1) And hence my issue with your original answer. There isn't really any argument within your assertion of "once a life starts it is human". It is largely a circular argument which relies on a belief in the argument's own trueness to prove its trueness. But again, there is a lack of clarity in both the term "life" and the term "human". What make something alive? Is it the fact that it contains living cells? Is it a conscious awareness? Is it its ability to survive on its own? And what is the meaning of "human"? Under the dictionary, a human is basically something with the features and qualities of a human, but a fertilized egg fails to reach even that low bar. Why is it human? How is it alive? And why do those questions matter

2) Again, you are largely missing the question. There is a significant non-moral and non-religious answer to the sanctity of life regarding individuals post-birth. One of the facets of that argument discusses the strength of society. It should be intuitive that a society that considers murder wrong is a lot stronger than a society which does not. However, the same doesn't really apply to abortion. If you consider abortion from a pragmatic viewpoint, it provides many benefits. These include: Increased access to education and increased labor force participation, which are both important factors to reducing poverty and inequality. It also provides agency, rights and control over their body to women and bringing it back to the overall question of this thread, it helps to reduce birth rates in a way which doesn't rely on heavy handed government control. The argument for the wrongness of murder simply doesn't extend to an argument for the wrongness of abortion, which is why such an argument needs to be made independently of the inherency argument.

3) My purpose in asking this question is because I think it is a discussion regarding the sanctity of life, and it is another situation where ending a life does not produce negative societal outcomes, and in fact may be a positive choice for society. It is also an interesting parallel as it is a discussion of whether to mandate interference to ensure a human who isn't viable be kept alive. The difference here is that this is done using machines whereas a child is kept alive using a woman's body. I don't mind dropping this particular example though.

4) Another point of curiosity, do you believe in exceptions to your ban on abortion, such as in instances of incest and rape?

You seem to believe women are playing dice to decide to have an abortion. They're not. That's often the last step of very traumatic processes and circumstances.

Your "sound secular arguments" don't exist either outside of a modern age Western humanist philosophy that stems from the earlier works of Augustine and others. So, my point stands. I always lol at people who fail to realize how much they are the product of a specific historic and cultural context and think they hace achieved some sort of universal truth.

There's two people born every second, so no shortage of precious human lives for you to care about. Go do something for them instead of patrolling other people's wombs.

Bolded:But what does life being human matter,he has the right to suffer and die after being born instead of being aborted?

Uhh... No, it's not. And, by the way, more people = more demand = more jobs. The number of jobs is directly correlated to the number of people.

Oh, there's plenty of money to go around. It's just all concentrated in the hands of very few people.

As for automation, that's just natural when it comes to technology, it has nothing to do with the population size. It's been happening for millennia. The authorities should create a security net to phase out the jobs that are being replaced by robots in a way that doesn't ruin the lives of people that depend on them.

Yeah, you didn't need to say that. The OP is just a carbon copy of the racist anti-immigrant arguments. They appeal to the emotions, but they don't make much sense once you think about them for a bit. Bigotry disguised as concern for the economy.

And by the way, how do you plan to END ALL IMMIGRATION? Do you want the US to become the next North Korea? If the US bans immigration, their international soft power is gone. You can expect retaliation, and then you can be sure that the economy is fucked.

"United States should downsize the population by ending all immigration and creating incentives for having fewer kids."

North Korea is the one country I can think of that bans all immigration. I'm comparing them based on the immigration policy the OP was proposing.

Because immigrants come from other countries. Countries nowadays have agreements to facilitate immigration. We live in a globalized world, where most people can immigrate to other countries fairly easily. By banning any immigration, the US would be basically giving the middle finger to every other country.

First bold: But you are trying to force your own generalising will unto possible suffering children and females that you neglect because you think all life must live.

Second bold:Orphans are not better of dead,SOME are better of dead but your extremity is pushing them all under the same thought.

Third bold:Sometimes the chance is low or nonexistent to have a wonderfull life,medical equipment exists to be able to see some things very early on.

As you seem unwilling to engage in anything even vaguely resembling an argument, I'll be brief.

My qualms over your assertions of "human" and "life" regarding an undeveloped, fertilized egg lie in the fact that these distinctions you are making are functionally useless. If you take a drop of blood and hand it to a scientist and ask "is this alive?" they will look at the cells in the sample and make that determination. I am not asking "if" a fertilized egg is alive, I am asking "how", or "in what sense" is it alive. If the only factor is "the cells are alive", the definition you are providing is far too broad.

Similarly, if you then ask "is this human?" they will then look at the DNA inside the cells and make this determination. In both cases, a drop of blood contains all of the same factors of both being "human" and "life" as a fertilized egg. But is a cell belonging to a human a human, or is it the combination of many cells which makes a human?

Under the assertion that we must inherently protect "human" "life", with such a vague and overreaching definition, that statement stretches far beyond a discussion of abortion. As such, simply leaving it as "it is human life" is fundamentally nonsense.

As for the life support question, if that person, say, is undergoing kidney failure and needs a kidney in order to live, we do not mandate that someone gives a kidney to this individual, because the individual has absolute agency over their own body and this agency comes before even the lives of others. Similarly, a woman should have absolute agency over her own body. The state should not mandate she use it in a certain way, just as the state should not mandate individuals give up their kidneys.

This topic seems like a full on ban trap but hey lol

Downright stopping immigration has a detrimental effect on any country. The more isolated a country is, the more it staggers development and new ideas. Ideally there would always be a good flow of migrants (in and out) of any country. What a sad existence it would be to be born, live and die exactly in the same place.

Having said this, I'm all for stopping incentives to have more kids. Unfortunately the countries where overpopulation is a real issue, show no signs of stopping it. Tends to be poorer countries where kids are seen as a security for people to be "taken care of" in their older years, so the more the better from that selfish perspective. That and the religious angle, but fortunately that one seems to be declining.

Additionally, people born and raised in a specific country not being able to compete for a good job with an immigrant is really saying something. Someone that had to leave everything behind and start a new life, may or may not even speak the language to a good degree. Someone that will already have it harder in life and face discrimination on a regular basis and this person somehow is better qualified for the job you want? Should make you pause and think if the problem is not you.

Disclaimer: Not aiming this post at anyone in specific, more to the sort of people I see complaining about this sort of stuff. The "they took our jerbs" South Park meme type.