Abortion what do you think of it?

[Rien]

 

I believe that it should be made legal and readily available everywhere.

 

But in that case you still would want checks for people who are wanting an abortion.

 

Well, what do you mean by checks? If you're talking about having something along the lines of an established procedure to be followed beforehand, then yes, I don't believe anyone should just be able to walk into a clinic and have an abortion on the spot. :P

 

 

 

As I said in my last post, I don't see how anyone can argue against abortion on anything other than moral grounds, and it is precisely because of this that abortion should be legalized nationally. The only problem (that I can see, really) is in hammering out the details; even if abortion is legailized, how do we determine the acceptable time-frame for performing abortions? Obviously, not everyone is going to agree on when it's "alright" to seek an abortion, since it's virtually impossible to come to a consensus on when life "begins." I believe that anything past (approximately) the fourth month of pregnancy is too far, but my opinion will undoubtably be contested by others. Therefore, I would tentatively propose setting no time limit to avoid the issue altogether, although I'm well aware that this would probably outrage a fair few. Similarly to the "morality of abortion," the time at which life "begins" is more or less a matter of personal opinion. By not setting a time-frame in which seeking an abortion would be acceptable, the doctors and patients would be able to decide for themselves what they want to do; those who view late abortions as immoral would be free to have an earlier abortion or carry their baby to term, and the rest could choose to have an abortion performed at any time.

 

 

 

It's a moral quagmire to be sure, but I certainly can't justify forcing my own views on anyone else. 'And this is what it ultimately comes down to, I believe. :|

 

 

 

The second part isn't directly at you, Howlin; I was just reiterating my thoughts on the matter.

[zeekyhbomb]

Secondly, I'm not saying you can't get the garbage off and I'm not saying you shouldn't have an abortion. All I am saying is that you are responsible for the birth, condom or not. If you walked under a falling garbage truck that you saw in the sky and it lands on you, then you are responsible for that happening. I never said you deserved to suffer or anything like that - merely that you caused it.

 

 

 

No one would ever deny that they had caused pregnancy if they had sex and it happened. That doesn't mean, however, that because it happened the 'child' must be kept to term and born. If people are doing everything they can to not have a 'child', and something goes wrong, why shouldn't they be able to take the next step to not have that 'child'; abortion.

 

 

 

How is this morally any different than using birth control itself? You say you've had sex, I assume you aren't a parent. Haven't you prevented a 'child' from being born by using birth control?

[Zierro]

If people are doing everything they can to not have a 'child', and something goes wrong,

 

 

 

How is having sex "doing everything you can" to not have a child? That would be abstinence you're thinking about.

 

 

 

That doesn't mean, however, that because it happened the 'child' must be kept to term and born.

 

why shouldn't they be able to take the next step to not have that 'child'; abortion.

 

 

 

I do think abortion should be legal! Seriously folks, I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Just because I say that a logical argument isn't good doesn't mean I'm against them having an abortion.

 

 

 

How is this morally any different than using birth control itself? You say you've had sex, I assume you aren't a parent. Haven't you prevented a 'child' from being born by using birth control?

 

 

 

Well, the reason that argument doesn't work is because, on this technical level you're speaking about, not having sex every second of your life is 'preventing' a child. If there are no lines to be drawn then what's stopping you from comparing washing your hands to genocide? There's a difference between wasting a sperm (millions of which are being wasted already) and killing a fetus inside a womb.

 

 

 

What you're doing is counterproductive to your whole point. When you are dishonest about abortion, that's exactly what turns people off. When you compare wearing a condom to having an abortion, you're just making abortion out to be something it's not. Believe it or not, you can say you want abortion to be legal without trying to come up with all the horrible reasoning to try to justify it. Like I said, it's counterproductive. Jesus, I'm pro-choice and I found them to be bad. What makes you think you're gonna convince someone that's pro-life?

 

 

 

Before it gets lost in this thread, this is what I was initially arguing against:

 

 

 

And what about the ones that are accidents? Like the male/female use protection but still gets pregnant? What about then? I don't think it would be fair to call that getting knocked up.

 

 

 

Now, let me try to straighten this out.

