent it, and people always tell me I'm lying.  The sentiment you displayed above informs that I'm not wrong. The fact that people are so nonchalant about ending human life baffles me.

If personhood isn't irrevocable and specifically about what makes humanity special, then it is pointless. That being said consciousness is what makes humanity special and it cannot exist without a cortex. I feel it is quite reasonable to allow the development of this prerequisite substrate as a tentative demarcation of personhood.

Animals also have consciousness.  The rest of your argument is 1. based in that you believe humanity is special, which many people don't inherently believe (you need a better explanation for) 2. That dismissing them would revoke human rights guarantees and would be harmful.

Neither give a philosophical reason to why human life shouldn't be declared mute if a person lost consciousness.  I agree it would be harmful to society and human image, but that is merely a reason to institute your claim, not one that reasons why the claim is correct.

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

I agree with that sentiment except that ending pregnancy is also an option. 

And there lies one of my issues.  I claim often that people get pregnant because they're irresponsible about the ways in which they try to prevent it, and people always tell me I'm lying.  The sentiment you displayed above informs that I'm not wrong. The fact that people are so nonchalant about ending human life baffles me.

You're jumping to conclusions. Nothing in my reply supports irresponsibility. I just don't accept your view that fertilization demands responsibility unless birth (and a new person) is the goal. You're essentially treating a fertilized egg as a person, but that is a position you would need to establish before it could stand as evidence for 'irresponsibility'.

If personhood isn't irrevocable and specifically about what makes humanity special, then it is pointless. That being said consciousness is what makes humanity special and it cannot exist without a cortex. I feel it is quite reasonable to allow the development of this prerequisite substrate as a tentative demarcation of personhood.

Animals also have consciousness.  The rest of your argument is 1. based in that you believe humanity is special, which many people don't inherently believe (you need a better explanation for) 2. That dismissing them would revoke human rights guarantees and would be harmful.

Neither give a philosophical reason to why human life shouldn't be declared mute if a person lost consciousness.  I agree it would be harmful to society and human image, but that is merely a reason to institute your claim, not one that reasons why the claim is correct.

1. Very few animals, if any, have a consciousness which rises to the level human consciousness. 

2. People who don't think humans are special tend to get removed from society when their thoughts become deeds.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers ;

I am not clear of your argument. Are you saying a crime that may being true is reasonable to have all woman in the world self-incriminate to a possible murder? The possibility of murder is not the only crime, it is the suspicion to which is used to creates a much larger idea that there may be  a mass murder. The much more basic crime with greater consequence as a united state of self-incrimination then left to be unregulated.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspicion

Isn't this a Wrong?

Vaulk

So if abortion isn't wrong and "It's just a clump of cells"...then watching this won't be an issue and won't disturb you in the slightest.

https://gloria.tv/video/kT3HAW1wN4UF3p32xQaLjDTVE?fbclid=IwAR3pDdLVCF8VmyYGVjzVQRjPxmKxnpR6iM2zgLGOGcAIoy49DWg7y5wNBPM

John_C_87

@대왕광개토 ;

You do not share the burden that it is wrong for all woman who have sex, somehow when placed as a group who must terminate a child, for whatever reason the female who is pregnant is automatically considered to have taken part in a crime that needs a self-incrimination? It is not only wrong but illegal to use self-incrimination as a united state that way, the way any woman will always be asking a group of woman to lie publicly and many time on official document without knowing all facts. 

John_C_87

@Vaulk
So if abortion isn't wrong and "It's just a clump of cells"...then watching this won't be an issue and won't disturb you in the slightest.
 Why would it not disturb someone who understands that self-incrimination as a united state in law is both wrong and illegal. It is like saying all people who turn themselves in for self-defense, or if they had been forced to bring someone across an international border, must now say before they have committed murdered to everyone publicly as a precursor to the event itself. 

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

1. Very few animals, if any, have a consciousness which rises to the level human consciousness.

Sure, but originally you just said consciousness, and now it seems your mixing in intelligence.  Does that mean people with higher IQs are more human?

2. People who don't think humans are special tend to get removed from society when their thoughts become deeds.

Sure, but it still doesn't explain why we are special.  I'd say about half of the people I have this discussion with don't think humans are special.

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

1. Very few animals, if any, have a consciousness which rises to the level human consciousness.

Sure, but originally you just said consciousness, and now it seems your mixing in intelligence.  Does that mean people with higher IQs are more human?

