The horrors of abortion which our governments support

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, User said:

A newborn baby is dependent on the mother to live. 

If you leave it lying on the ground, it will die without support. 

Sure but the at that point the survivability of the child isn't also a healthcare decision of the mother. 

 

Quote

I asked you what you think. 

I can't know when a soul, if it exists, manifests itself in a fetus or embryo. What I do know is forcing a mother to give birth to a child she doesn't want is highly immoral. The life of the fetus shouldn't supercede the decisions of the mother. 

Quote

Murder is more rare. Should we make murder legal?

Is it? Do you have stat? The point trying to be made, is abortion at this stage is rarely, if ever, a case of a mother just deciding they didn't want a child. And if it is, it's because they were denied the treatment earlier. 

Is it murder to abort a fetus if the mother is likely to die? 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Your problem is you don't talk facts.  What God thinks is the bottom line. 

That's your religious belief.

There are too many religions out there, for this to be a reliable measuring stick for all people within a society.

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Says who? 

Medical experts.

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Since nobody can get inside the fetus' body, they cannot say what it feels

I don't need to get inside ones body to understand how it feels. Mind you, may use that as a future pickup line.

Expertise on the human brain and nervous system in general to name a couple, is usually sufficient, and quite extensively studied.

Medical expertise > God. 

There's a reason why: "Call 9-1-1 is the first thing that should be said during an emergency.

3 hours ago, User said:

as long as it is painless?

Not quite. As long as its a fetus that isn't born, and not past a certain state of development. 

4 hours ago, User said:

No, outlawing anything doesn't completely stop it, but it most certainly will drastically reduce it. 

Dramatically increasing the risks to the woman. 

Glad I live somewhere where your line of thinking isn't considered for rights on women's bodies.

 

[User]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

Sure but the at that point the survivability of the child isn't also a healthcare decision of the mother. 

It is amazing how you just keep moving these goal posts here... 

Also, mental health still applies while that baby is lying on the floor. So, still a healthcare decision of the mother, no?

8 minutes ago, Boges said:

I can't know when a soul, if it exists, manifests itself in a fetus or embryo. What I do know is forcing a mother to give birth to a child she doesn't want is highly immoral. The life of the fetus shouldn't supercede the decisions of the mother. 

But forcing a mother to raise and care for a child she doesn't want... isn't immoral?

I did not ask you about when a soul exists. I asked you when you believe human life begins. I mean, clearly you think that must happen at least at birth, no? Is a 1 second old child that has just emerged from the birth canal a human life?

10 minutes ago, Boges said:

Is it? Do you have stat? The point trying to be made, is abortion at this stage is rarely, if ever, a case of a mother just deciding they didn't want a child. And if it is, it's because they were denied the treatment earlier. 

Is it murder to abort a fetus if the mother is likely to die? 

This is some real Sea Lioning if I have ever seen it before... yeah, there are 1 million abortions a year in America, there are not 1 Million murders a year. 

There are about 100K abortions a year in Canada. About 1,000 murders. 

Do you really need a source? Do you really believe there are more murders than abortions? Really?

I don't know the Canada stats, but in America 95%+ of abortions are for the mere convenience of it. <5% are due to Rape, incest, or the life of the mother. 

I don't like to use the term murder when talking about abortions, when it comes to the life of the mother, you have two conflicting right to life issues at hand, one must trump the other. 

[User]

17 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Not quite. As long as its a fetus that isn't born, and not past a certain state of development. 

Yet, you focused the argument on one of pain... as a reason to say it was wrong to kill a born person or child while arguing it is just fine to kill the unborn because they feel no pain. 

So... now after I have logically reduced your argument... the whole pain thing was a ruse and you are moving goal posts now to "not born" or "not past a certain state of development"

 

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Dramatically increasing the risks to the woman. 

Glad I live somewhere where your line of thinking isn't considered for rights on women's bodies.

Only if they try to kill their unborn child... most will not. The vast majority will not. 

You tried to act reasonably earlier, and I tried to play along, but now you resort to this petty language about being glad you live somewhere where my line of thinking isn't considered... 

 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, User said:

Yet, you focused the argument on one of pain

Along with it being an undeveloped fetus. I mentioned pain, to refute the argument I was presented, on the baby being in serious pain, being painted by a poster.

24 minutes ago, User said:

is just fine to kill the unborn because they feel no pain. 

Nope. Because they aren't fully developed which is key, but also happen to feel no pain which for the latter, refuted that argument. I also provided medical cites.

25 minutes ago, User said:

So... now after I have logically reduced your argument

You really haven't. You're cherry picking parts of my argument, while bringing no data to support your own.