 

 

 

I agree with Howl that abortion should be legal, just not with the same basis Howl is using. It's not really an accident if it's consenting sex. You're still responsible for causing the conception of the baby, condom or not. The faultiness of a birth control should be acknowledged with people participating in sex, so it shouldn't really come as a major shock to you if it didn't work. You knew sex causes babies and you knew birth control isn't perfect. Knowing this, you still had sex. You caused the pregnancy. It is fair to call that getting knocked up.

 

 

 

That was my point.

[warri0r45]

To me there are two separate issues when it comes to abortion - one of morality and one of pragmatism.

 

 

 

It's much more pragmatic to make abortions legal for the sake of the women who will have clandestine abortions regardless of the law, because there is no solid correlation between legality and abortion rate. There is one between abortion rate and contraception prevalence, however, and that's where I think efforts in reducing abortion rates should lie. Given this, I admire any pro-life advocate who thinks the legality of abortion is a necessary evil.

 

 

 

As for the moral aspect of it, generally speaking I have no problem with abortion, although the further on in development it is, the less likely I'll be ok with it. I would definitely draw the line at third trimester abortions, but as for before then, there's still some grey area for me. I question the assumption that some pro-life advocates make that says that personhood must enter the zygote at one definite point. In my view personhood is much more of an emergent property. Some would say this is a philosophical cop-out of sorts, but I think being a person is far more complex an issue than pro-life advocates suggest.

[Guy]

im not sure what the law is now.. but it should be legal in like the first 4 weeks.. unless you don't know and you discover after those 4 weeks.. but you should be albe to if it was an 'accident'

[zeekyhbomb]

How is having sex "doing everything you can" to not have a child? That would be abstinence you're thinking about.

 

Don't be so idealistic; you know exactly what I mean. Abstinence is a terrible idea that no right-minded person is going to practice; it's something taught by the church and schools. I mean safe sex.

 

 

 

Well, the reason that argument doesn't work is because, on this technical level you're speaking about, not having sex every second of your life is 'preventing' a child. If there are no lines to be drawn then what's stopping you from comparing washing your hands to genocide? There's a difference between wasting a sperm (millions of which are being wasted already) and killing a fetus inside a womb.

 

 

 

What you're doing is counterproductive to your whole point. When you are dishonest about abortion, that's exactly what turns people off. When you compare wearing a condom to having an abortion, you're just making abortion out to be something it's not. Believe it or not, you can say you want abortion to be legal without trying to come up with all the horrible reasoning to try to justify it. Like I said, it's counterproductive. Jesus, I'm pro-choice and I found them to be bad. What makes you think you're gonna convince someone that's pro-life?

 

 

 

What I said was nothing like 'every time you aren't having sex you're preventing a child from being made', what you're doing is counterproductive. If you have sex, you ejaculate, and 'you are inside' of a woman; that is where the 'potential' is. How exactly is there a huge difference if you end it with a 'shield' (condom) or 'sword' (abortion). It's the same result. Now yes, a logical person will try to defend with a shield first, and I'm assuming they will, but if that shield breaks why would they concede in defeat? I'm not being dishonest about or trying to justify anything, they're absolutely comparative.

 

 

 

And yes, I know you claim to be pro-choice.

[magekillr]

1.) Abortion is birth control. As much as pro-choice people don't like to admit it, and as much as pro-life people like to rag on about it, abortion, no matter what form it takes, is birth control. Not that I have anything wrong with that, but it is what it is. It's annoying to hear people say "it will be used as a form of birth control" when it IS a form of birth control.

 

 

 

2.) It should always be the choice of the woman. The man can have his input, but it is always her choice because it is her body.

 

 

 

3.) Making abortion illegal has always held one purpose for the people in power: to discriminate against women. The people on the ground might not see it as that way, but that's how the people in power with the groups like Focus on the Family see it. They'd never support using federal money for contraception, but they will support using it for abstinence education. The former reduces abortions, the latter makes them more abundant. If they cared about reducing abortions, they'd support education.

 

 

 

4.) A fetus isn't a person, period.

 

 

 

5.) It doesn't matter what trimester it happens when it comes to me. Third trimester abortions are always for the mother's or baby's health. Typically the baby is already dead, or will live a very short life if it's born; usually it's excruteatingly painful for the child if it's born.

 

 

 

6.) The reasoning doesn't matter to me, as the end result is still the same. If she wanted a boy and it's a girl, that's her choice. Birth defect, her choice. Etc.

