Well, up to 14 days, we still don't know if we're talking about one potential person or multiple potential persons.  Twinning can still occur at this stage.  At 8 weeks, the fetus has rudimentary, but not yet functional, organs.  At about 4 months the fetus' nervous system is developed enough to react to stimuli without brain activity, similar to a venus fly trap.  At week 20, the thalamus is formed, so the basics of the brain are in place.  Actual brain waves and sustained brain activity can't be detected until, generally, 24 weeks.  It is generally agreed that the fetus can not feel pain until this point.

I don't think braindead people can be considered alive, so I would say that anything before this point isn't all that gray.  I don't necessarily think that a functioning brain equates to being a person, but it seems like the best indicator we have, so I'd go with that.  The gray area is basically between that second and third trimester, between weeks 20 and 28.  That's the point where I would personally struggle if I were a woman.  

But, even if we could confirm that the fetus is alive at that point, I'm still not sure about whether or not abortion to be illegal.  Maybe immoral, but not necessarily illegal.  There is a difference between killing and removing from the womb, and it's an important legal distinction.

I'm sure that sounds sickening, cause it did the first time I heard it as well.  But, in a debate I saw, someone raised a good point.  At no stage of development is it ever assumed that a person has the right to use the body of another person.  Even if the fetus is what we would call alive, that doesn't mean it has the right to use its mothers body.

Obviously, without the mother's body it will die.  However, there are other similar situations.  Suppose an 7 year old child needs a kidney to live, and its mother is the only match available.  I, as well as most people, would consider the mother monstrous if she didn't consent, but should she be legally required to?  Or, suppose it wasn't a kidney, but merely a blood transfusion.  In this case, where the mother would most likely not suffer in the long term, it would be even more monstrous to not consent.  But, if the mother doesn't, should the government be able to forcibly drain her blood?

Which raises the question that if an 7 year old doesn't have the right to use its mothers body without her consent, should a seven month old have that right?  It's not something I personally like, but I can't think of an argument that a woman should be forced to keep a fetus inside of her body.

It gets grayer when you add in other factors.  Suppose you say that once the brain is fully developed at 24 weeks, and that makes the fetus officially alive.  What do we do in the case of a pregnancy that could be carried to term, but would pose a higher than normal risk to the mother's life (any live birth has a far higher risk of death than abortion)?  Once we legally claim that a fetus is alive at a certain point how can we make ANY exception at ANY point after that?  There is no situation in which we are able to kill a child to save its mother.  So, regardless of rape or potential harm to the mother, how can you make an exception?  If you count late term abortion as murder, I don't know how you get around that problem.

So, there's your gray area.  Biological and legal.

"You did the crime, now do the time" is literally the worst argument against abortion.  It discredits you to even mention it sincerely, IMO. 

I think it should be allowed in certain circumstances, i.e. rape and if the woman's life is in danger.

I think we shouldn't allow abortion for other reasons because of the following reasons:
1. Sadistic reason - Reap what you sow. May make people more responsible instead of irresponsbile idiots.
2. Feel good reason - So many people can't have children so why not adopt the child to someone who is in desperate need of one to love? make someone's life that little bit happier.

That means you're bringing a child who will be unwanted and quite likely unloved into the world.  Starting with two strikes against it.   There are already way too many kids in the adoption system, so more kids aren't going to make the situation better.

Are there though? here in Aus peopel are resorting to going to Asia/India to adopt kids. Surely if there was a surplus there wouldn't be a need to go to another country? then again now that i think about it, could be local red tape lol.  

There are over 400,000 unadopted children in the United States. There are plenty of opportunities for these wannabe parents to step up. But they only want babies freshly minted from the mother's vagina, and sadly, adopted children have a "sell by" date in their eyes. I daresay it's the same in Australia too, just on a smaller scale.

There are a couple of factors.  Firstly, there is more red tape to adopt within the country.  Secondly, at least in the US, race is a big factor.  White Americans tend to have a favorable opinion of Asian kids, while many in the adoption system are black or hispanic.  

Also, most people want to adopt a baby baby.  Like a newborn.  Since the process can take so long, most Americans want to be paired to an expectant mother before they give birth.  This could mean that the mother backs out, or the baby is unhealthy, and so on.

Also, because of China's laws and traditions, girls are often undesirable.  So, many perfectly healthy girls are given up for adoption.  Most Chinese babies up for adoption are healthy.  In other countries, including the US, it's pretty common that kids are given up for adoption due to health reasons, so adopting may mean taking on a special needs child.  And while those kids need love, many just aren't up to the challenge.

Well said. 

I would say that, morally speaking, a woman's right to abortion should be unquestioned until the period you mention, and after that I think that if a woman made a conscious, considered decision to continue the pregnancy, she ought to continue the pregnancy instead of changing her mind.  I acknowledge that this still leaves room for edge cases where the mother was unable to make that decision for whatever reason, or to obtain a desired abortion, until it was too late. 

To answer the question of what to do if a pregnancy is highly dangerous to the mother but the fetus cannot be killed as it is considered a person:  fortunately, science has, unless I am mistaken, advanced to the point where premature births are not necessarily fatal to the infant about as far back as the brain activity measurement we agree on.  Therefore, it's not murder to induce premature childbirth for the sake of the life and health of the mother, and just hope that the baby lives too.  And before then, it's okay to abort anyway.  (I admit that the described situation has a little bit of Sophie's Choice in it, but death is not guaranteed—I'm not fully aware of current moral thought on this.) 

There are plenty of kids even in the Australian system, the problem in Australia and many other countries is the red tape and hoops required to jump through in order to adopt a baby (sadly in many cases necessary red tape due to some truly sick people existing in this world), once a child is a couple of years old the demand drops off significantly for adoption. Asia an India etc are seen as an easy route around the red tape.

If you say the fetus is a person at 5 weeks, I don't know how you could get around it being murder, or at the very least, manslaughter to remove a potentially viable fetus from the mother if it doesn't survive.

Premature birth is not necessarily fatal, but it often is.  There is a huge difference in survival rates between 24 and 26 weeks, which is part of what makes that area so gray.  Premature birth also can potentially have long term negative consequences.