a fetus is a unit of life.
if you took a crysalizing caterpillar and smashed it but said “wait… it was just crysalizing… it doesn’t count” you would still be extinguishing that life.
Egg cells are units of life too.
OH SNAP!
But, in that context, does that mean that Sperm are also units of life? In a sense, I suppose.
millions of my unborn children died on your daughter’s face last night
MURDER!
also birthcontrol would be “murder”
edit*
or maybe more like forced suicide…
Once again, OH SNAP!
Case in point, people against abortion are morons. 
(Kidding, obviously. You do have some good arguments, actually. I’m inclined to agree. You guys kinda have, y’know, morals on your side. But I’m for the choice of abortion. Probably not gonna change, either).
im all for abortion, why over populate?
also, stem cell research, hells yeah!
also me and a friend want to go to the teen clinic and planned parenting and ask if they sell coat hangars
Are fetuses alive? No.
Would they be without direct interference? Yes.
Would the millions of sperm you ejaculate have become alive without direct interference? No.
Crappy analogy time: By killing some random stranger, there is an infinitesimal chance that he could one day cure cancer. But you can’t be charged with the death of all subsequent cancer victims because of that (so the sperm argument doesn’t exactly fly). However, if you somehow knew that the person was going to grow up to cure cancer (being from the future and all >_>), you would be 100% responsible for the deaths of the cancer victims.
But I’m all for cancer; why overpopulate?
The egg cells of a sexually active teenage girl would become a fetus if we didn’t interfere with condoms. Does that mean condoms are as bad as abortion, by your logic?
That’s not so much interference as it is a preemptive choice to not start the process. “Preventing someone from existing” would entail that if you don’t do anything, the person is going to come into existence by default.
But you’re arguing the semantics of what constitutes the beginning of “the process”. I could argue that sex is the beginning of the process, not conception. Is the morning after pill too late into the process as defined by you?
Heh, good point. Though sex doesn’t always result in birth on its own, and conception does (barring exceptions which are irrelevant in this context), which is why I would consider that the start.
Bad 072, being off topic! Bad!
>_>
<_<
How exactly DID we get on this topic?
Condoms during days 10 to 15 of the menstrual cycle, then
It makes sense, it’s just not substantive enough to base any morals on, in my opinion. Conception results in birth a lot and sometimes doesn’t, unprotected sex at the right time results in birth a lot but slightly less. Therefore, we shouldn’t allow abortions but should allow condoms.
okay i have another anti-abortion arguement.
if someone kills a pregnant person that person is often charged with 2 counts of murder, one for the mother, one for the fetus.
however, when the mother kills the fetus it doesn’t count…
say a young girl (15-16)
is raped and gets preggo
i think you see where im going with this
edit*
OHSH-
we are WAY off topic <_<
good catch Zurg xD
well I’d say that this is natural progression from arguing about how to deal with N. Korea to morals about nuking them to the morals of abortion so since were still having an intelligent conversation and 072 is participating its not really off topic…yeah
anyway really its the potential mothers choice, if the potential mother isn’t ready for childbirth or parenting then they have every right to abort the child, its their body and a paricite living within them
these murders are accused of the two counts of murder because the death of the fetus was consented by the would be mother…or because there’s a religious zealot in office but that’s not the point
That’s entirely bureaucratic and irrelevant to morality. That’s as much an argument for killing pregnant mothers as it is an argument for abortion. You can ban abortion to solve the discrepancy, or you can make murdering pregnant mothers carry a lighter penalty.
EDIT: Syntax Man, I don’t like the use of the word “parasite”. As far as I know, it’s easier, in terms of resources, to raise a baby before it’s born than after. So why consider the fetus a parasite, but not the newborn? The infringement on the mother’s body isn’t, in this case, a relevant argument, because we sure as hell aren’t going to let her kill a newborn, who infringes on her body plenty.
there are alternatives like adoption…
@pom:
the thing is, the woman’s body may not be fit to grow the fetus within them due to age, such as a preggo teen or someone who should have gone through menopause ages ago but didn’t, that puts a lot of stress on the body.
@Tim:
on a strictly scientific level, a fetus is a parasite, it lives inside of another human for 9 months stealing food and oxygen causing the body to work harder in order to maintain 2 systems rather than one, not to mention the fact that the fetus consumes just as much energy as the mother in order to grow from being one single cell to being a full baby in just 9 months. Also when the thing does finally leave the body it causes immense amounts of pain as it tries to fit through a whole smaller than the baby’s fist
On a strictly scientific level, so is a child, so it’s a pointless word to use. Yes, the fetus takes energy from the money more directly, but the mother has to devote resources to the fetus either way. More, as a matter of fact, after it’s born.