I am pro-life and I believe that life starts at conception.  Saying that life starts after birth is a completely arbitrary line in the sand and we are merely judging whether somebody is a human being based on his/her location.  Even when we say that life starts at a certain IQ or level of productivity, how do we judge what intelligence level merits the right to be called a human being? What if a mother wants the choice to end the life of her 2 year old toddler?  This child is clearly nowhere near as smart or productive as a 20 year old and so should an abortion be allowed in this case?  In fact, we have had at least 1 case in Canada where infanticide has been justified in court because it is seen to be similar to a very late term abortion. 

The only point where a distinctive change occurs in the nature of the fetus is at conception.  Any other line we draw is purely arbitrary, but it doesn't make it OK.  Time and time again, in the past, societies have tried to justify killing innocent people because they have deemed those people to be less than human and, thus, sidestepped the ugly label of "killing."  One such example was, back in the colonial days, when citizens would trade in native scalps of men, women and even children for reward money: native people were considered at the time to be savages and so this activity wasn't seen as murder.  It was a convenient line in the sand for society to draw in the 18th century when we were fighting wars with tribes but I think everybody would agree that murdering innocent aboriginal people under this pretense was just as wrong in the 18th century as it is now.  One day our society will see abortion in the same way: some things are just wrong and it doesn't really matter how good society tries to make us feel about it.  Killing is killing.

I am pro-life and I believe that life starts at conception.  Saying that life starts after birth is a completely arbitrary line in the sand and we are merely judging whether somebody is a human being based on his/her location.  Even when we say that life starts at a certain IQ or level of productivity, how do we judge what intelligence level merits the right to be called a human being? What if a mother wants the choice to end the life of her 2 year old toddler?  This child is clearly nowhere near as smart or productive as a 20 year old and so should an abortion be allowed in this case?  In fact, we have had at least 1 case in Canada where infanticide has been justified in court because it is seen to be similar to a very late term abortion. 

The only point where a distinctive change occurs in the nature of the fetus is at conception.  Any other line we draw is purely arbitrary, but it doesn't make it OK.  Time and time again, in the past, societies have tried to justify killing innocent people because they have deemed those people to be less than human and, thus, sidestepped the ugly label of "killing."  One such example was, back in the colonial days, when citizens would trade in native scalps of men, women and even children for reward money: native people were considered at the time to be savages and so this activity wasn't seen as murder.  It was a convenient line in the sand for society to draw in the 18th century when we were fighting wars with tribes but I think everybody would agree that murdering innocent aboriginal people under this pretense was just as wrong in the 18th century as it is now.  One day our society will see abortion in the same way: some things are just wrong and it doesn't really matter how good society tries to make us feel about it.  Killing is killing.

Does the concept of human reproduction bother you?  Do you believe in the stork theory?  Or are you offended by the idea that it could ever be wrong to kill someone? 

The problem here are the science behind the issues at hand, we know a few things now that we might not have thought about before.

1.) Birth complications- Women have been dying to giving birth since ancient times due to our fucked up evolution, this is more questionable than anything else. If you know the mother will die, or have a high chance of dying to give birth to a child, and live in a world where pro-life is the law, per say, then the mother will die, and the fate of the baby unknown. Maybe there is a father, maybe there is not, maybe there is a family, maybe there is not, apparently nobody gives a shit about the baby after it's born, only when it's in the mother's womb, because for all we know, this baby might die on the street, or goto an adoption agency(potential abuse or not, who knows?) or goes to a shitty relative. The world can be a cruel place, are you going to handle all that? Sometimes, you don't have a choice even if the result looks like it's pro-choice if you want to live, why is the mother's life less important than the baby's when they are both human beings? If you are pro-life, then lives should be equally important, no matter what you choose, a life dies in that situation, it's a paradox.

There is a huge moral difference between an accidental death and killing a person.  For example if somebody gets run over by a car in an accident, while this is highly unfortunate, criminal charges generally are not laid.  That said, if I were to run over somebody with a car deliberately to end their life then this would be manslaughter and I would go to jail.  At the end of the day, every single human being is going to die from something in this world but that is not justification advocate killing innocent people.

