Abortion Clinic / House of Horrors

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not being emotional it's more an aspergers moment, too stuck in rigid logic. Because at the end of the day I still see people saying this is a grey area (when someone gets the right to life) and applying absolute principles to it (the right of life itself)... which doesn't work.

You can talk all you want about inconveniences and the complexity of the different scenarios but these will always be secondary to the main point above. Because if you admit the baby is alive in some form, you are admitting that abortion is murder to some degree, which cannot make it acceptable in any situation.

Plus, the whole "lump of cells" and "chemical reactions" talk is useless rhetoric, since that's what all of us sitting here are made of. The point is, how complex/developed do these cells and chemical reactions have to be to gain the right to life? Nobody has even tried to answer this question which is the only one I have ever asked, and to which every other argument here is secondary.

The only person to offer any sort of answer is Louis, who suggested six months, since the baby could in theory survive outside the womb itself by such a stage. Which doesn't seem to be a great answer... we don't just have a right to life, the state is also obliged to actively protect our right to life if we consent, IIRC it is a criminal offence to leave somebody to die when you could have helped them.

Then you have already admitted you are unwilling to have a conversation. If you refuse to acknowledge the opposition as anything but baby murders when the vast majority of people who are pro choice are clearly not any of the sort...then there is just no use. I will not dumb down my view of the world to suit the level of conversation you are willing to talk at. Life is complex, and this is one of the most complex situations a society can have. I will not discuss this any further until you acknowledge that is the most important aspect to remember when talking about the sides.

[gaelic cowboy]

@ Rhyfelwyr

This fella has tried a fair bit to answer said question

[HoreTore]

Nobody has even tried to answer this question which is the only one I have ever asked, and to which every other argument here is secondary.

I have.

Birth.

In my opinion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Then you have already admitted you are unwilling to have a conversation. If you refuse to acknowledge the opposition as anything but baby murders when the vast majority of people who are pro choice are clearly not any of the sort...then there is just no use. I will not dumb down my view of the world to suit the level of conversation you are willing to talk at. Life is complex, and this is one of the most complex situations a society can have. I will not discuss this any further until you acknowledge that is the most important aspect to remember when talking about the sides.

Can you post something that isn't just pointless rhetoric? You keep saying how you won't talk with me because I won't talk with you, and yet you're the one that refuses to answer the one question I've asked.

If it's complex you have to say why you think it's complex. You have to say why these complexities override the fundamental point that I've been making (the 'when do they get the right to life' issue).

All the emotional nonsense is coming from one side, mainly yourself.

Now, if you look at the link gaelic provided, you can see a guy actually sensibly and logically going through the points I've been bringing up. When you do that then we can have a discussion, until then, you are the only one refusing to have a discussion.

Also, you seem to have another case of 'middle-ground syndrome', and have decided that since I have actually picked a positon and chosen not to sit on the fence, that there's no point debating with me at all. *sigh*

[a completely inoffensive name]

Can you post something that isn't just pointless rhetoric? You keep saying how you won't talk with me because I won't talk with you, and yet you're the one that refuses to answer the one question I've asked.

If it's complex you have to say why you think it's complex. You have to say why these complexities override the fundamental point that I've been making (the 'when do they get the right to life' issue).

All the emotional nonsense is coming from one side, mainly yourself.

Now, if you look at the link gaelic provided, you can see a guy actually sensibly and logically going through the points I've been bringing up. When you do that then we can have a discussion, until then, you are the only one refusing to have a discussion.

Also, you seem to have another case of 'middle-ground syndrome', and have decided that since I have actually picked a positon and chosen not to sit on the fence, that there's no point debating with me at all. *sigh*

How is half of what you have said not pointless rhetoric as well? Because if you admit the baby is alive in some form, you are admitting that abortion is murder to some degree, which cannot make it acceptable in any situation. Oh please, get out of here. We all know what murder is, it is a malicious, intentional act of taking the life of someone else. The woman who feels like she can't afford to raise a baby properly, is not doing an abortion out of any malicious intent. To suggest that women who get abortions are eager to kill this inconvenience inside them shows how much jack you know what it is like being a woman in that position.

