Also I'd like to add that pro-lifers usually don't consider what happens after the child is born. They just want it to be born because "muh religion", and then they don't care if it literally lives in a pigsty. They'd rather have the child lead a life of crime and poverty than none at all. And their arguments usually are "well what if the child cures cancer or invents time travel" etc. The thing is though, I know enough about environmental psychology to know that when a person grows up in these bad conditions, the chance of them becoming something like that is zero.

Well, they don't use my made up animal-foetus thing, that was just for demonstration. Modern medicine is actually quite accurate with determining in which stage the foetus is. It's not 100%, but there is currently no better system, so they play it safe.
The thing is, who else could decide for the "child" than its parents and the doctors? I know it sounds horrible, but I'd rather have it die than live with irresponsible parents, or as a result of rape, or with a severe medical condition. Firstly because the world is already overpopulated as it is, secondly because no life is better than a horrible one. Yes that sounds like a buddhist idea but then again, pro-lifers usually have no other arguments besides religion and personal beliefs. I already commented this on another post, so if you'll be so kind and read the long rant explaining why I think pro-choice is better than pro-life, I'd be grateful. http://m.funsubstance.com/fun/335139/the-woes-of-a-two-party-system/

Not murder, flushing out cells. The law is pretty strict about this, abortions are allowed only in quite early stages.

That's exactly it, nobody knows. There is no clear, ethical line. That's why the view on abortions is so different with so many people. Biologically, what distinguishes humans from animals is a certain part of the brain. I am now not sure which, I believe it's the lateral frontal pole prefrontal cortex, but maybe I'm wrong. However, this part develops at the latest stages. But does that mean we can kill the foetus/baby before that because it's "not technically human yet"? It already has a nervous system, can feel pain and some basic emotions. I know this is not entirely scientific but I think that for demonstrative reasons we could compare evolutionary stages of a foetus to certain classes of living creatures, from a simple cell to a human being. So, I believe that we should ask ourselves a question, what animal is on an evolutionary level so low we wouldn't feel remorse for killing it? Is it a fly, a fish, a mouse, a cat? Everyone would draw the line somewhere else.

My bad, I didn't notice the title

^good point.

@garlog because there is no clear way of recognizing that. This is a long process, not a magical *poof*. I'm obviously not a doctor but everyone who knows at least high school biology knows that there are never any perfectly clear indications. Besides, do you know?
Yes, the question was relevant to the topic, but relevant about as much as when a kindergartener asks you "but why?" upon your every explanation. And honestly, I'm getting tired of explaining.

@garlog y'ever heard of evolution? As I said, and I may repeat myself because it seems you didn't quite grasp the concept, ontogenesis is a short version of phylogenesis. The foetus is going through certain stages. Before it has a nervous system, it's on the same evolutionary stage as a jellyfish. Before it has a spine, it's on the same level as a shark, etcetera etcetera. This is not strictly about pain as I explained above, but about the development of the foetus. It doesn't suddenly become human like *poof*, baby. It evolves. What makes a lot of people disagree is where they'd draw the line of considering the evolving bunch of cells a baby. Some people think it's a certain stage of development, some think it's even conception.
"That doesn't make the question invalid." I'm pretty sure it does. Asking "but what if a pile of frozen donkey crap just fell from the sky and killed me?" has about as much weight as your question. Purely hypothetical, and redundant.

@badasslatina pain is felt through receptors that are all over your body. Not feeling pain would mean disconnecting every single one of them. I honestly don't think a disease that would do that exists, but maybe I'm wrong. However, this isn't about pain at all. It's about the evolutionary stage of the foetus. The pain argument was to demonstrate the development of the nervous system, which in my opinion makes the foetus developped enough to call it human. Also because some pro-lifers tend to throw this argument around, "but what if it feels pain?"

@badasslatina I agree with the extreme cases, the problem is that just putting unwanted children up for adoption may result in overflowing orphanages. That, or a life with horrible parents is in my opinion a worse fate than a painless death.
@garlog ontogenesis is a short version of phylogenesis. Before a foetus develops a nervous system, it's about on the same evolutionary level as a jellyfish. It's hardly human, just a bunch of cells. Also "what if you can't feel pain" is a purely theoretical question, that stuff can't happen irl.

I know, I know.

Developping the nervous system, I believe. When the foetus develops a nervous system, it can feel pain so it's considered unethical to flush it down the toilet.

^this. If abortion is killing children, then jerking off is a genocide.

Nah. I got my dad's eye and jaw shape. I just got a little bit after every relative, even the really distant ones.

Dunno. I upvote you to balance it because it seems weird to downvote a pretty much neutral comment. Also the whole "no first date" thing is how I roll too, me and my bf know each other since we were 12 (we're former classmates) and we were friends pretty much since we met. We almost grew up together, and decided to start dating. Since we know each other for so long, there's no need for going on dates. Honestly, first dates are good when you want to pursue a romantic relationship with someone you don't know for a very long time. You go on a date, you get to know each other and see if a relationship would be possible. But when you know each other for so long, it's useless.

Isn't vasectomy reversible? I always thought it was.
Also, she has a point – if you're against abortions, you should use birth control so an unwanted baby doesn't happen. But you should be concerned about yourself and what you/your partner do with your/their body, not what strangers do with theirs.