In the case of women dying from giving birth, please keep in mind that this makes up about 1% of abortion cases.  In all honesty, if abortion was only being used in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother the number of abortions being performed each year would be so minimal that there likely wouldn't even be a significant pro-life movement.

2.) Envirnoment after birth for the baby and the parents- There is a reason why we try to not get teenagers pregnant, they can't handle it in modern society, and it puts a burden on the family(frawning grandparents as their dollar bills go down the pipes) that can't afford it. The situation doesn't apply to just teenagers either, some people are just not ready to raise a child in a good and healthy environment. Then sometimes they have no choice but to put the baby up for adoption, which is emotional trauma on top of emotional trauma. Life is not that simple.

I'm not saying that life is simple, but we don't kill adolescents who grow up in difficult households and so why should we then be advocating the killing of babies who are being born into difficult situations?  A life is a life and we should be trying to help families who are in difficult economic situations and not kill them off.

Furthermore, how many world's most successful people come from incredibly poor beginnings?  Just because somebody isn't growing up in a good environment doesn't mean that they will turn out to be degenerates or even close to it.  The solution to this problem is not abortion, but rather to support these families far more than we are currently doing.

3.) Medical complications- So, my Mother had to get an abortion, mind you that this was back in the days where technology was way worse, if you think modern day abortion is uncomfortable, dial back to about 38 years ago, and oh boy. Who the fuck would want to get an abortion on a cold ass metal bed with late 1970's vaccum technology in a foreign country that was still in development amirite? It's not like she fucking wanted to okay? She had been injected with a vaccine that had a history of affecting the baby and she didn't know that she was pregnant at the time, so there was a high chance that the baby would come out with permanent damage or straight up die in the womb. Not to mention that she was going to tie the knot after 2 babies(she wanted my older brother to have a sibling,) very logical individual, which would have resulted in me never being born, so thank fucking goodness that happened, otherwise I wouldn't even exist to reply to your post. Shit happens okay? She chose to get that abortion, and I came to existence, if not for that, I might not be here, so thank you abortion.

I am sorry to hear about what happened with your mom.  I'm sure that she is very glad that she has you and your brother.

4.) Individual Belief- I know that in some religions, the idea of abortion might be bad, I don't know, I don't know much about religion TBH because I don't believe in the idea of God or Gods as myths or legends or doctorines would tell it by humans(the whole woman from a man's collar bone thing instanly offended me as a child at the age of 9 because it made no fucking sense and I was a 9 year old boy lol.) I'm a man based on science and so are the rest of my family and most of my family chains. And because of the 3 things I listed above, and much more, I think that women should have that choice, TBH sometimes it's not even pro-choice, abortions happen due to a lot of reasons.

The issue of abortion isn't even a religious question because we already have laws against killing.  The issue is a purely scientific question as to when life begins.  I challenge you as a person of science to explain to me why a baby with half of his foot still in the birth canal is considered to be a "clump of cells" while a baby fully born is given the full rights of a human being.  The current definition of when life begins is completely unscientific and is based on emotion and that's wrong.

Pro-life is an unrealistic ideal at the end of day when all thing are considered and that's why abortion is legal in the US.

The fertility rate in the US and almost every western country is so low now that an Islamic takeover is basically inevitable now (I promise you that abortion will not be allowed in their society).  Ask any demographer what happens to societies that have sustained fertility rates <2.10 and you will not find a successful historical example.  Many western countries now have fertility rates <1.6.  Russia, on the other hand, has gone from a fertiity rate of about 1.1 in 1999 to 1.8 now and this is largely thanks to the flourishing pro-life movement in that country.  Pro-life may be an unrealistic ideal in the west, but then so will be our continued existence.

My questions remain: Does nobody give a shit about the mother on the pro-life side!?!?!? Why is the life of the baby more important than the mother's when lives should be equally important?

Yes, mothers need to be supported as much as possible.  This should include a no-questions-asked adoption program that is heavily supported by the church and the state.  Care for the mother definitely (and the family) needs to be a huge part of the solution.

That's some crazy shit.

That's my point. CAN BECOME. A fetus is aborted before that, normally. So it's not. Why do people want it banned again?