[Zierro]

Don't be so idealistic; you know exactly what I mean. Abstinence is a terrible idea that no right-minded person is going to practice; it's something taught by the church and schools. I mean safe sex.

 

 

 

I'm not being idealistic. You're the one who thinks safe sex is safer than no sex.

 

 

 

Whether there are a large number of followers or not is completely irrelevant. You can compare safe sex with unprotected sex and say the same thing. Abstinence is simply choosing not to have sex. It's not what I want to live my life by, but face it, it's the best way to avoid pregnancy. I don't know how you could argue against that.

 

 

 

What I said was nothing like 'every time you aren't having sex you're preventing a child from being made', what you're doing is counterproductive.

 

 

 

On the technical level you're speaking about, where wearing a condom is the same exact thing as abortion, not having sex is also preventing a potential life. It obviously does matter how far along things go - whether the life is a sperm, a fetus, or a born baby. They're all different things and should be treated as such. Like I asked, if you are just going to ignore the difference that easily then what's stopping you from equating murder to masturbating? And the correct answer isn't being born. Personhood isn't that black and white - it's a gradual process.

 

 

 

It's the same result. Now yes, a logical person will try to defend with a shield first, and I'm assuming they will, but if that shield breaks why would they concede in defeat? I'm not being dishonest about or trying to justify anything, they're absolutely comparative.

 

 

 

Same result, different measures. Leaving a baby at a dumpster is also the same result to getting rid of an unwanted child, yet I have the feeling you'd consider that to be way worse than an abortion - yet you find no difference in wearing a condom and killing a fetus.

 

 

 

And yes, I know you claim to be pro-choice.

 

 

 

Am I supposed to think anything of how you used the word "claim" or are you really being serious?

 

 

 

If you are being serious then you can ignore this paragraph. If not, I am pro-choice. When dealing with abortion, I do think the only person with the right to say what should or should not happen to her own body should be the mother. That's what it all comes down to. However, when people make abortion out to be something it's not, that's when I have a problem. If you gave that fetus 20 years to develop, they'd be just like you and me. Sperm is quite different because you have to give them even more time to develop, there is an enormous chance that one specific sperm isn't even going to be used, and finally you have to undergo an extra process for that chance to even occur. They are different things.

 

 

 

4.) A fetus isn't a person, period.

 

 

 

If it isn't a human, then what species of animal does it fall under?

[Lateralus]

If it isn't a human, then what species of animal does it fall under?

 

 

 

Human and person are not the same thing.

[Zierro]

What would the difference be?

[Lateralus]

Obviously we're treading in murky waters once again, and I can't define it exactly, but can try to illustrate my point with an example. Terri Schiavo was a human, but she was not a person. 'Self' is a much better word to use.

[Zierro]

Well I disagree with that. We call a corpse a dead person, so why can't we just call Terry a vegative person?

 

 

 

These really are murky waters though. :lol: I don't know exactly how I'd define a person either.

[Lateralus]

Well I disagree with that. We call a corpse a dead person, so why can't we just call Terry a vegative person?

 

 

 

These really are murky waters though. :lol: I don't know exactly how I'd define a person either.

 

 

 

Well, if a corpse is a person and so is someone who is completely brain dead, then being a person is not what matters. The existence of a 'self' is the issue that matters.

[magekillr]

Zierro, here's a good example of what I mean by it's not a person:

 

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... rs_mur.php

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu

 

 

 

I mean, would ^^ that be a person (in the context with which we are speaking)? I don't think you'd say so, but it is human, it is a separate entity, and it is considered alive.

[nerdboyxxx]

Well I disagree with that. We call a corpse a dead person, so why can't we just call Terry a vegative person?

 

 

 

These really are murky waters though. :lol: I don't know exactly how I'd define a person either.

 

 

 

Well, if a corpse is a person and so is someone who is completely brain dead, then being a person is not what matters. The existence of a 'self' is the issue that matters.

 

 

 

yes, people believe that only when the aby is truly born is it considered alive. Otherwise, it has little to no personality, it simply develops until it is ready. I still stand by my agument that abortion is wrong. It's not the fact that it is simply a "developing being, and has no individuality, etc etc etc" its that it WILL be an individual sometime down the track. Having the power over whether your child exists or not should never be given. In some rare circumstances fine (like severe complications during birth, etc etc) but for someone to have sex, get pregnant and say "no, I'm not going to let this child exist" should never happen.

