it's simple.
acceptable/morally defensible does not necessarily mean 'illegal'.
a single woman can sleep around - be a whore - and government doesn't put her in jail for that. it's morally wrong...her and God will work it out, not her and the government.
it goes the same for any other individual immoral act that doesn't infringe on others' rights.
so obviously the pro-life argument is that abortion infringes on the right of the unborn to life. well, rights are conferred to 'human beings' not just any living matter (like plants, animals, etc.). so the question it comes down to is 'is the developing fetus a human being?'.
everyone has their different opinion...but since there are objective differences between that human being and a born human being (even if one considers the fetus a human being), there will always be a debate about it.
Nooo... you simply have to ask yourself two questions. Is it life? If so, is it human? Pwn3d.
Of course it is. If there were any doubt, deliveries would be even more anxious than they already are.
Yes, but the point is not "this is immoral, let's ban it, the point is that either abortion is absolutely morally defensible (no more wrong than having an appendectomy) or it is absolutely wrong, because it's killing a human. There is no middle ground.
everyone has their different opinion...but since there are objective differences between that human being and a born human being (even if one considers the fetus a human being), there will always be a debate about it.
If a bunch of people decided it was best for society to act as if thunder was the sound of God bowling, would you have this same attitude about it? Would you consider it a matter of debate?
There is not a single feature of the fetus that leaves any scientific doubt that it is a human life. I defy you to offer me one. Your post is relativistic BS.