We have moved from asserting rights of "humans" to "developing humans". This distinction makes a fairly large difference. It makes it not so much an argument about the present state of the fertilized egg, but instead an argument regarding what that egg has the potential to become. I do not believe the potential of a fertilized egg is inherently worth protecting. There is no relevant difference between this cell and any other cell in its present state. Only in its future can a distinction be made.

But again, the reason I criticized your argument is because it is an argument of inherency. You ascribe an inherent state to the egg as soon as it is fertilized, yet you can provide no basis for why. There is no argument here beyond your beliefs. "It should be this way because it should be this way" is as far as it goes, so there isn't really any discussion to have.

And regarding that last step, first of all, sex is not consent for pregnancy, especially when you have already stated that you provide no exceptions for rape victims. Again, this is a question of agency. A woman can choose to have sex while choosing not to be pregnant. To push pregnancy on her, is to remove a piece of her agency over her own body.

As for the kidney transplant, why is it okay to kill somebody through inaction? But even if you agree that there is a difference, should it be okay for a woman to take a passive approach to pregnancy leading in miscarriage? Successful pregnancy requires a number of active steps to be taken by a woman. It is not a passive process.

Population should decrease in the long run naturally as the cost of living rises and automation takes more jobs, as well as better education for women around the world helps reduce population growth outside the US

Environmentally populations will need to be reduced in the long run or forced to by a climate out of control in the very near future

Scientists from the Australian National University (ANU) have predicted that the climate will be out of our control in a short number of years, then temps will steadily rise to 4C above normal then go even higher, once that starts so many environmental impacts will occur regularly that eventually the World will only be able to support less than 1 Billion people, Civilisation as well know it will collapse, leaving our descendants dead or destitute

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-08/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-outcome-top-climate-scientists/

As I've said a few times now, it is clear that this conversation will be fruitless. I've attempted to make various appeals to different areas of the conversation, but you have shown your beliefs run quite deep. I will say that you have done quite well at explaining the beliefs you hold. That said, I do not believe you have adequately explained the "why" but alas, that is my entire issue with this conversation so that shouldn't come as a surprise.

Such circular arguments are considered logical fallacies for a reason. They do nothing to prove any truth, they only establish a belief. A belief can only be argued for so long. There were some misunderstandings in your post and some things that I disagree with you on, but there is clearly nothing that I can do to insert anything outside of that circle into your reasoning, so I see no point in continuing to prod at this circle.

Have a good one. I can only hope that my rights don't hinge on your circular beliefs in the future

Anti-abortionism is generally a feature of primitive belief systems or corruptions of modern religion, and has no inherently ethical or moral foundation that's philosophically sound. The anti-abortionism popularized in Christianity, for example, is more of a corruption of the religious beliefs rather than a genuine feature. But either way, religious objections beg the question of whether we should have Sharia law or a Christian equivalent.

Anyway, I only skimmed the posts, but:

1. Does a man get a vote against abortion? Straightforward answer: from a legal perspective, no. Similarly, a woman cannot prevent a man from doing things to his own body.

2. Does life begin at the moment of conception? Debatable, but my personal belief is that life DOES begin at the moment of conception - which might confuse many people my stance on abortion.

3. Since human life begins at conception, then that could conceivably mean that conception begins the life of a person. For the sake of argument, since anti-abortionists argue unborn human = person anyway, lets say that a person begins at the conception. But the law isn't being applied to the unborn person, it's the pregnant woman; so, the relevant question is not about whether the unborn person has the right to not be aborted, but whether a pregnant woman has the right to abort it. In other words, it's not a question as to whether an embryo or fetus is a person with equal rights, but if a pregnant woman is.

4: Here are a few questions that get asked on this topic:
A. Is it ethical for the state's place to legally force a person to be pregnant?
B. Is it ethical for the state force a person to never fast, to force a person to abstain from certain forms of exercise and activities (like bungee jumping, or going on rides at a theme park), to force a legal aged person in legally acceptable situations (i.e. not behind the wheel) to abstain from drinking alcohol, or to force a person to eat healthy? Or are these things a person's choice?
C. Is it ethical for the state to force a person to sustain another's life? Example: say they are the one who has the necessary bone marrow which, if transplanted, would prevent another person from dying.
D. Is it ethical for the state to ban a people from putting babies up for adoption?

If the answer is no for any of these questions, then in order to be in favour of abortion, you must then stand for the argument that a pregnant woman is not an equal person, and therefore, if you're American, disagree with fundamental values of the US constitution of all people being equals under the law. And if your answer is yes for any of these, then again, but you think that these things should be applied to pregnant woman but not anyone else, then same thing. And if your answer is no to all of these, even in the case of pregnant women, but that abortion should still be illegal then that's simple hypocrisy: for A-C because they can all involve forms of self-abortion, and D because a pregnant woman does not have the same right to give up a child as a new parent; and if you agree the state can step in and prevent self-abortion, then your answer really isn't "no" to all of these.