I have not been emotional at all in my previous replies. Just because it sounds nice to spin my words against me, doesn't mean it makes for a correct statement.

Again, let me stress why it is pointless to talk about this with you which makes you the one that hinders the conversation. These are your words.

You can talk all you want about inconveniences and the complexity of the different scenarios but these will always be secondary to the main point above.So I have decided all your arguments on why this scenario isn't so clear cut are completely worthless and not valid for consideration. Because if you admit the baby is alive in some form, you are admitting that abortion is murder to some degree, which cannot make it acceptable in any situation. Pointless rhetoric which I have exposed above.

Plus, the whole "lump of cells" and "chemical reactions" talk is useless rhetoric, since that's what all of us sitting here are made of. I do not understand the nuances of what the competing arguments are. I will lump a fetus and a fully developed human being into a category, "lump of cells" ignoring that under this definition anything with cells from highly advanced creatures to simpler plants are also just "lumps of cells" therefore, killing a lump of cells like a plant is the same as killing a human being. The point is, how complex/developed do these cells and chemical reactions have to be to gain the right to life? This is exactly the question that people have attempted to answer and yet, their explanations have been thrown out by you and your incredible logic of...nope, they are baby murderers. Nobody has even tried to answer this question which is the only one I have ever asked, and to which every other argument here is secondary. After reading this thread, the one thing I can absolutely say for sure, is that people have tried to answer this question.

You want my answer to the question? Well, I honestly don't know. I don't have an answer to the question. I don't feel like I can come up with a solid enough reason to pick one side or the other right now. I read the link from gaelic and I think that guy has a very convincing argument. I will have to think about it more than 15 minutes before I type a reply on a forum giving it thumbs up or thumbs down.

The point is, your attitude imo, is just all wrong. All I ask is that you stop labeling people and you come at me saying that I am full of ****. There is a difference between not sitting on the fence and attempting to remove the fence completely.


EDIT: I forgot to elaborate on why I think this is complex. Here goes:

So in my short time I have been on Earth, I have read some interesting arguments about abortion. From the link gaelic posted, to the hypothesis postulated in Freakonomics that abortion has a positive effect on crimes rates decreasing. I have already stated, that I reject the idea that abortion is murder in the sense of how that word is supposed to be interpreted, or at the very least the connotation of what that word brings with it. If the hypothesis in Freakonomics is true, then I figure that we must also take into account an added dimension into this which is the impact on the collective. The guy in gaelic's article if I understand correctly, is saying that he bases decisions based on a utilitarian viewpoint hinging on preferences. Now, if banning abortion does produce a more disproportionate amount of criminals from this new addition of babies, then everyone is impacted by an unwanted pregnancy, not just the baby and mother. Shouldn't we have to take into account the preferences of the public in our mental calculations as well? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. What is the hypothesis is wrong in the first place, well then that is now a completely different story. You see, every time I wrap my mind aorund the subject, I start thinking of all the what ifs, and before I make the final decision of "Is abortion wrong or not?" I have to decide multiple other questions before hand, all of which lead down more branches and sub arguments. So I just can't see this as anything but a complicated mess of moral decisions stacked upon more decisions stacked upon incomplete data and unproven hypothesis of what be and is. To just pick a side is impossible for me at this moment. This is why I view it that the complexities override the fundamental point, because these complexities imo, stack up and multiply upon each other and do make a difference in the end result.

Perhaps there is something I am not getting here that maybe you have figured out. Something that you have seen, which makes it all clearer and more straightforward...but I guess I will have to pull what HoreTore said earlier, and agree to disagree.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What about the unwanted born?