 

 

 

I also beleive that if you are having sex, even when you are wearing protection, you are conceeding that you are ready for a child. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex. "But I'm 20 and want to have sex". No excuses. You shouldn'be having random sex with guys anyway, who are likely to get you pregnant and ditch you first chance they get.

[magekillr]

[hide=]

Well I disagree with that. We call a corpse a dead person, so why can't we just call Terry a vegative person?

 

 

 

These really are murky waters though. :lol: I don't know exactly how I'd define a person either.

 

 

 

Well, if a corpse is a person and so is someone who is completely brain dead, then being a person is not what matters. The existence of a 'self' is the issue that matters.

 

 

 

yes, people believe that only when the aby is truly born is it considered alive. Otherwise, it has little to no personality, it simply develops until it is ready. I still stand by my agument that abortion is wrong. It's not the fact that it is simply a "developing being, and has no individuality, etc etc etc" its that it WILL be an individual sometime down the track. Having the power over whether your child exists or not should never be given. In some rare circumstances fine (like severe complications during birth, etc etc) but for someone to have sex, get pregnant and say "no, I'm not going to let this child exist" should never happen.

 

 

 

I also beleive that if you are having sex, even when you are wearing protection, you are conceeding that you are ready for a child. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex. "But I'm 20 and want to have sex". No excuses. You shouldn'be having random sex with guys anyway, who are likely to get you pregnant and ditch you first chance they get.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Should miscarriages be illegal?

 

 

 

And as an aside to the rest of this post: I have flirted with being pro-life in the past.

[deathdrow]

[hide=]

Well I disagree with that. We call a corpse a dead person, so why can't we just call Terry a vegative person?

 

 

 

These really are murky waters though. :lol: I don't know exactly how I'd define a person either.

 

 

 

Well, if a corpse is a person and so is someone who is completely brain dead, then being a person is not what matters. The existence of a 'self' is the issue that matters.

 

 

 

yes, people believe that only when the aby is truly born is it considered alive. Otherwise, it has little to no personality, it simply develops until it is ready. I still stand by my agument that abortion is wrong. It's not the fact that it is simply a "developing being, and has no individuality, etc etc etc" its that it WILL be an individual sometime down the track. Having the power over whether your child exists or not should never be given. In some rare circumstances fine (like severe complications during birth, etc etc) but for someone to have sex, get pregnant and say "no, I'm not going to let this child exist" should never happen.

 

 

 

I also beleive that if you are having sex, even when you are wearing protection, you are conceeding that you are ready for a child. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex. "But I'm 20 and want to have sex". No excuses. You shouldn'be having random sex with guys anyway, who are likely to get you pregnant and ditch you first chance they get.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Should miscarriages be illegal?

 

 

 

And as an aside to the rest of this post: I have flirted with being pro-life in the past.

 

There's a huge difference between miscarriages and abortion, a miscarriage isn't purposeful. You don't miscarry on purpose. Abortion is when you purposely kill the fetus.

[magekillr]

[hide=]

Well I disagree with that. We call a corpse a dead person, so why can't we just call Terry a vegative person?

 

 

 

These really are murky waters though. :lol: I don't know exactly how I'd define a person either.

 

 

 

Well, if a corpse is a person and so is someone who is completely brain dead, then being a person is not what matters. The existence of a 'self' is the issue that matters.

 

 

 

yes, people believe that only when the aby is truly born is it considered alive. Otherwise, it has little to no personality, it simply develops until it is ready. I still stand by my agument that abortion is wrong. It's not the fact that it is simply a "developing being, and has no individuality, etc etc etc" its that it WILL be an individual sometime down the track. Having the power over whether your child exists or not should never be given. In some rare circumstances fine (like severe complications during birth, etc etc) but for someone to have sex, get pregnant and say "no, I'm not going to let this child exist" should never happen.

 

 

 

I also beleive that if you are having sex, even when you are wearing protection, you are conceeding that you are ready for a child. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex. "But I'm 20 and want to have sex". No excuses. You shouldn'be having random sex with guys anyway, who are likely to get you pregnant and ditch you first chance they get.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Should miscarriages be illegal?

