Certainly there's no large brain capable of sustaining anything resembling consciousness, Leon.

So consciousness= life?
So plants aren't living?

Certainly aren't human. Cancer cells are living too, but we have no qualms about squashing them. Don't be obtuse

Forced birthers routinely lie about their supposed fetal remains photos (like the infamous Malachi photo), I have no way of verifying where that supposed snopes photo even comes from. You search on snopes and it does not come up.

@ogion: so I have to prove they're in fact human, not that they are living?

Source: http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/12weekfetus.asp

Normal case scenario: (fetus will live, mother will live, etc) Whether the Fetus is living/human or not should be irrelevant. It will, no matter what we want, be a live human when born, so killing (or removing if you prefer) the fetus earlier in the womb, you are in fact directly preventing it from living.

Now if you're going to argue that in this case, in the fetus is born, the mother will most likely die, (Putin likes to bring this up) and saying it is basically a life or a life, then I will ask you: If you saw a man, obviously drunk, getting into a car near an extremely crowed street, at night, etc, and the odds of him crashing and killing someone are just as high as the mother dying, (and you are the only one who saw him getting in his car) are you going to shoot him to prevent other innocent(s) from dying? It is basically the same thing, yes?

In other words, we should take every chance, no matter how small, to try to have both of them live. If only one makes it, so be it. But by killing the fetus earlier, you are ensuring that a human person does not get to experience the world at all.

also half this discussion seems to be on whether fetuses LOOK like humans or not. Shouldn't that also be irrelevant? I'm mean, the fact remains that it is indeed biologically human cells with human DNA in the womb...

Regarding the cases where health of the mother is at risk, or in cases or rape/incest, would the pro-life people present on this site be OK with allowing these exceptions to abortion laws?

Similarly, would the pro-choice community here accept laws that only allowed those who had health risks or were raped to have abortions?

@KingCyrus if the women who was raped, or whatever had already had the child (didn't have access to an abortion facility or something) could she kill it then?

So this question really just reinstates whether if it's OK to prevent the human from living (since by pro-choice standards it isn't living yet) if it hasn't been born yet.

On the surface it is a good question, but looking closer: have you really introduced a new layer to this controversy or not?

"Whether the Fetus is living/human or not should be irrelevant."

It's not irrelevant. It's a person's body and her healthcare, her decision. What should be irrelevant is whether you approve or not. Nobody is telling you what to do with your body, what healthcare access you should have. You're putting this enormous burden on women for the sake of "future life", ignoring the impact those restrictions have on both the actually developing life itself and the women involved.

"etc, and the odds of him crashing and killing someone are just as high as the mother dying, (and you are the only one who saw him getting in his car) are you going to shoot him to prevent other innocent(s) from dying? It is basically the same thing, yes?"

So you're saying pregnancy is a death sentence then? Or pregnancy is equivalent to being drunk and dangerous to other people? What on earth analogy is this?

"In other words, we should take every chance, no matter how small, to try to have both of them live. If only one makes it, so be it."

Women die, so be it? Really? That's your position? Women should have no say in taking measures to keep themselves alive if they're available to them? Are you serious?

Let nobody you and your "movement" pro-life. You're anything but.

"also half this discussion seems to be on whether fetuses LOOK like humans or not. Shouldn't that also be irrelevant? "

You're the ones who hold up gruesome fake pictures of aborted fetuses and talk about how 6 week old clumps of cells look like babies as justification for your draconian laws, now you want to say it's irrelevant, all that matters is separate DNA. Keep moving the goalposts.

"Similarly, would the pro-choice community here accept laws that only allowed those who had health risks or were raped to have abortions?"

No, I'm not a doctor and neither are you. It's not your business. Just like we don't pull the plug of smokers with lung cancer treatment, we don't pull the plug on diabetics who eat poorly, we don't pull the plug on people with heart disease who don't exercise, there is no justification whatsoever for interjecting moral judgment with medical care.

A serious question. If it's demonstrated that abortion restrictions have increased infant and maternal mortality, would you then conclude that we should remove them?

Or is public health irrelevant?

Serious question, if forced birth will almost certainly lead to instant asphyxiation and death on part of the newborn, do you still support forced birth even if this could have prevented long before? Is that kind of psychological trauma "worth it" since it conforms to your "principles"? What about forcing fetuses who have no brains, the victims of the Zika virus perhaps? Fetal anomalies need to all be forcibly birthed right?

Putin, I'm sorry you misunderstood me, but I'm saying have women do have a say in taking measures to keep alive, BUT not at the expense of another human life. By your logic, I should kill everybody in the world, since that would be a measure to ensure my safety.

So since the baby almost immediately will die anyway, why not kill it earlier? (for the zika example) Well, I hate to break it to you, but you're going to die, too, Putin.

And, yes the few minute's of the baby's life might endanger the mother, but you're existence also endangers people. Do you know how many people die from car accidents?

@KingCyrus I believe in exceptions for rape and endangerment of the mother's health.

"You're putting this enormous burden on women for the sake of "future life", ignoring the impact those restrictions have on both the actually developing life itself and the women involved." I'm not ignoring the consequences of the developing life, but pain a lesser evil than death, no?

Also I'm glad you care so much about women's safety. We need more people like you in the world, but you have against misunderstood (maybe thorugh poor explanation on my part) my own intention towards women. I try to care as much as you, and therefore can agree that the problem is in most cases with the rapists (men).

I find it appalling that we sit here while the people we love most are forced through unnecessary pain, and are solution is to just kill the baby. There is something messed up in society on multiple levels.

Anyway, I'm heading to bed, goodnight y'all.

And remember: Smile, your mother chose life :)

In a shocking-not-shocking turn of events, Trump has gone completely 180 and said abortion laws should remain as they are.

BUT WAIT. Shortly after this statement, his campaign came out with a statement saying - guess what? - that is only the case until he becomes President. Then those laws can change.

Who can take anything this guy says seriously?

So at what point does the fetus suddenly transform from a clump of cells to a human? As it passes through the womb?

Yep, at birth.

That womb is a pretty magical thing then.

The sad thing is, I can't tell whether Bob G. was being sarcastic or not...

I agreen with what Bob Genghiskhan said, and I'm not being sarcastic.

Disagree from both a common sense and logical standpoint. I am very much an advocate for abortion being a last resort. I am pro-life in all circumstances where the only reason for having an abortion is economic, or based on societal pressures regarding shame.

Alas Im not a scientist or a moralist. Just a person who thinks people can surprise you even the people you think either "arent people yet, or arent worth the risk"