You haven't made a moral case, just one of convenience. It amounts to "I can't see the baby, so it doesn't matter".

The fact is, there is almost no difference between a baby five minutes before it's born and five minutes after. You're always accusing those of us here of Faith of having "medieval" opinions, but your opinion isn't even medieval, it's Aristotle, the same mysoginistic twit who called females "deformed males" and advocated 40 year old men marrying 14 year old girls!

So, you never answered my point.

This:

I have.

Birth.

In my opinion.

Is exactly the sort of "primative thinking" as "Gays are corrupt men/women are inferior".

Given the things you have said about my views, and those of others here you are a monster, by your own lights.

[The Stranger]

I don't care for the abortion topic precisely because of what Andres and Fragony is suggesting. I don't care when I am accused of being a soulless monster or distasteful or whatever precisely because I am attempting to refrain from my having my emotions dictate my responses and arguments. In any other debate both economic and social we discuss the facts and the subjectivity or lack there of calmly and with respect. Even the Prop 8 kind of topics never stray too far from what is really is at heart, the definition of marriage and how government should handle it. There is no appeal to emotion on either side of that situation for the most part here, the pro gay marriage side claim equal protection and the anti gay marriage side claim separation of church and state.

Yet, when we start talking about this particular social debate, people get criticized and labeled negatively because they are not as emotional as you are? No thank you, I'm not even going talk to you.

This is precisely why this issue cannot be resolved with any sort willing compromise (at least in the US), because for the most part people seem to make an exception to this topic and start letting what they feel become their entire argument.

It is just as easy to get all emotional about how we define social constructs and how some people want to permanently define them to exclude a segment of society (from a person's perspective). I could rant about how the people on the anti gay marriage side are heartless because it seems like they are not even considering the lives of millions of people. But I don't, because I am better than that. And we should all be too, even when it comes to abortion. It is the toughest topics that highlight our willingness to solve issues together, and getting your emotions all muddled up in the facts imo, shows a weakness in that regard.

i cant help but believe that its a good thing because once emotions leave this discussion and having children becomes a pure rational affair we would stop having kids all together.

[a completely inoffensive name]

i cant help but believe that its a good thing because once emotions leave this discussion and having children becomes a pure rational affair we would stop having kids all together.

If you want to base your entire argument on how you feel, that is perfectly fine as long as you say well than it is fine that you just feel the exact opposite way. But when you say, I feel this way and when someone says I feel that way then I don't think it is 100% ok to come up with logical reasons why the way they feel is wrong. When it comes to feelings, there is no "right" way to feel, I think that is too subjective (could be wrong there) to determine if one is in the right for the way they feel compared to how another feels. If you are compelled to bring up logical points and make the discussion that way, go ahead, just make sure you check your emotions at the door. Logical statements can be proven or disproven but when you add logic with emotion what you usually get is a set of basic statements that will not be compromised on which the debater will not accept as false. This happens to any and all of us on both sides of the isle.

[The Stranger]

If you want to base your entire argument on how you feel, that is perfectly fine as long as you say well than it is fine that you just feel the exact opposite way. But when you say, I feel this way and when someone says I feel that way then I don't think it is 100% ok to come up with logical reasons why the way they feel is wrong. When it comes to feelings, there is no "right" way to feel, I think that is too subjective (could be wrong there) to determine if one is in the right for the way they feel compared to how another feels. If you are compelled to bring up logical points and make the discussion that way, go ahead, just make sure you check your emotions at the door. Logical statements can be proven or disproven but when you add logic with emotion what you usually get is a set of basic statements that will not be compromised on which the debater will not accept as false. This happens to any and all of us on both sides of the isle.

you are absolutely right.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Leaving the stuff about who is being emotional and using rhetoric aside...

The woman who feels like she can't afford to raise a baby properly, is not doing an abortion out of any malicious intent. To suggest that women who get abortions are eager to kill this inconvenience inside them shows how much jack you know what it is like being a woman in that position.

