Is abortion a dead issue?

John_C_87

Their have been so many debates about abortion and their is no right or wrong answer so why argue about it when their is no argument.
The use of abort can describe something both legal and illegal this type of verbal condition is a freedom of speech the debate of aborting a pregnancy never focused on the crime of illegal loss of privacy.

OakTownA

It's still a discussion because there are still people who believe that they have the right and ability to control what happens to another person's body, and/or they believe everyone should live like they do, and actively call for legislation to make it happen.

MichaelElpers

@Barnardot

Yes it's a dead issue, as in babies are dying.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

Why do you believe an unborn "baby" should have more rights than a living person?

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

The baby is a living person, but I don't believe I'm giving them more rights. The baby didn't decide to be created the mother and father actions did.  I don't believe killing it is a viable option for poor choices.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

No one has the right to use another person's body without their permission. Outlawing abortion would change that. People become pregnant for multiple reasons, including when birth control fails. When you get into a car, there is a chance that you might get into a car accident. Say you take a turn to sharply, and hit another car causing the driver of that car to need a blood transfusion or transplant. Should you be required to provide blood or a kidney to that person? The driver of the other car didn't decide to get into a car accident.

ZeusAres42

No, it's not a dead issue. You got two extremes on this debate where one side insists that black is white and the other insists white is black. This is binary thinking. Abortion is not a binary issue, and also not a dead issue. It is not something as simple as to say you are either pro-choice or pro-life and if I were to pick a side I would say that I am pro-choice in the sense that I choose not to adhere to either of these dichotomous viewpoints.

Outright declaring abortion illegal or outright declaring abortion to be permissible regardless of the circumstances are both nothing short of being reminiscent of being extreme. Neither stances are a reflection of libertarianism, which so many people on either side of the political spectrum tend to confuse with libertinism.

Abortion is not something that can be summed up on the back of a postage stamp. It's an issue that surrounds a multitude of different individuals across the globe with their varying situations and circumstances, and whether or not abortion is the right course of action will be dependent upon these factors.

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

"No one has the right to use another person's body without their permission."

I don't believe that's happening. (Theoretically)  If I stabbed you and they needed my blood to save you I think they have the right to do so.
I can't glue your hand to mine and then cut it off because you're violating my body.

"Say you take a turn to sharply, and hit another car causing the driver of that car to need a blood transfusion or transplant."
If you could legally be determined have caused the accident, and there's no alternative...I think that's ok.

OakTownA

MichaelElpers said:

@OakTownA

"No one has the right to use another person's body without their permission."

I don't believe that's happening. (Theoretically)  If I stabbed you and they needed my blood to save you I think they have the right to do so.
I can't glue your hand to mine and then cut it off because you're violating my body.

"Say you take a turn to sharply, and hit another car causing the driver of that car to need a blood transfusion or transplant."
If you could legally be determined have caused the accident, and there's no alternative...I think that's ok.

If a person who is pregnant does not want to be, and abortion is illegal, they are being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. The fetus is using that person's body without their permission.

So you don't believe in body autonomy. I honestly don't know how to respond to that, but at least you are constant.

MayCaesar

Lack of the right answer does not imply lack of the valid answer. If I ask you, "Are apples better than pears?", then you will never be able to answer: you can say that to you personally apples taste better than pears, but that does not really answer my question, as I have not specified the criteria by which the comparison in question is to be made. There is still a lot of debate to be had about relative ups and downs of apples and pears, even if the universal agreement can never be reached.

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

I don't believe you can claim a lack bodily autonomy when youre responsible for its infraction.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy.

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

It's consenting to the chance of pregnancy.  The human being you created shouldnt bear the consequences of your choices. This is a natural well known consequence and there's ways to prevent it.

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@OakTownA

It's consenting to the chance of pregnancy.  The human being you created shouldnt bear the consequences of your choices. This is a natural well known consequence and there's ways to prevent it.