2. People who don't think humans are special tend to get removed from society when their thoughts become deeds.

Sure, but it still doesn't explain why we are special.  I'd say about half of the people I have this discussion with don't think humans are special.

1. By consciousness, I am referring to being awake, being aware, memory, reasoning, observation, etc., etc. It is not a specific trait, like intelligence, that I am limiting personhood to, but the ability to participate in a life where these traits might exist.

2. I do not find this objection compelling. We generally find other humans worthy of dignity by virtue of our evolutionary heritage, and denying this inherent understanding is detrimental to our continued survival. Whether you find this an acceptable explanation (or not) changes the facts none.

SkepticalOne

Vaulk said:

So if abortion isn't wrong and "It's just a clump of cells"...then watching this won't be an issue and won't disturb you in the slightest.

https://gloria.tv/video/kT3HAW1wN4UF3p32xQaLjDTVE?fbclid=IwAR3pDdLVCF8VmyYGVjzVQRjPxmKxnpR6iM2zgLGOGcAIoy49DWg7y5wNBPM

I watched your video and didn't see any clumps of cells being aborted, nor did I see context for the scenes shown. Do we know that these abortions weren't done to save a woman's life or that the fetus was viable? Essentially, this video has nothing more than shock value going for it and makes no room for nuance.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

"Do we know that these abortions weren't done to save a woman's life or that the fetus was viable?"

  Why would it matter if it was done to save the mother's life? Pro-abortion advocates aren't arguing for abortion only in the instance when the mother's life is at stake (that's the pro-life stance).  Also most believe that the fetus doesn't receive rights until birth, so the fact that it may be viable also wouldn't matter.

John_C_87

There is a mountains amount of information in the legal precedent of the debate that does not address all the facts. Science performers abortions and never makes the claim publicly of having abortions when doing so. Instead the medical field places all woman in a group which self-incriminates while demonstrating as a group of science that it understood a risk in the actions of self-incrimination to an admission to the termination of life. In such things as human farming for T cell cultivation.

Pro-life, Pro-Choice are realistically the same side and do not in basically represent woman with a liberty, pro-self-incrimination is the one side both arguments make, or maybe a more direct understanding is a much more controversial idea of in favor of pro- medical human research They share a united state that all woman should self-incriminate when addressing pregnancy  termination can be linked to keep  immigrational out of the American Constitutional  issue.

Dee

@Vaulk

So if abortion isn't wrong and "It's just a clump of cells"...then watching this won't be an issue and won't disturb you in the slightest.

I know people who cannot even watch childbirth let alone an abortion. Whether one is distributed or not is not the point , the point is what gives a fetus a supposed right  to draw sustenance from a woman’s body without her  consent? 

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

"Do we know that these abortions weren't done to save a woman's life or that the fetus was viable?"

  Why would it matter if it was done to save the mother's life? Pro-abortion advocates aren't arguing for abortion only in the instance when the mother's life is at stake (that's the pro-life stance).  Also most believe that the fetus doesn't receive rights until birth, so the fact that it may be viable also wouldn't matter.

First off, I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion". It seems you don't understand the position your opponents.

Secondly, pro-choice advocates most certainly do argue for a woman's right to abort when her life is endangered by pregnancy or when the fetus is not viable (among many other arguments for a woman's right to choose). Given that many anti-abortion proponents argue against "late term abortions" - which happen only when the mother's life is endangered or fetal inviability - it is clearly not part of the typical Pro-life stance. I'd be happy to share this stance with them though. 

Finally, if the bodies in the video were not viable before abortion, or were aborted to save the mothers life, then (unless the creator of the video is advocating forced still-births or forced death by pregnancy) what's the problem with ending the pregnancy? As I suggested above, this video is all about shock -and not about a rational conversation. 

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

Sorry, yes I was using pro-choice and abortion interchangeably, by pro-abortion I just meant the argument for abortion being legal, not that every advocate wants people to get an abortion.  Although in today's culture its getting closer to the second as legal and rare is beginning to change to shout your abortion and god bless abortion.

Also, I wasn't stating that pro-choice advocates don't allow abortion when the mother's life in in danger, just that they argue abortion is almost always legal, so the context of the situation wouldn't matter.  Most Pro-choice would believe that it's not born, has no rights and therefore can be aborted (the two who gave you fist bumps).  I realize there are pro-choice people that draw the lines in different places, but the context of the situation would only really matter/ confirm or deny justification for a pro-life individual.