Not getting into the - incredibly subjective - morality debate, I think the father should have a saying/responsibility in it. Yes, the mother is carrying it and yes, it's her body(?) but the father is just as responsible for the pregnancy. It shouldn't be treated just as women's rights issue, since it should involve both parents to begin with.

Life is sacred, yes. Not in a religious sort of way, but in the sense that all life has value. However up until a certain point in the pregnancy, like WolfpackN64 said, the fetus isn't really alive. Only very few (if any) extremist pro-abortionists will say that abortion is okay all the way up until birth. In Norway, you have free choice until week 12, and anything later than that and you have to apply. If it's later than 18 weeks, it's unlikely that you will get permission, unless there are special circumstances.

So you don't have to answer the question "is life sacred". The real question is "when is a fetus alive".

I'm actually more inclined toward palou's explanation than yours. Not only that, I think you mean "sentient" because every cell in our bodies is considered to be alive much in the way bacteria and single-cell organisms are.

Anyway, like palou's explanation infers, if [human] life is sacred, there has to be a reason why. There are points in the pregnancy where the fetus/child doesn't have a brain or a beating heart, yet its potential for sentient human life is what can be argued needs protecting.

I recall a half-joking Sarah Silverman suggesting that male sperm needs to be regulated, implying it's ridiculous for the converse to be true as well. This is easily refutable in that a fertilized egg has a significantly higher chance of surviving than a lone sperm or unfertilized egg. Again, if there is importance to the sanctity of human life, the potential of sentient life is what can be protected here.

Life first, human rights next. Religion can be ignored in this discussion. As long as the question is kept simple, there's nothing more to it.

That said, determining the point at which it makes sense to talk about life (and preferably any kind of consciousness) is a key point. As far as I know, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about life right after impregnation, or even a good while after it.

I agree with you, but at the same time that is incredibly hard to enforce. Because ultimately who gets last say?

Can a woman be forced to abort if her partner doesn't want a child? (I know a woman who was forced to abort by her partner, who is now in her eighties and she is still devastated by it.)

Or in reverse forced to carry out a child she doesn't want? Be forced to face the consequences of a pregnancy to her well being and life even if she ultimately never wanted a child at that point in her life?

And then you get into incredibly hairy territory once you  consider that if a pregnancy results from a rape, the rapist is the father and thus should have a say. Extending his power over a life and body, he forcibly took in the first place.

Pregnancys and abortion should not just be a 'womans issue' the father should have a say in it. But realistically it is the woman who has to bear the physical consequences of both pregnancy and abortion (just think about all the blotched illegal abortions that left women infertile in the 60s). I think that has to count for something too.

From a purely philosophical standpoint,you're right, the same amount of conciousness is destroyed. But personally I don't have as much problems with humans putting humans first. Tigers put themselves above antilopes, etc.

As for meat production though I think it's unnatural and gross. I really would like to start only eating hunted meat, then I'd feel more like a natural predator.

Liberals are way too open about it. What pisses me off is that apparently only the woman can choose whether or not she wants the kid. Well, who the hell pays for the kid? If the woman is, then go ahead, she can do what she wants. But if the father can't afford it, he should have a say on what to do.

Also, I agree with conservatives when they say abortion isn't good. I don't like abortions. In fact, I'd love to avoid them as much as possible. Liberals thinking it should be like medicine from Walgreens aren't realizing that we shouldn't give people abortions just because they want it. How about we teach people responsibility? Why don't people gain common sense and say, "hey, maybe I'll buy some condoms for $5 instead of paying 500 bucks for an abortion".

Unless there's harm to the woman for being pregnant(e.g 12 year old pregnant from rape, might die from giving birth), I think we should focus more on teaching people to be careful when having sex, and to make sure they're prepared for a child.

Of course, people won't listen.

That's fair.

And if pregnancys weren't bound to the female body I'd say do the same in reverse if the man wants the child but the woman doesn't, but as it is I don't think that it's possible to find a fair way out of that one.

Are you so against it that you would remove the option to do so (in those "most cases"), or do you think people should have the option available, even if you don't agree with them using it?

If we judge by the offpring's ability to think at the moment of it's "death", it makes absolutely no sense that it should not be killed at a time it's less capable than livestock like pigs, which makes it okay to kill any baby with less than a few years alive. Unless you think it's not okay to kill adult pigs or is some religious bigot to think human minds are more important just because it's human.

If we judge by what the offspring will become in the future, being fecundated is enough to make it illegal. It should not even be 100% okay to masturbate, because of the probability of the gamets becoming a human.

The latter makes more sense to me.