 

 

 

And as an aside to the rest of this post: I have flirted with being pro-life in the past.

 

There's a huge difference between miscarriages and abortion, a miscarriage isn't purposeful. You don't miscarry on purpose. Abortion is when you purposely kill the fetus.

 

 

 

I figured that would be your response, and now allow my retort:

 

 

 

You can be convicted of killing a baby for negligence if you leave it in the car and it dies from heat exhaustion, correct? Well, some miscarriages are the result of smoking, drinking alcohol and taking drugs. In that sense, it wouldn't be purposeful killing, but you would have killed it due to negligence.

 

 

 

Second, no, not all abortions are the purposeful killing of the child, especially not during the third trimester as the child can already be dead (which is what IDX is used for in some of the cases).

 

 

 

So let me ask you again: should miscarriages be illegal?

[zeekyhbomb]

Same result, different measures. Leaving a baby at a dumpster is also the same result to getting rid of an unwanted child, yet I have the feeling you'd consider that to be way worse than an abortion - yet you find no difference in wearing a condom and killing a fetus.

 

 

 

Obviously you and I have different opinions on what a human being is, but there is a difference between leaving a living, conscious child in a dumpster and destroying a group of cells and genetic material before they become any sort of being that can survive on their own; you and I both know this.

 

 

 

If you gave that fetus 20 years to develop, they'd be just like you and me.

 

If it isn't a human, then what species of animal does it fall under?

 

 

 

If you didn't block the sperm with a condom, and gave the result of it meeting the egg (which you prevent) 20 years to develop, the result would be just like you and me.

 

 

 

I also beleive that if you are having sex, even when you are wearing protection, you are conceeding that you are ready for a child. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex. "But I'm 20 and want to have sex". No excuses. You shouldn'be having random sex with guys anyway, who are likely to get you pregnant and ditch you first chance they get.

 

 

 

Sex isn't just for pro-creation; and you're horribly wrong if you believe everyone that is having sex (without wanting a child?) is doing it with a random person who doesn't care about them.

[Zierro]

Obviously you and I have different opinions on what a human being is, but there is a difference between leaving a living, conscious child in a dumpster and destroying a group of cells and genetic material before they become any sort of being that can survive on their own; you and I both know this.

 

 

 

Exactly, that's my point. But why shouldn't there be a considerable difference between a wasted sperm and an aborted fetus though?

 

 

 

If you didn't block the sperm with a condom, and gave the result of it meeting the egg (which you prevent) 20 years to develop, the result would be just like you and me.

 

 

 

Yes but the sperm is farther away from that point than a fetus by time and an extra specific action. A fetus is much closer to us than a sperm is, which is why I think it's fair to make a distinction between the two.

[ydrasil]

This is mainly directed at Zierro, but anyone can reply to it.

 

 

 

I understand that you do advocate pro-choice, but that it is your opinion that you believe they should have the baby. The reasoning you gave was that they are responsible for it because they knew in advance (whether protection was used or not) that this was a possible outcome. Stop me if I've interpreted wrongly.

 

 

 

However, I'm going to take it to an extreme example. Say a couple has been together for many years and over the course of their relationship have had say 10 children (whether protection was used or not when any were conceived isn't relevant). However they realise that they cannot afford to have another baby nor do they wish to even if they could afford it. Obviously by this time in a relationship sex is an integral part so simply them never having sex again isn't an option.

 

 

 

They become incredibly paranoid about not having a baby so they go to an extreme in preventive measures (abstinence isn't really an option of course). They use multiple contraceptives to prevent pregnancy including condoms, spermicide, diaphragm, vasectomy, tubal ligation, IUS, IUD, coitus interruptus (withdrawl), NFP, morning-after pill as well as any other forms on contraceptives that can be used without interfering with the others.

 

 

 

After all this effort and against all odds, they manage to conceive another child. Now if I interpreted your opinion correctly (and I believe I have), then it would mean you think they should have the baby because even though protection was used they knew it was a possibility and are therefore responsible for it. So in this instance, do you agree with the opinion that they should have the baby for the reason stated? (Yes I know you are for the pro-choice, but I am asking for you opinion of what they should do.

[deathdrow]

[hide=]

Well I disagree with that. We call a corpse a dead person, so why can't we just call Terry a vegative person?