The woman who feels like she can't raise a one month year old baby properly, is not ending its life out of any malicious intent. To suggest that women who end the lives of their infant babies are eager to kill these inconveniences in their lives shows how much jack you know what it is like being a woman in that position...

You want my answer to the question? Well, I honestly don't know. I don't have an answer to the question. I don't feel like I can come up with a solid enough reason to pick one side or the other right now. I read the link from gaelic and I think that guy has a very convincing argument. I will have to think about it more than 15 minutes before I type a reply on a forum giving it thumbs up or thumbs down.

So you admit you do not know when a foetus gains the right to live, and yet you are happy in the meantime to support abortion anyway?

Now, if banning abortion does produce a more disproportionate amount of criminals from this new addition of babies, then everyone is impacted by an unwanted pregnancy, not just the baby and mother. Shouldn't we have to take into account the preferences of the public in our mental calculations as well? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Eh, I thought human rights were not subject to majority rule.

What is the hypothesis is wrong in the first place, well then that is now a completely different story. You see, every time I wrap my mind aorund the subject, I start thinking of all the what ifs, and before I make the final decision of "Is abortion wrong or not?" I have to decide multiple other questions before hand, all of which lead down more branches and sub arguments. So I just can't see this as anything but a complicated mess of moral decisions stacked upon more decisions stacked upon incomplete data and unproven hypothesis of what be and is. To just pick a side is impossible for me at this moment. This is why I view it that the complexities override the fundamental point, because these complexities imo, stack up and multiply upon each other and do make a difference in the end result.

The bolded bit is the main disconnect between us here. You keep bringing up all these particular points about the benefits abortion has for the mother, or society. But I see all this as irrelevant until we establish where the right to life begins. Because no matter how great these other benefits were, so long as a foetus has the right to life, it can never lose that right for all the societal gain in the world.

Now you've told me people have answered me when I asked them when the foetus gains the right to life, but so far only two people have and I said why I disagree with their reasoning. Louis went with the 'right to life with ability to survive alone' approach, which I think goes against otherwise common practice for our civilised society. HoreTore on the other hand went for the 'abortion up until birth' approach, though he never said why, and I don't see how such a position can be defensible.

[gaelic cowboy]

Abortion basically I don't like it but I tolerate some forms of it. I don't buy any argument on rape or suicide etc, I feel there barbaric a sort of modern "Demon Seed" scare.

If there is a medical need as in potential death of the mother or potential mental handicap of a child I would allow it, but then thats already allowed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The woman who feels like she can't raise a one month year old baby properly, is not ending its life out of any malicious intent. To suggest that women who end the lives of their infant babies are eager to kill these inconveniences in their lives shows how much jack you know what it is like being a woman in that position...

Hmmm, this is a good point. I'm going to have to think about this.

So you admit you do not know when a foetus gains the right to live, and yet you are happy in the meantime to support abortion anyway?

I sit on the fence. When I have not chosen a side, my personal policy is not to challenge the status quo, which for the US, is legalized abortion. I don't challenge a law when my opinions on it have not been determined yet.

Eh, I thought human rights were not subject to majority rule.

Well ideally yes. But our human rights are curtailed all the time, for the benefit of us all nevertheless. Free speech and the others all have their own restrictions and we have accepted that rights have a limit to them in all cases where the public danger has been deemed too high. Again, I really don't have a solid opinion or answer to that but I don't think your statement there is as rock solid as we want to believe.

The bolded bit is the main disconnect between us here. You keep bringing up all these particular points about the benefits abortion has for the mother, or society. But I see all this as irrelevant until we establish where the right to life begins. Because no matter how great these other benefits were, so long as a foetus has the right to life, it can never lose that right for all the societal gain in the world.