By definition, any human being you create will bear the consequences of your choices, for without certain choices it cannot be created in the first place.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

I could word it more precisely.  The baby shouldn't be allowed to be murdered due to your choices.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42
Abortion is not a binary issues
Pregnancy terminations are a binary issue, have been for the past 40-50 years the low-level code is an illegal invasion of privacy and the high-level java users are arguing a one-sided murder that is about immigration. Things legal and illegal both can be aborted and it is common knowledge if we use a word wrong it can create trouble.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers
 The human being you created shouldn't bear the consequences of your choices. 
The argument is that an illegal invasion of privacy is justified because a child at a certain age cannot be criminally charged with murder yet the mother of the child is exposed to the criminal charges of both herself and the child.

It's consenting to the chance of pregnancy.
Had women decided to preserve and protect the united state constitution the truth would have been better held as a united States. When women agree to intimate relationships with men as a group "they" risk both birth and death at no time by whole-truth is it ever just pregnancy. 

Barnardot

Abortion could be illegal loss of privacy because even if you want to keep it secret and they put it in the newspaper then that is wrong. @John_C_87

Barnardot

We have had the discussion and made the laws so people who think that what they think is right should just suck it up and move on.@OakTownA

John_C_87

Barnardot said:

Abortion could be illegal loss of privacy because even if you want to keep it secret and they put it in the newspaper then that is wrong. @John_C_87

Pregnancy terminations described as abortions are an illegal loss of privacy the crime had been ruled on by the Courts in America almost 50 years ago. The only greater injustice is the accusation that all men are created equal by their creator is an act of discrimination. It was a self-evident truth and could be weaponized when held inside consitution as an accusation. The end result however is the more perfect union of all women are created equal is a self-evident truth that one day might be held inside a constitutional state of the union.

Living the nightmare all men are not created equal by their creator, discrimination.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

I do not quite understand how it is possible to murder something that has not been born yet. And I do not think that anyone here argues for the legal ability of a parent to kill their born child.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Murder:unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

The lawful part is what we are arguing about.  Abortion is a premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Additionally, most people also find it hard to rationalize scientifically why it should be possible to kill a  9 month unborn but a 7 month born cannot.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

And as abortion is, for the moment, legal aka lawful, it does not meet your definition of murder. A nine month abortion is called labor and delivery. Very few people, include myself, would argue that abortion should be 100% legal past the point of viability, which is currently 24 weeks. The major difference between the 9 month old fetus and a 7 month old neonate, is that the fetus is still inside of the person caring it. If a parent no longer wants to care for a 7 month old, they can give up the child for adoption. You can't do that with a pregnancy. Do you believe that abortion should be illegal? If yes, in all circumstances?

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

Yeah but I believe it should be unlawful.

"Very few people, include myself, would argue that abortion should be 100% legal past the point of viability, which is currently 24 weeks"
I have met quite a few on this site that argue differently. The argument often made is birth grants personhood.

The difference you stated doesn't apply to their identity as a person. 
If there was no such thing as adoption, would you be ok if babies were killed.

"Do you believe that abortion should be illegal."
Yes. Exception is life of mother. Haven't fully decided on rape.
My issue there is the mother isn't culpable but then again neither is the created person.

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

Murder:unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

The lawful part is what we are arguing about.  Abortion is a premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Additionally, most people also find it hard to rationalize scientifically why it should be possible to kill a  9 month unborn but a 7 month born cannot.

What law should be is what this debate is about though. By this definition, what is murder and what is not is determined by the law, which makes murder completely arbitrary. The government can, for example, proclaim that any act of killing is a murder, even if it is done in self-defense - and then it will be so.

I view murder in a different light: in my eyes, an act of killing can be a murder even if the law does not state that it is. For example, people executed in North Korea for political dissent are murdered, even though the North-Korean law legally sanctions such executions.
But it is impossible to murder someone who has not been born. It is possible to kill a creature that has a potential to become a developed human, just like it is possible to kill a bacteria or a tree - but that is not a murder if the creature is not a born sentient being.

Killing a 7 month old child is killing an autonomous sentient being. It is quite different from killing a part of someone's body by decision of that someone. As I see it, killing a fetus should have about the same scientific status as chopping off your own finger for religious reasons: some people may see this as a silly decision, but it is your decision and not that of your husband, or your society, or your government.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

A 9 month old in the womb is more developed than a 7 month old outside.
So that doesn't really follow this statement.