26 minutes ago, User said:

the whole pain thing was a ruse

No ruse, whatsoever. It was in response to a poster clearly feeling that a fetus prior to the state I had mentioned could feel pain. I provided cites to refute it.

You're essentially telling me am using ruses, mad for the direction you chose to pull the argument into.

29 minutes ago, User said:

being glad you live somewhere where my line of thinking isn't considered

My wife has a daughter. My sibling has two daughters. Am surrounded by children in my family.

I kind of like them being in a country where their reproductive rights are respected.

Would be a shame for them to wind up somewhere where a man of all people, could essentially dictate to her what she can do with her body and literally put it into law.

[Five of swords]

1 hour ago, User said:

So... you think that is cool for 5 year olds too?

 

What do you use as the basis then? 

YOU think it is fine for 5 year Olds to die, depending on circumstances. A lot of 5 year olds had to die for the allies to win ww2. Do you regret that?

[User]

2 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

YOU think it is fine for 5 year Olds to die, depending on circumstances. A lot of 5 year olds had to die for the allies to win ww2. Do you regret that?

The fact that you are trying to hard to dodge this question only proves you know you are wrong. 

 

[Boges]

39 minutes ago, User said:

I did not ask you about when a soul exists. I asked you when you believe human life begins. I mean, clearly you think that must happen at least at birth, no? Is a 1 second old child that has just emerged from the birth canal a human life?

I believe once a fetus or child is able to survive outside a mother's womb, that's when they should be afforded protection by the legal justice system. Meaning killing at that point is murder. I concede opinions on this may vary. That's why I think a mother should be able to choose. 

Quote

 

This is some real Sea Lioning if I have ever seen it before... yeah, there are 1 million abortions a year in America, there are not 1 Million murders a year. 

There are about 100K abortions a year in Canada. About 1,000 murders. 

Do you really need a source? Do you really believe there are more murders than abortions? Really?

 

The claim was 1% of abortions are done in the third trimester. These late-term abortions that become the main thrust of the Pro-Like narrative. So using your stat of 100,000, we're also talking 1,000 late term abortions. And how many of those are done for the health of the mother. I know this is rhetorical, but I imagine it's most. 

Quote

 

I don't know the Canada stats, but in America 95%+ of abortions are for the mere convenience of it. <5% are due to Rape, incest, or the life of the mother. 

I don't like to use the term murder when talking about abortions, when it comes to the life of the mother, you have two conflicting right to life issues at hand, one must trump the other. 

 

And the vast majority of abortions done for "mere convenience" are done in the first trimester. A period where the fetus doesn't really resemble a human, they just have the potential of being a human. The same as a sperm, embryo or egg. 

Edited August 8, 2024 by Boges

[User]

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Along with it being an undeveloped fetus. I mentioned pain, to refute the argument I was presented, on the baby being in serious pain, being painted by a poster.

No, you used pain to differentiate between a born child and an unborn one. Once I took pain off the table, your argument fell apart. 

Which, to the point, you have continued to ignore my repeated questions about killing a 5 year old and the morality opinion argument you were playing at. 

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You really haven't. You're cherry picking parts of my argument, while bringing no data to support your own.

I don't need data to show the logical inconsistencies in your arguments. I just need to show you the better argument, and I did. 

5 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You're essentially telling me am using ruses, mad for the direction you chose to pull the argument into.

Not me... and no, you were using that pain argument as part of the difference...

"The difference is their ability to feel pain..."

As I have logically reduced you to admitting now, pain had nothing to do with it. 

8 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

My wife has a daughter. My sibling has two daughters. Am surrounded by children in my family.

I kind of like them being in a country where their reproductive rights are respected.

Would be a shame for them to wind up somewhere where a man of all people, could essentially dictate to her what she can do with her body and literally put it into law.

So, honestly, when your wife was pregnant with your daughter, did you think she was just a mere clump of cells and not a human life until viability and had a stranger beat your wife before then causing your daughter to have "died" in the womb (stopped developing) I am sure you and your wife would have been just fine with that because hey, not a human life yet. No feelings at all... right? 

For the millionth time, we are talking about the right to life for that unborn child as well... 

And the sexism card is just dumb, the pro-life movement is diverse and comprised of women as well. 

And for the millionth time, the unborn child is not a woman's body.

And for the millionth time, even your own arguments do not respect a woman's body, you still think that unborn child is a human life after viability, no?

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

But just so you know, these opinions are far outside the views a majority of people in the western world. 