5. An objection to point C (under point 4 above) one might ponder is parent is obligated to look after their child; unless you agree that adoption should be illegal, then this is a distinct issue from carrying a child to term, and not a logically valid objection.

6. Embryos are human life and therefore people, then surely fertility clinics should be banned? Afterall, since human life begins at conception, fertility clinics kill more people each year than abortions via failed transplants and allowing embryos to expire.

E. Here's another question I just thought of (along the lines of A-D above). A man and a woman use IVF because they're having trouble conceiving. It turns out to be effective, and on the first treatment she becomes pregnant with triplets or quadruplets. They have 15 embryos left in storage. Is she obligated to have the other 15 babies since they're all people?

7. Consent to sex is not equal to consenting to pregnancy. In order to make that argument, you have to claim that sex purely for pleasure is not a thing; and if this is the argument for state enforcement against aborition, then you must argue that sexual activity for the purpose of pleasure is illegal (that includes, masturbation, blow jobs, handjobs, tit jobs, and birth control).

8. Even if consent to pregnancy occurs, this is separate from consenting to state forced pregnancy to be carried to term.

Anyway, none of my arguments are new, some of them have been around for 50+ years and are among the points made (although, far more thorough and eloquent than I've stated) as the basis for legalized abortion to this day. The anti-abortion contentions brought up in this thread are similarly, not new, and were defeated in courts of law in just about every country in the western world by points such as some of those I've made above. And "God wills it" is not a valid response, since we make our laws in legal courts, and not in churches or mosques.

Great arguments!

Just wanted to add one little thing to it:

There are some under the pro-choice who would never in their life do an abortion and personally are strongly against it. So why are they then Pro-choice, not pro-life? Because they feel that their personal beliefs should not be a hindrance to other people who don't share their opinion on the matter.

While we can have a conversation about the meaning of "human" and "life", at the end of the day, that is simply a means of establishing a vocabulary to allow further conversation. Once we understand the definitions, we are able to get into the actual discussion of why this thing, that you've defined as "human" "life" should be protected. As you say in this post, you can't really do that beyond just saying that this human life should be protected because human life should be protected, which is, by definition, circular.

Do you believe that is a mischaracterization of your conclusion here?

Umm, no. There are a lot of things the US needs. Population control isn't on the list.

I was making an attempt to gain information about your worldview to find something that I could use to address the core question, as every time I attempted to broach that subject, it was largely rebuffed as "inherent". I admit, I failed. You demonstrated that your personal circle of beliefs is fairly robust. At the least, I can applaud you for not being a hypocrite.

The blood question was a means of demonstrating how your definitions ill fit the situation. At one point I asked how you defined a "human" and you informed me that "You have a scientist examine a fertilized egg and ask him what species it is, they'll answer, 'Human'". I thought this was an in. If this is your definition of "human", it is utterly insufficient at making a distinction between blood and a fertilized egg. You addressed this concern by clarifying that "human" is not simply something that a scientist will identify as being of the species "human" (not technically a species, but I thought I understand your point), but instead something that is in itself a stage of human development. I personally disagree with this, however, at this point, you had pulled my concerns into your circle. Turns out that I had not found something which would allow me to connect the outside of the circle to the inside, but instead, I was already inside the circle and I could no longer see the outside.

There wasn't really anything there that existed outside of the foundational argument of inherency.

And yes, even in this post, that inherency is still asserted. I ask why human life should be protected and your answers are:
1) People agree that human life should be protected - Fallacy of the appeal to majority and circular reasoning
2) Societies agree that not protecting human life is evil - Fallacy of the appeal to majority or authority and more circular reasoning

Yet even under these fallacies, I do not agree. You are conflating developed humans and fertilized eggs. While, according to you, they exist under the same definition of "living human", there is a clear distinction between the two, whether or not you believe that matters in terms of rights. In order to make the assertion that they should be protected under the same banner under such appeals, you would have to prove that ending the life of a developed human is wrong solely because it is a "living human" and not for any other reasons. Could it not be other properties than the nature of being a "living human" that causes us to protect the lives of developed humans?

I'm not sure if that makes sense, so lets reduce it to math:

x=7

7=Prime number

13=Prime number

Does x=13, or might some other property of "7" cause it to be equal to "x" other than the fact that it is a prime number?

Similarly (under your definitions):

Life should be protected of Developed humans

Developed Humans are Human Life

Fertilized eggs are Human Life

Should Life should be protected for Fertilized eggs, or might some other property of "Developed humans" indicate that their lives should be protected other than the fact that they are human life?

Now that I've written that out, I'm not sure if the math example helped.

Dang,didn't think a thought on the top of my head can cause so much discussion. I should write a book and cause a nation wide debate.

If only the Mods thought the same way as you do.