"It is possible to kill a creature that has a potential to become a developed human"

The fetus is already a human. And development doesn't stop until a person's 20s. Rather than draw an arbitrary line of development, I prefer to draw it at humanity. 

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

I am not sure I follow. A 7 month old outside has developed from something that used to be a 9 month old in the womb, so how can it be less developed?

The fetus is a human, but a very undeveloped one (which is why I talked about a "developed human", and not just a "human"). If you want to draw it at humanity, then you should start considering people who masturbate murderers - which might make sense from this perspective, but would be very impractical.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

"The argument often made is birth grants personhood."

Birth does grant person-hood. A fetus is a potential person. All people are currently living. Before birth or after death, they are no longer persons in the eyes of the law.

"If there was no such thing as adoption, would you be ok if babies were killed."

No, but without some sort of place for the child to go, (orphanage, foster care, etc.) they will die because they cannot care for themselves. That doesn't change the point that adoption is an alternative for parenting, not pregnancy.

"Yes. Exception is life of mother. Haven't fully decided on rape."

So you would force a person to have a constant reminder of their trauma, 24/7, for almost a year.

Birth control has an average failure rate of 12.3%, which is not insignificant. If a person uses birth control, but still get pregnant, why should they be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy that they attempted to prevent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

"A 9 month old in the womb is more developed than a 7 month old outside."

What evidence to you have to support this assertion? A fetuses lungs, for example, don't fully expand until the first breath is taken. A 7 month old can support their own head, sit up without assistance, can start eating solid foods, starts responding to their name, starts babbling using vowel and consonant sounds together, and starts recognizing faces. These are all markers of development that occur AFTER birth.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/your-7-month-old-baby-development-and-milestones-4172912

The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, before the ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus) may have developed into a fetus.

At the END of the first trimester, the ZEF is about the size of a plum, their organs are starting to develop, and they don't have any brain function, as the brain does not fully develop until the third trimester.

https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=first-trimester-85-P01218

Why do you think a potential person should have more rights than an actual person? There are currently people in prison for having a miscarriage, and Georgia passed and signed a bill into law in 2019 that would jail people for having a miscarriage. Yes, the Georgia law was found unconstitutional by a federal court, but that ruling has been appealed, and could be put back on the books. Do you support this? Why or why not?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544

https://www.businessinsider.com/women-30-years-prison-miscarriage-georgia-abortion-2019-5

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

@ZeusAres42
Abortion is not a binary issues
Pregnancy terminations are a binary issue, have been for the past 40-50 years the low-level code is an illegal invasion of privacy and the high-level java users are arguing a one-sided murder that is about immigration. Things legal and illegal both can be aborted and it is common knowledge if we use a word wrong it can create trouble.

@John_C_87 the  OP is asking if the abortion debate/topic is a dead issue, and as demonstrated above it isn't. If only it was that simple.

ZeusAres42

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

I could word it more precisely.  The baby shouldn't be allowed to be murdered due to your choices.

MayCaesar said:

@MichaelElpers

I am not sure I follow. A 7 month old outside has developed from something that used to be a 9 month old in the womb, so how can it be less developed?

The fetus is a human, but a very undeveloped one (which is why I talked about a "developed human", and not just a "human"). If you want to draw it at humanity, then you should start considering people who masturbate murderers - which might make sense from this perspective, but would be very impractical.

Oh yeah, I forgot about this. If you are going to say abortion is murder because you are terminating the potential for a life form to develop then you are going to have to accept that masturbation is also murder. Otherwise, you would be contradicting yourself as sperm is also alive.

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

"All people are currently living"
Great, fetuses are living members of the human species.

Is there data supporting abortion helped there trauma? And again your trading killing and potential trauma.