Yes, I've known that for a long time.  I also know the reason for that.  

quote

In Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5—7), the Lord presents a word picture of two gates, one wide and one narrow. Jesus explains to His listeners that to see and participate in His coming kingdom a person must have true, inner righteousness and not simply an external adherence to a code of laws. The scribes and Pharisees were teaching a kind of works-based salvation, asserting that obedience to the law was how people could be right in the sight of God. Jesus counters that directly, saying poignantly that, unless a person’s righteousness surpassed that of the scribes and Pharisees, that person would not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:20).

In Matthew 7:13–14 Jesus describes two gates: the wide gate—taken by many—that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13); and the narrow gate—taken by few—that leads to life (Matthew 7:14). One gate is wide to accommodate the many who enter the way leading to destruction, while the other is narrow to represent the relatively few who seek life and find it. Jesus exhorts His listeners to enter through the narrow gate rather than attempting to enter through the broad gate.

The broad gate was the way advocated by those who were teaching falsehood (including the scribes and Pharisees). The broad gate was the appearance of righteousness but not actual righteousness. The scribes and Pharisees (and other false teachers and prophets) were teaching that a person could enter the kingdom of heaven simply based on either a relation to Abraham and Moses or by following the Law of Moses. Instead, Jesus advocated the narrow gate—this was the way to enter the kingdom. This narrow gate was the path of true righteousness. This kind of righteousness would cause people to see and glorify God rather than glorify the person doing the work (Matthew 5:16).   unquote

For the full article:

Why is the gate that leads to destruction wide (Matthew 7:13)? | GotQuestions.org

This same principle applies to other things as well.  The bottom line is never go by the majority.  They are not always right.

Edited August 8, 2024 by blackbird

[User]

22 minutes ago, Boges said:

I believe once a fetus or child is able to survive outside a mother's womb, that's when they should be afforded protection by the legal justice system. Meaning killing at that point is murder. I concede opinions on this may vary. That's why I think a mother should be able to choose. 

Still not answering the question. I did not ask when they should be afforded protection by the legal justice system. The discussion has been on human life and when it begins. I asked you to say when you think it begins. 

24 minutes ago, Boges said:

The claim was 1% of abortions are done in the third trimester. These late-term abortions that become the main thrust of the Pro-Like narrative. So using your stat of 100,000, we're also talking 1,000 late term abortions. And how many of those are done for the health of the mother. I know this is rhetorical, but I imagine it's most. 

Fair enough on focusing on 3rd trimester abortions, I see your point there... but my point still remains. Murder is also rare, the fact that it might be as rare or close enough to 3rd trimester abortions doesn't change my point... should Murder be OK to because it is rare?

Your argument was basically that because it is rare, no big deal. 

Now you speculate that it must be because of the life of the mother... really? What do you base that on? And clearly not all of them are for the life of the mother, you even concede that only most might be (not that I am buying that) so... what about the others?

26 minutes ago, Boges said:

And the vast majority of abortions done for "mere convenience" are done in the first trimester. A period where the fetus doesn't really resemble a human, they just have the potential of being a human. The same as a sperm, embryo or egg. 

No, not the same as a sperm, embryo, or egg. Those things all have distinct names and definitions because they are different things. 

And here yet again you talk about being a human and still refuse to define when you believe that happens. 

I know why... its because once you admit it is just the second after birth, I can logically tear apart the silliness of that position. 

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

I can't know when a soul, if it exists, manifests itself in a fetus or embryo. What I do know is forcing a mother to give birth to a child she doesn't want is highly immoral. The life of the fetus shouldn't supercede the decisions of the mother. 

Is it? Do you have stat? The point trying to be made, is abortion at this stage is rarely, if ever, a case of a mother just deciding they didn't want a child. And if it is, it's because they were denied the treatment earlier. 

Is it murder to abort a fetus if the mother is likely to die? 

Is it immoral for a mother to kick her kids out of the house because she doesn't want them anymore...drop them off at the local fire hall, or hospital...with a note i don't want these kids any more...are those good moral choices...

Like any thing in life there are rules to the exception, abortion would be legal if there was rape, or unwanted sex...medical reasons, drug issues, and perhaps others i have not thought of , but one should see a medical and mental health doctor before any procedures are done...One must think of all the options this women had before making this one decision, the morning after pill, condoms, the patch, millions of other inventions to stop pregnancy... most of them affordable , less than a pack of smokes...and still after all that, abortion is the one of the choices they turn to for prevention... 

While we are dumping unwanted humans in the medical waste so many parents out there are looking to adopt...some even going out of country to do so , because the lists and wait is so long. 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, User said:

Once I took pain off the table, your argument fell apart. 

Not really.

My initial post was my argument. 

It included pain, but was mostly centered on women's reproductive rights.