 

 

 

These really are murky waters though. :lol: I don't know exactly how I'd define a person either.

 

 

 

Well, if a corpse is a person and so is someone who is completely brain dead, then being a person is not what matters. The existence of a 'self' is the issue that matters.

 

 

 

yes, people believe that only when the aby is truly born is it considered alive. Otherwise, it has little to no personality, it simply develops until it is ready. I still stand by my agument that abortion is wrong. It's not the fact that it is simply a "developing being, and has no individuality, etc etc etc" its that it WILL be an individual sometime down the track. Having the power over whether your child exists or not should never be given. In some rare circumstances fine (like severe complications during birth, etc etc) but for someone to have sex, get pregnant and say "no, I'm not going to let this child exist" should never happen.

 

 

 

I also beleive that if you are having sex, even when you are wearing protection, you are conceeding that you are ready for a child. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex. "But I'm 20 and want to have sex". No excuses. You shouldn'be having random sex with guys anyway, who are likely to get you pregnant and ditch you first chance they get.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Should miscarriages be illegal?

 

 

 

And as an aside to the rest of this post: I have flirted with being pro-life in the past.

 

There's a huge difference between miscarriages and abortion, a miscarriage isn't purposeful. You don't miscarry on purpose. Abortion is when you purposely kill the fetus.

 

 

 

I figured that would be your response, and now allow my retort:

 

 

 

You can be convicted of killing a baby for negligence if you leave it in the car and it dies from heat exhaustion, correct? Well, some miscarriages are the result of smoking, drinking alcohol and taking drugs. In that sense, it wouldn't be purposeful killing, but you would have killed it due to negligence.

 

 

 

Second, no, not all abortions are the purposeful killing of the child, especially not during the third trimester as the child can already be dead (which is what IDX is used for in some of the cases).

 

 

 

So let me ask you again: should miscarriages be illegal?

 

They shouldn't be illegal because negligence might not always be the cause. Lots of people have miscarriages when they're perfectly healthy, and they're careful during the pregnancy. In any case it shouldn't be illegal, unless you smoked and drank a lot, and it was obviously in a purposeful attempt to miscarry. Even still, it's only just a fetus, not an actual human being yet.

[Zierro]

I understand that you do advocate pro-choice, but that it is your opinion that you believe they should have the baby. The reasoning you gave was that they are responsible for it because they knew in advance (whether protection was used or not) that this was a possible outcome. Stop me if I've interpreted wrongly.

 

 

 

No no. My opinion is that choosing abortion should be legal and they don't have to have the baby. However, when people say that wearing a condom but still getting pregnant isn't considered "getting knocked up" or "causing the pregnancy", then I think that's just a dishonest way of deflecting the blame off yourself. And also, I don't think abortion is morally right, but it can be the lesser of the two evils which is why I say it should be legally okay.

 

 

 

I think it's fine if they don't have the baby, but when they pretend like they're not the ones responsible for causing the conception, then that's wrong. This is what I was arguing against:

 

 

 

And what about the ones that are accidents? Like the male/female use protection but still gets pregnant? What about then? I don't think it would be fair to call that getting knocked up.

[ydrasil]

Ahh so I didn't get it quite right, my mistake. Even still, I'd like to think the example I provided is still relevant to this, thought not as much now I'll admit. However, I do understand what your point is. Some people try to use any excuse available to try and shift the blame from themselves.

 

 

 

Anyway, that was really the only point I was going to bring up and for the record I am pro-choice.

[magekillr]

They shouldn't be illegal because negligence might not always be the cause. Lots of people have miscarriages when they're perfectly healthy, and they're careful during the pregnancy. In any case it shouldn't be illegal, unless you smoked and drank a lot, and it was obviously in a purposeful attempt to miscarry. Even still, it's only just a fetus, not an actual human being yet.

 

 

 

Exactly, they shouldn't be illegal because you can't legislate for that. My point is that even if you believe a zygote is a human being who is self aware--you would be wrong, but if you believed that--zygotes are killed many times. It's simply illogical to put a zygote on the same level as a physical born human being, if not for the self-aware reasoning, but for logical reasoning.

 

 

 

And about the last sentence: exactly. So, why do you have a problem if a woman is having an abortion?