In a smaller Elliot Institute study published in 2000, outcomes reflected similar viewpoints:

• Nearly 80 percent of the women who aborted their children after rape reported that abortion was the wrong solution, that it only increased their trauma.
• None of the women who gave birth to a child conceived in rape expressed regret or wished they had aborted instead

I was comparing 7 months from conception (born) to 9 month (unborn).  Clearly after 2 more months a baby would be further developed. But you would consider the 7 month a person and the 9 month not .

A person's brain isn't fully developed until they are adults not at the third trimester.
I don't support criminalizing miscarriages.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

I was comparing from conception. A premature 7 month to a 9 month that hasn't been born.

Sperm and eggs separately are not members of the human species.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

What is a member of a human species and what is not is a matter of convention: evolution of the sperm and egg into a born baby is a gradual process, and you cannot draw an objective line anywhere at which a qualitative transition from a non-human into a human occurs. It is a matter of terminology, not objectivity, and it seems bizarre to me to decide what should be legal and what is not based on the arbitrary and subjective terminology.

My outlook, on the other hand, is objective: while you are a part of someone's body, you belong to that someone; as soon as you have been expelled from that body, you are an autonomous being. I do not see a viable alternative to this that does not involve some greyness.

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

'"All people are currently living"
Great, fetuses are living members of the human species.'

That was a typo. I meant to write "All people have been born." Before birth, the ZEF is a potential person.

"Is there data supporting abortion helped there trauma? And again your trading killing and potential trauma."

I'm not sure anyone has done a study on that. The closest thing to a study I could find was this one from India:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6927364/

Then there is this statement, which makes a lot of sense:

'“what it is doing is, it’s further taking control and power away from the survivor right at the moment when they need that power and control over their lives to begin healing.”'

https://khn.org/news/article/texas-abortion-law-rape-incest-survivors/

And again you are prioritizing a not even fully developed potential person over an actual person.

"In a smaller Elliot Institute study published in 2000, outcomes reflected similar viewpoints:"

This "study" was conducted by a pro-life group, consisted of under 200 people, and was published in a book. The only way to read anything substantial about the study, like how they chose their subjects, what questions were asked, etc., is to buy the book. The book was also published in early 2000, so the study was likely conducted over 2o years ago. Here are more recent studies:

From a 5 year study:

" Abortion denial may be initially associated with psychological harm to women and findings do not support restricting abortion on the basis that abortion harms women’s mental health."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2592320

• Women who are denied an abortion are more likely to initially experience higher levels of anxiety, lower life satisfaction and lower self-esteem compared with women who received an abortion .ii

• Experiencing unwanted pregnancies appears to be strongly associated with poor mental health effects for women later in life. xii

https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion

"A long-term 2016 study from the American Journal of Public Health looked at people who completed their pregnancies before abortion became legal. Compared to people with wanted pregnancies, those who had unwanted pregnancies were more likely to have poorer mental health later in life.11"

https://www.verywellmind.com/mental-health-implications-of-forced-pregnancy-5212669

"I was comparing 7 months from conception (born) to 9 month (unborn).  Clearly after 2 more months a baby would be further developed. But you would consider the 7 month a person and the 9 month not ."

Okay. That was not clear from your statement. As I stated earlier, all persons have been born.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42
@John_C_87 the  OP is asking if the abortion debate/topic is a dead issue, and as demonstrated above it isn't. If only it was that simple. 

It was just that simple. The debate is not over abortion it is over pregnancy terminations and it takes a rather high level of incompetence to continue to insist that abortion is a valid argument as the best state of the union. It is legal malpractice the known court documented crime was an illegal loss of privacy. When do you believe a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy? The basic principle is clear the termination of pregnancy.

John_C_87

This is a zero confidence finding...
There is no democratic party in this one everyone is held as a republican by the way the crime was made a united state of law implicating all voters.