What you're doing is lazy. You're pointing to one point I made while defending all of my other ones, while ignoring them at your convenience.

Not only that I debated these points, but supported them with medical evidence. Objective evidence.

You have yet to do so. 

2 hours ago, User said:

Which, to the point, you have continued to ignore my repeated questions about killing a 5 year

Its irrelevant. Sensationalism doesn't make it any more true.

2 hours ago, User said:

I don't need data 

Because you don't have data. Simple as that.

2 hours ago, User said:

"The difference is their ability to feel pain..."

And them being undeveloped, as well as me feeling women are entitled to reproductive rights.

You're ignoring my initial post, and the fact I defended each point.

You're trying to cherry pick to deflect the fact you have no evidence.

2 hours ago, User said:

And for the millionth time

You have yet to show evidence a fetus feels pain.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Not really.

My initial post was my argument. 

It included pain, but was mostly centered on women's reproductive rights.

What you're doing is lazy. You're pointing to one point I made while defending all of my other ones, while ignoring them at your convenience.

Not only that I debated these points, but supported them with medical evidence. Objective evidence.

You have yet to do so. 

All you have to do is concede you were wrong about pain or should not have included it, yet you must continue to defend the indefensible instead. 

That doesn't make me lazy, it makes your argument bad for including it. 

I don't need to submit medical evidence to point out the logical inconsistency of your argument. 

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Its irrelevant. Sensationalism doesn't make it any more true.

You challenged my assertion as nothing more than opinion when I said it was wrong to kill the unborn child, and my response is wholly relevant to that. I explained all this to you already, about how we needed to find some moral playing field we were both on... you ignored that. 

8 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Because you don't have data. Simple as that.

What is it I need data for here?

8 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

And them being undeveloped, as well as me feeling women are entitled to reproductive rights.

You're ignoring my initial post, and the fact I defended each point.

You're trying to cherry pick to deflect the fact you have no evidence.

Evidence... for what? Your bad argument?

My evidence was that you balked at saying it was OK to kill a 5 year old if you made sure they felt no pain. That is all the evidence I needed to show how bad your argument was to include that. 

9 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You have yet to show evidence a fetus feels pain.

You are confusing me with blackbird. I made no arguments here, however, your reducing this to just a fetus is wrong. A fetus is the term used for the unborn child up until birth. So now you are arguing an unborn child (fetus) one second before birth feels no pain? 

Do you really need me to show you evidence for that? Really? Or care to adjust your statement here?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, User said:

All you have to do is concede you were wrong about pain

I provided a cite. You haven't.

1 hour ago, User said:

That doesn't make me lazy

Disingenuous, if you prefer. Troll like. 

1 hour ago, User said:

medical evidence

Any cite, that supports your point. You have failed to do so.

1 hour ago, User said:

My evidence

That's not evidence. Your argument was horrible, and irrelevant.

1 hour ago, User said:

You are confusing me with blackbird

Change blackbird with a troll, and I would agree.

1 hour ago, User said:

Do you really need me to show you evidence for that?

You would have if you had some. You don't. Its okay.

[User]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

I provided a cite. You haven't.

And? This doesn't make your inconsistency in the argument about pain any better. 

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Disingenuous, if you prefer. Troll like. 

Says the guy who is now responding to me in very short sentences not actually directed to all the things I am saying. 

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Any cite, that supports your point. You have failed to do so.

Speaking of being a troll... you are not even fully quoting anything I said and responding with this. 

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

That's not evidence. Your argument was horrible, and irrelevant.

How so? 

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Change blackbird with a troll, and I would agree.

Once again, you fail to respond to what I said here. If anyone is being a troll now, it is you. 

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

You would have if you had some. You don't. Its okay.

Sure dude. Sure. A fetus the moment before birth doesn't feel any pain. You are not serious, you can't argue well, you can't defend the things you say, so you resort to this garbage. 

Seriously, you do not need a medical study to admit that one second before birth a fetus can feel pain just as it could one second after birth. 

This is basic logic man. 

 

 

[Five of swords]

6 hours ago, User said:

The fact that you are trying to hard to dodge this question only proves you know you are wrong. 

 

I'm not dodging...

[User]

5 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

I'm not dodging...

LOL sure, whatever you want to call it, you are not answering the question. 

[Five of swords]

Just now, User said:

LOL sure, whatever you want to call it, you are not answering the question. 

Depending on circumstances, it may be necessary to kill 5 year olds. Yes, I believe that and so does everyone else, if they are honest.

[User]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

Depending on circumstances, it may be necessary to kill 5 year olds. Yes, I believe that and so does everyone else, if they are honest.

We know the circumstances for this discussion and my question. 

