[Dystopian Darkness]

I also think abortion should prove useful to control overpopulation. My biggest concern with pro-choice policies right now is that immigrants have more kids and don't abort while natives have less kids and have almost zero reasons to procreate - 20% Unemployment, lack of social security and welfare support, risk of being fired for pregnancy or simply being pregnant, and high costs for necessary goods and services to provide for a baby. No, I'm not going to be politically correct, I don't want my country to be ruled by immigrants

[Truth To Power]

Killing an innocent human with corrosive chemicals when it is at its most vulnerable is inherently wrong.

What about with a scalpel? Google "parasitic twin" and start reading.

[Taxtro]

The topic of abortion shows how we must fundamentally change the way we value life. Not according to DNA, but to consciousness. We are living in a society, in which a couple of cells are better protected than a whole living, conscious pig, with friends, family, hopes, the potential to great joy.
To break the madness and injustice of only protecting life with human genes, we have to take on the big task to value life according to it's consciousness and make compromises for grey areas.

[Iron Ant]

High intrinsic value of human life?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

So much hypocritical bullpatties.

Pro lifers do not value human life. They are only fixated on the fetus, nothing more.

Because as soon as it gets born they will drop it and not give any kind of help to born children or adults.

High intrinsic value of human life. What utter rot.

[Truth To Power]

The topic of abortion shows how we must fundamentally change the way we value life.

Why would we value life? Life in nature is highly expendable. What is valuable about the life of a mosquito, or any other wild creature or plant that is not valuable to us?

Not according to DNA, but to consciousness.

Why? What is valuable about the consciousness of a naked mole rat starving in the desert, which will never interact with any human being? What difference does it make if it dies?

We are living in a society, in which a couple of cells are better protected than a whole living, conscious pig, with friends, family, hopes, the potential to great joy.

If the pig was going to be protected, it would not have been brought into existence by the pig farmer in the first place.

You need to stop thinking with your tear ducts.

To break the madness and injustice of only protecting life with human genes,

You haven't established that it is mad or unjust to do so.

we have to take on the big task to value life according to it's consciousness and make compromises for grey areas.

No we don't. Why would we? Consciousness is just identification of one's surroundings. Why would we value any consciousness but our own?

[southwest88]

...

Women consent to carry an unborn child when they make the decision to copulate.

...

Reading through this thread, very interesting. The above is an obvious fallacy - a particular woman may decide to risk the possibility of pregnancy. But copulation to pregnancy is not the only sexual behavior available.

She may, for instance, decide to copulate with another woman, which - outside of a fair amount of biotechnology - means that the first woman is not going to get pregnant. If we discard all the technology, the woman will become pregnant only if she is
1. Receptive - that is, biologically fertile, of age, with healthy ova, etc.
2. Her partner, a man, is of age, with healthy sperm in sufficient quantity, etc.
3. They copulate so as to bring sperm & ova together.

Needless to say, the couple may copulate in such a way as to guarantee that she does not become pregnant.

[southwest88]

...
Killing an innocent human with corrosive chemicals when it is at its most vulnerable is inherently wrong.

Meaning abortion. This is another interesting point to abortion questions.

Because medicine & medical technology are advancing rapidly, fairly soon - in the next 20 or so years - we'll likely be able to surgically remove the fetus from the womb & transplant him or her into either another woman's womb, or perhaps a surrogate womb - whether a person or not; or possibly into an artificial womb. At the point that that transfer becomes possible, we'll have to revisit the entire question of abortion.

If the abortion is being carried out because the fetus not viable, nothing will change.

If the fetus is viable, then it will be possible to transfer the fetus & carry it to term in a different womb. That will require some careful legislation - if the fetus goes to term & is delivered, Does he or she inherit just like any other child? There are a series of related questions.

[Quantum]

Why are pro-lifers want the worst of humanity to populate the world? The last thing we need is irresponsible morons having children when they're unable to raise a functional child. Abortion would save us a lot of trouble in the long run since the rabble won't be here to cause mischief.

Let them destroy their own spawn. Anyone who wants to isn't fit to be parent, anyway.

[taltom]

So I thought I was firmly entrenched into the pro-life camp. But then I read an article about using in vitro fertilization. It turns out that not only can in vitro fertilization help infertile couples, it can also screen for genetic diseases, allow the birth of twins or more, and even select for the gender of the child or children.

Herein lies the dilemma, to do this you need to create multiple embryos and then destroy the ones that you don't want. In fewer words, abortion.

I have been busy forming a secular argument against abortion, one based on the high and intrinsic value of human life, but apparently killing some embryos can practically guarantee the survival and good health of other embryos.

As others have pointed our, there is no "high and intrinsic value" of a life that hasn't begun yet. Pro-lifers like to say that life begins at conception, but it patently does not. Every religious and legal tradition places "life" outside the womb, and most use "the first breath" as the beginning of life. Anything prior to that is just run-up. It's estimated that some 20% of all fetuses spontaneously abort due to developmental problems, so life can't begin before that. Nor can it be considered life if the fetus is born dead for any reason. And you're just talking about embryos. You could as easily criticize yourself for the millions of your own cells that you slough off every day, each of which is no more a child than that embryo is. Biologically, you're not being reasonable. The chances are quite good that over the lifetime of your heterosexual relations, the female partner has had many cases of embryo formation that just didn't take, and those embryos do not have either high or intrinsic value. Human life has value when it's capable of joining its society, and not before.

Also as others have pointed out, you can freeze embryos if you're squeamish about getting rid of them.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Why are pro-lifers want the worst of humanity to populate the world?

The worst of humanity is already running the world.

[Truth To Power]

Pro-lifers like to say that life begins at conception, but it patently does not. Every religious and legal tradition places "life" outside the womb, and most use "the first breath" as the beginning of life.

Yes; in cases of difficult birth, the infant's first lusty cry was always considered the proof that it had been born alive. Not only that, but the disparity of definitions sometimes causes genuine misunderstanding, as with infant mortality statistics. Some countries class a newborn that can't breathe as "stillborn," others class it as a live birth as long as the infant has a heartbeat. Obviously, this gives the latter countries a higher statistical infant mortality rate purely by virtue of the definition of "live birth" that is used.