Now you've told me people have answered me when I asked them when the foetus gains the right to life, but so far only two people have and I said why I disagree with their reasoning. Louis went with the 'right to life with ability to survive alone' approach, which I think goes against otherwise common practice for our civilised society. HoreTore on the other hand went for the 'abortion up until birth' approach, though he never said why, and I don't see how such a position can be defensible.

I am not sure if there will ever be clear establishment on where exactly the right to life begins. But if we are determining when the right to life begins, then there is the possible outcome that we will determine the right to life at some point after conception, and not at that moment. So for the moment, I don't see why asking the questions that come along with a ball of cells having no right to life would entail.

EDIT: Hmm, not sure if this is what I envisioned my 3,000th post to be about.

[Greyblades]

EDIT: Hmm, not sure if this is what I envisioned my 3,000th post to be about.

Join the club, we have "three thousand posts and all I get is this poxy T-shirt" t-shirts.

[Ice]

Oh look an abortion thread.

Here is my view:

(Theoretical) Abortion should be illegal in most instances. Things like rape/incest/disfigured child would be accpetable.

(Practical) Like others have said, people will do things whether they are illegal or not (kind of like drugs). Legalize and regulate it to minimize societal damage.

[The Stranger]

imo i dont get all this society this society that. i dont think that the effect the birth of a child will have on society has, is secundary to the question what effect the birth will have for the child itself and its family. in case of abortion the safety and health etc of the child will have to be considered first and subsequently that of the mother. and because the child cannot make a descision the parents will have to make it instead.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Now that I have spent another hour thinking about what I have said, I am a bit worried about being a bit too totalitarian when it comes to involving societies needs on an individual (at least to the extent we are talking about with abortion).

Just...******* disregard everything I have said in this thread. I don't know **** anymore when it comes to this topic.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The only person to offer any sort of answer is Louis, who suggested six months, since the baby could in theory survive outside the womb itself by such a stage. Which doesn't seem to be a great answer... we don't just have a right to life, the state is also obliged to actively protect our right to life if we consent, IIRC it is a criminal offence to leave somebody to die when you could have helped them.

A woman has an absolute right to the integrity of her body. She can decide if she does or doesn't want to carry a baby.

Which means two (for now) conflicting rights: the right to life which you seek to protect, and the right to physical integrity. It is mostly to balance these two rights that I draw a (non-absolute) line at the momemt where a baby in natural circumstances could survive outside of the womb.

Strangely, the very moment when a baby is no longer absolutely dependent on its mother is for me the moment when the baby can not be forcefully removed from the mother anynmore. The woman's right of physical integrity must give way to the baby's right to live. The reasoning is not so strange: the baby must now be considered an independent life form, instead of a fully dependent one.


There are also other considerations, of psychological, social, criminal, medical, practical nature. All of these too ought to be taken into account. Again I'll repeat my mantra that I don't see abortion in absolutes, even if indeed seemingly absolute rights are at the heart of the debate.


Everybody ought to search their soul him/herself to do what they think is right, and may God have mercy on them whatever their decision, for it won't be an easy one.

[The Stranger]

A woman has an absolute right to the integrity of her body. She can decide if she does or doesn't want to carry a baby.

Which means two (for now) conflicting rights: the right to life which you seek to protect, and the right to physical integrity. It is mostly to balance these two rights that I draw a (non-absolute) line at the momemt where a baby in natural circumstances could survive outside of the womb.

Strangely, the very moment when a baby is no longer absolutely dependent on its mother is for me the moment when the baby can not be forcefully removed from the mother anynmore. The woman's right of physical integrity must give way to the baby's right to live. The reasoning is not so strange: the baby must now be considered an independent life form, instead of a fully dependent one.


There are also other considerations, of psychological, social, criminal, medical nature. These ought to be taken into account. Again I'll repeat my mantra that I don't see abortion in absolutes, even if indeed seemingly absolute rights are at the heart of the debate.


Everybody ought to search their soul him/herself to do what they think is right, and may God have mercy on their them whatever their decision, for it won't be an easy one.

wisely spoken.