OakTownA

@John_C_87

"The debate is not over abortion it is over pregnancy terminations"

What do you think an abortion is?

abortion

(ă-bor′shŏn)

The spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus reaches a viable age.

https://www.tabers.com/tabersonline/view/Tabers-Dictionary/766365/all/abortion

Barnardot

This debate is about abortion because that’s what the title says and pregnancy termination is the same thing. Like were you only born yesterday? @OakTownA

John_C_87

@OakTownA
What do you think an abortion is?
What do we know abort means...abort means the order given to officially terminate something which has been officially started. Abortion is a past tense of that order as an action. It is fact. Termination of a pregnancy is a terminated pregnancy, not an abortion. The malpractice of law which has been ongoing for 50 plus years is a lie as the term was brought to America by immigrants who had no understanding of united state constitutional right or wrong...

(abortion)

(ă-bor′shŏn)

(The spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus reaches a viable age.) This is a lie. It is what a group of people voted on to what the meaning of abortion should be for educational purposes it isn't a whole truth in basic principle. Termination of pregnancy is not describing an order it is saying an end result pregnancy is stopped not pregnancy is officially stopped by an order.

https://www.tabers.com/tabersonline/view/Tabers-Dictionary/766365/all/abortion

The truth was abort means the order given to officially terminate something which has been officially started. Abortion is a tense of that action.

John_C_87

Barnardot said:

This debate is about abortion because that’s what the title says and pregnancy termination is the same thing. Like were you only born yesterday? @OakTownA

They are not the same words.
Abort and terminate do not have the same context. One can be used to call off the other and vice versa. A process that is aborting will then be terminated upon completion when the stop is in effect, it is an order to officially terminate something that has been recognized officially to have begun. The use of abortion became a lie when the question "when does life officially start." It took place, the question public as part of the termination process argument.

A legal way to address the state of the union would have been along the lines of Female-specific amputations is a medical process to terminate a pregnancy. It would be believed this was a retaliation against united states constitution for holding women legally incapable to become a Presdient of the Constitutional united states of America. The crime of complex perjury is shared as a united state of law between the two principles. A woman by truth can be called to name a witness before the courts of law as a Presadera which is simply a basic principle that would hold only one meaning. A woman who sat for the future of all women before united states in constitution. The word constitution, not the "Article of Instruction."

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

In that instance conjoined twins have a problem.

I believe mine is pretty objective.  At conception is when unique human DNA with 46 chromosomes are created.  It is one entity that continues to develope as a human. 
That's when someone can definitely say they were created and were 1 body.

Dee

No it’s not a dead issue , what amuses me most is the fact it’s mostly men dictating how women should behave and rarely are the woman’s feelings on the matter taken into consideration 

The typical “solution “ put forward is adoption , but adoption mostly is  not for the ones doing the complaining that’s for others to take care of 

Rarely do the anti crowd ask why a woman feels the need to abort instead they lazily lump them all into one group as in they’re purely selfish 

We are talking here about passing an exceptional law which allows governments the “right “ to deny a human right as in bodily autonomy to a woman , worse still the opposition want to criminalise a woman who defys any such ruling 

A denial of bodily autonomy is a denial of a human right , a dead person has more rights regards a woman in this way as it’s body cannot be interfered with 

If such a law became commonplace why stop there ? Why not let the government take one of your kidneys if required after all you live just as well with one ? Or let the government take your blood when required as it’s also saving lives.

I guarantee the same people who assume to know every woman’s reasons for abortion would scream blue murder if such became law

A fetus has been granted permission to use the sustenance of a woman’s body , this permission may be withdrawn at any time , anything else is tyranny 

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

Conjoined twins, indeed, have a serious problem, one that, perhaps, cannot be resolved from the rights-based perspective. Two beings that are completely codependent on each other in their survival must necessarily violate each other's rights if they are to survive at all.

I do not think it is very objective. Why is the unique DNA molecule a fundamental "unit" of humanity and, say, not the individual chromosomes involved, or individual atoms that are parts of those chromosomes? The process is gradual, and that DNA molecule cannot be formed without these ingredients in place - so why not consider ingredients themselves human?

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

"so why not consider ingredients themselves human?"

Because the ingredients themselves are separated and cannot develope as a human by themselves. 
Just like icing and batter separately doesn't make a cupcake.
Once the ingredients are combined not only their a unique human genetic code created but the single entity begins development as a human. 

It's not just about the strand of DNA, otherwise and human DNA strand would be a separate humam.