You keep avoiding it. 

 

[blackbird]

"The Devil walketh about seeking whom he may devour."  We need to be very cautious.  Some posters on here are not serious and only post for devious motives.

Edited August 9, 2024 by blackbird

[blackbird]

It is a serious mistake to fight against God and his written word, in English, the King James Bible 1611.  

On the issue of the pre-born, God recognizes them as persons.  Questioning or disputing that, or insisting women have the right to do what they want with their own body is really treading on dangerous ground.  Consider this carefully in the light of God's word, the King James Bible.  A good place to start is the Gospel of John.

We are all facing death and the judgment, but with faith through grace (Ephesians 2:8,9) we will overcome and spend eternity in a glorious place.  That faith must be in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and what he has done for us on the cross.

" 12  Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. "  Hebrews 9:12 KJV

"1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. {substance: or, ground, or, confidence} 2  For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3  Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 

4  By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. {yet…: or, is yet spoken of} 5  By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7  By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. {moved…: or, being wary} 8  By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9  By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10  For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. 11  Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. 12  Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. 13  These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. {in faith: Gr. according to faith} 14  For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15  And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16  But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. "    Hebrews 11:1-16 KJV

 

 

Edited August 9, 2024 by blackbird

[Guest]

11 hours ago, User said:

And?

My argument is based on evidence. Yours is not.

IE women unnecessarily dying due to draconian abortion bans. Lack of pain felt by the fetus at the state where it is legal in Canada, along with women having their reproductive rights respected.

Men can get their d***s wet and bail and evade child support.

Women should have a lawful exit ramp as well, should she choose to do so, lawfully.

You have failed to prove that women are better off, with their abortion rights removed. In fact, statistics prove they literally are not.

You posting sensationalist arguments equating the life of an undeveloped fetus to a fully developed and born child, is purely emotional, to distract from the fact you have no legit argument. You wouldn't need to rely on histrionics if you did.

11 hours ago, User said:

Speaking of being a troll

I think your lack of evidence to support your points speaks for itself.

My argument was clear from the onset. You pulling my points in various directions, having me respond to each, doesn't change my initial point. Just means I am better at supporting my opinions than you are.

11 hours ago, User said:

How so? 

You're failing to support your argument. Its purely emotional and opinion. 

11 hours ago, User said:

Once again

You are a master at deflection. Yet to support any of your arguments.

You literally have nothing to bring tot he table, other than putting yourself on the shoulder, because your argument can't do it for you.

11 hours ago, User said:

Sure dude. Sure.

You can deflect all you wish. Won't make your unsupported emotional argument any truer.

If fact your refusal, kind of confirms you have nothing to bring to the table that isn't emotional, opinion or your views conflating with facts.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

  Questioning or disputing that, or insisting women have the right to do what they want with their own body is really treading on dangerous ground. 

Only thing missing after that, is "alahu akbar" and "death to America".

If you self narrated that in an Arabic accent, you're not only out of touch, but inherently prejudiced, to boot.

[Boges]

17 hours ago, User said:

Still not answering the question. I did not ask when they should be afforded protection by the legal justice system. The discussion has been on human life and when it begins. I asked you to say when you think it begins. 

I'd have to concede, I'm not sure. I can see the case being made that a human is a human. But I think at early forms of development. Especially in the first 10 weeks, there's little difference between a fetus, embryo, sperm or egg. 

 

Quote

Fair enough on focusing on 3rd trimester abortions, I see your point there... but my point still remains. Murder is also rare, the fact that it might be as rare or close enough to 3rd trimester abortions doesn't change my point... should Murder be OK to because it is rare?

No, but should it be banned when there could be plenty of reasons to end a fetus' life due to the health of the mother? 

Quote

Now you speculate that it must be because of the life of the mother... really? What do you base that on? And clearly not all of them are for the life of the mother, you even concede that only most might be (not that I am buying that) so... what about the others?

Like many say, it should be the decision of the mother because it's 100% dependent on the mother for survival. No one can step in to help like if a newborn is abandoned. 

Quote

No, not the same as a sperm, embryo, or egg. Those things all have distinct names and definitions because they are different things. 

But they are human. And member blackbird seems to include embryos in his definition of life. See how hard it is to get agreement on this? 

 

Quote

I know why... its because once you admit it is just the second after birth, I can logically tear apart the silliness of that position. 

Personally I would like to see abortions banned in the third trimester. But as mentioned there could be reasons why it's required. Abortions should happen as early as possible if required. The irony is that the way some US states create their abortions laws make it impossible for a mother to get an early abortion. 

Here's a question for you. What's your line. Do you think contraception that prevents an embryo from being viable is also immoral?