Strangely, the very moment when a baby is no longer absolutely dependent on its mother is for me the moment when the baby can not be forcefully removed from the mother anynmore. The woman's right of physical integrity must give way to the baby's right to live. The reasoning is not so strange: the baby must now be considered an independent life form, instead of a fully dependent one.

this is not strange at all, its actually quite sensible. because before that period the baby is dependent on the mothers health to survive as well.

[The Stranger]

Now that I have spent another hour thinking about what I have said, I am a bit worried about being a bit too totalitarian when it comes to involving societies needs on an individual (at least to the extent we are talking about with abortion).

Just...******* disregard everything I have said in this thread. I don't know **** anymore when it comes to this topic.

cmon now son ;) *pats him in the back* its a difficult matter for everyone. and therefor i hope no one will ever take it lightly

[a completely inoffensive name]

cmon now son ;) *pats him in the back* its a difficult matter for everyone. and therefor i hope no one will ever take it lightly

Aww, thank you stranger. :D It's all good. I just get frustrated when I look at statements I made literally hours ago and think to myself, god that was dumb to say. Sooner or later I will get close to the truth, I still have my entire life to find it.

[Beskar]

Aborted babies don't kill people, unaborted babies do.

[Ice]

imo i dont get all this society this society that.

Botched abortions typically have a negative effect on society.

[The Stranger]

Botched abortions typically have a negative effect on society.

which means what exactly?

[Ice]

which means what exactly?

Like I said, if abortion is illegal, people will still have abortions. Many people will screw their said abortions up, and end up causing a lot of pain, injuries, and suffering to themselves and possibly the unborn child. This is negative by it self. It becomes even worse if they are poor, and the taxpayers have to pick up the tab. If abortion is legal, a qualified doctor could preform the procedure.

[The Stranger]

Like I said, if abortion is illegal, people will still have abortions. Many people will screw their said abortions up, and end up causing a lot of pain, injuries, and suffering to themselves and possibly the unborn child. This is negative by it self. It becomes even worse if they are poor, and the taxpayers have to pick up the tab. If abortion is legal, a qualified doctor could preform the procedure.

i dont say that abortion has to be illegal. i only say that case should always be regarded for the best of child and mother, wether legal or illegal. in the case that you describe i would oppose because of the pain and suffering for the child and mother. the taxpayer has nothing to do with it. because the answer to that question, wether or not the taxpayer should pay for such a thing is not a matter of abortion it is a matter of state and how to organise such a state.

[Ice]

i dont say that abortion has to be illegal. i only say that case should always be regarded for the best of child and mother, wether legal or illegal. in the case that you describe i would oppose because of the pain and suffering for the child and mother. the taxpayer has nothing to do with it. because the answer to that question, wether or not the taxpayer should pay for such a thing is not a matter of abortion it is a matter of state and how to organise such a state.

What? All I'm trying to say is that illegal abortions negatively affect society as a whole. Of course what's best for the mother/child should be taken into consideration.

[Husar]

A woman has an absolute right to the integrity of her body. She can decide if she does or doesn't want to carry a baby.

Which means two (for now) conflicting rights: the right to life which you seek to protect, and the right to physical integrity. It is mostly to balance these two rights that I draw a (non-absolute) line at the momemt where a baby in natural circumstances could survive outside of the womb.

A woman can think about the right to the integrity of her body before she becomes pregnant.

And concerning the argument about "people will do it anyway":

Should we legalize stealing and killing because people will do it anyway? At some point we make moral judgements regardless of whether people will do it anyway or not becazuse we think this or that is what people should do for certain reasons.

I haven't completely made my mind up on this issue but I'd say a few weeks after conception should be the only time where it is allowed, saying it's only a lump of cells 5 minutes before birth seems really convenient but also really ignorant.