John_C_87

@Dee
A fetus has been granted permission to use the sustenance of a woman’s body , this permission may be withdrawn at any time , anything else is tyranny 

The fetus is part of the woman's body it is and was an aged embryo in which the woman contributed directly to its age. The name to replace termination used to describe the process of the topic is what was found to be illegal in a court, at which time there has not been a correction of the crime attempted. To abort a pregnancy, to call it abortion is a dead issue because it was found to be an illegal invasion of privacy in a court of law placing it on life support and advancing the public interpretations of meaning to a word does not change the status over long periods of time, legalities unless they are identified and corrected by its basic principle remain.

The "correct grammar" is a termination of pregnancy the real issue is that poor grammar, religious beliefs, and law all just happen to agree as a united state of the law in this circumstance, it doesn't happen every day. The reason the law is not enforcing criminal perjury is most likely money, the cost of money is too high to preserve the law in this matter, the people spent it elsewhere in the tax and spend process and it's deemed not wanted. This did not excuse or negate the principles of effective change and its legal burden as the crime could have simply been addressed and fixed but the illegal practice of law was embraced.

It is obvious at this point the paddles used to shock the patient to restart the heart were not in working order, the state of the American constitution and the decomposed state of pregnancy abortion is testimony to this fact. The decomposition stinks. The lies mount. Should the states like California, Texas. New York and others are charged with criminal charges in their use of abortion in legislation? The answer is clearly yes, as it could have simply sated pregnancy termination is unlawful, and gave the condition clearly as a united state of law. A presidential state of the union would go as far as to advise that these states have been ejected from the state of the American Consitutional united state of law, by their own actions.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

There is not much of a gap in abortion views between the sexes, so its not just men.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-public-opinion

Typically abortion is done for a selfish reasons.  You think killing the fetus, is being unselfish towards the fetus?

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

"so why not consider ingredients themselves human?"

Because the ingredients themselves are separated and cannot develope as a human by themselves. 
Just like icing and batter separately doesn't make a cupcake.
Once the ingredients are combined not only their a unique human genetic code created but the single entity begins development as a human. 

It's not just about the strand of DNA, otherwise and human DNA strand would be a separate humam.

But the DNA cannot develop as a human by itself either: if you take a human DNA and put it in a box, it will never develop into an embryo. It still requires a large variety of ingredients and conditions to keep developing. This is the case all the way until the baby is expelled from the host's body; so, if being able to develop by itself is what defines a human, then your conclusion agrees with mine: you cannot "murder" the creature inside a woman's body, and that creature only gains any rights once it is out of the body.

John_C_87

Oh! Abortion, did you mean the legal limits of legislated pregnancy termination?

I know it's hard to understand why someone might not believe this isn't a staged production presented by religion for entertainment purposes. Is it that we consider a dedication found by Christians and Christianity expecting pregnancy abortion to rise from the dead, only to live and keep walking the earth again?

The word abort does not hold a basic united state of law on behalf of all women in an attempt to create themselves equal under law. I am not saying this is a fact, yet, had "they" the women described "All men are created equal by their creator" as something other than discrimination against women this wouldn't have been the imperfect union it has now become.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

@Dee 

There is not much of a gap in abortion views between the sexes, so its not just men.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-public-opinion

I never made an argument regards such I said “ it’s mostly men dictating how women should behave and rarely are the woman’s feelings on the matter taken into consideration” 

Typically abortion is done for a selfish reasons.

Did you ever look up the definition of selfish? How do you know it’s “typically “ done for this reason?

  You think killing the fetus, is being unselfish towards the fetus?

I think it’s an act of extreme decency to abort in most cases 

You think forcing a woman to give birth against her will is just? You want to allow a dead person  more rights than a pregnant woman ….wow! 

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

This is the case for all of humanity, not just after birth.  If you don't have oxygen, water, ect you will die.

The embryo has developed a natural key function of developing itself as a human. 
 I would also reason because we are talking about development of human traits, it only makes sense if we are assuming the entity is human. Sperm and egg have not achieved developmental conditions.