[Ironside]

You can talk all you want about inconveniences and the complexity of the different scenarios but these will always be secondary to the main point above. Because if you admit the baby is alive in some form, you are admitting that abortion is murder to some degree, which cannot make it acceptable in any situation.

But those complex scenarios is important because they show the flaw in your arguments of absolutes. If "life" starts at conception, then a human chimera is either two people, or the absorbed twin (who still is far more developed than a fertilized egg) is "dead". And if it's dead then the moment of death needs to be determined. Brain dead? The absorbed twin never had a brain to start with. Heart stopped? Likewise.

In vitro fertilisation is also very complicated then. Only fertilising one egg at a time is highly inefficient. So by preventing deaths, you're also preventing births. So much for the sancity of life.

Besides, murder is acceptable in a few situations. War is the most notable. It has to, or the situation becomes absurd.

The only person to offer any sort of answer is Louis, who suggested six months, since the baby could in theory survive outside the womb itself by such a stage. Which doesn't seem to be a great answer... we don't just have a right to life, the state is also obliged to actively protect our right to life if we consent, IIRC it is a criminal offence to leave somebody to die when you could have helped them.

Most pregnacies will end up as miscarriages (usually so small that it looks like a normal menstruation). With correct methods (healthy living for starters) this risk is reduced. So taken to it's natural conclusion, unsafe sex without perfect health is putting alive people at risk. This is attempted manslaughter at the very least.

[HoreTore]

So, you never answered my point.

Weird, considering the first thing I said was "I will only offer my position on abortion, I will not debate, explain or argue."

[Rhyfelwyr]

Aww, thank you stranger. :D It's all good. I just get frustrated when I look at statements I made literally hours ago and think to myself, god that was dumb to say. Sooner or later I will get close to the truth, I still have my entire life to find it.

Try reading posts you made two years ago, makes me want to headcharge an oncoming bus...

Which means two (for now) conflicting rights: the right to life which you seek to protect, and the right to physical integrity. It is mostly to balance these two rights that I draw a (non-absolute) line at the momemt where a baby in natural circumstances could survive outside of the womb.

I agree there is a conflict of fundamental rights. But if we agree the right to life is there, surely that has to override the woman's right, which I guess would come under individual liberty.

Sorry if women find it offensive if it seems like I'm underplaying how difficult pregnancy and giving birth is, but at the end of the day we are talking about a whole human life over it.

A But those complex scenarios is important because they show the flaw in your arguments of absolutes. If "life" starts at conception, then a human chimera is either two people, or the absorbed twin (who still is far more developed than a fertilized egg) is "dead". And if it's dead then the moment of death needs to be determined. Brain dead? The absorbed twin never had a brain to start with. Heart stopped? Likewise.

B In vitro fertilisation is also very complicated then. Only fertilising one egg at a time is highly inefficient. So by preventing deaths, you're also preventing births. So much for the sancity of life.

C Besides, murder is acceptable in a few situations. War is the most notable. It has to, or the situation becomes absurd.

A You raise a good point and a difficult issue here. I can't say for sure, although I think it's fair to say at some point the absorbed foetus dies (from what I understand, one is dominant, they don't just merge?).

B Life can only be sacred once it exists. If you condemn what I'm saying for stopping IVF, do you think women should be forced to have babies every nine months?

C What situation with abortion could get absurd?

Most pregnacies will end up as miscarriages (usually so small that it looks like a normal menstruation). With correct methods (healthy living for starters) this risk is reduced. So taken to it's natural conclusion, unsafe sex without perfect health is putting alive people at risk. This is attempted manslaughter at the very least.

No, it's not a sliding scale from causing an abortion through carelessness to deliberately having one, intent makes all the difference. I think we can be reasonable when it comes to if a woman is causing serious risk to her foetus (eg binge drinking while pregnant). And what you did was not taking my argument to its logical conclusions, otherwise a woman letting her children cross the road would be attempted murder, and smoking a cigarette would be attempted suicide.