Abortion is a reproductive right

Of course my case comes down to my own personal values which include human life having fundamental value. That is my personal opinion, however I think it is an opinion that people really ought to share.Personal opinions and value judgments are a poor way to engage in a debate, for two reasons. 1/they are often unfounded (not factually provable), and usually employ circular logic, which is fallacious, e.g., “Something is good/bad, because I believe/say it is good.” You are not my authority so determining what is good/bad, neither am I yours so we must find an authority to which we both submit. That authority is logic. Pardon the pedantry…but it seems we are not on the same page as to the rules of engagement.So you admit that it is your personal opinion, and you also admit by saying that it not scientifically provable when a fetus is human that your claims are both unsound and invalid. Your burden is to prove why your values are more rational/sound/or even better than mine. I hope you recognize this and adjust your claims accordingly, in the meantime I will respond to your points: Humans share rights that other animals do not including the right to life which is not the case with others in the animal kingdom I think due to this fundamental value.Here is the problem with value judgments.if humans truly share the right to life, why are we having this debate? Why are humans around the world still killing other humans? Why do wars and murder exist? It is apparent that either we do not share this right, or that even if it existed universally, we still have the freedom to not obey/act in contrary to what we believe/know to be good, which makes your personal opinion irrelevant. Now I think that if we are to bring subjective morality into the debate, the pro choice advocate could argue that the lives of conscious humans or humans that can survive out of the womb don't have value either and so those humans under the parent's responsibility that cause a nuisance or are particularly inconvenient like the disabled can be discarded as well. I think a slippery slope could easily develop if we are to say human life has value only in specific situations. This is true!!! As I said before, nurture is subjective. A parent’s childhood, his ideology and his/her personal opinion affects how they raise their children. There is no objective right and wrong because children do not come with instructions. So on whose authority do you say claim a certain typr of nurure or unwiilngnes to nurture is wrong? The law (a commonly held authority) does not state that it is illegal to see your child as an annoyance/inconvenient. It does not yet affirm (in all states) that it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy, which is why we are having this debate ;-) I'm not sure if I quite understand your argument about...However I am still a little confused so if you could try to explain it a little further I'd appreciate it. (this is explained above) If a murderer didn't value his victims, we would still stop him, as the lives are valuable regardless of whether he thinks so or not. ‘Ahhh…this is because we have a commonly held, external value i.e., the law. The law on abortion is currently being decided so until then, it is just our opinion. I hope you see what I mean. The fact that a woman can get pregnant is an unfortunate biology fact, however I don't think that the ability to survive outside the womb or not is the deciding factor when it comes to 'is this human life worth saving?'. Just because it is dependent, that doesn't mean it doesn't mean the value of human life is diminished. It means it the child is more of an inconvenience, but when did convenience justify murder? I don’t think pregnancy is unfortunate. When a person is ready to take on this responsibility, pregnancy can be a very good thing. The ability to survive outside the womb is a key point. If a fetus must depend on the life of the mother, then the mother has the right to allow it to persist or not. If a mother did not want a child and so mistreated it, the mother would be charged with child abuse or neglect. And how many incidents of abuse do you think are actually reported, especially regarding the abuse of the unborn???? I don't think that the best way of stopping women from abusing their children is to kill their children. I don’t think I said this…lol. I think I said that when we force people to do things out of obligation (with the threat of punishment), their motivation is often lacking. Two wrongs don't make a right. If human life does have value, I think it is important to investigate if people are ending lives. ... that does not mean we should allow parents to kill the foetus. You dismiss ‘convenience’ at your peril. Humans generally lean toward that which is convenient. And I probably would go to extremes to ascertain the cause of death of a child, but you must concede, in light of the many crimes that go unpunished, for adults and children alike, that the resources required to establish proof of ‘foul play toward the unborn would have to be so invasive that they would infringe upon a womans individual rights. It is only usurping control of her biology if the foetus was part of her body, It is part of her body, if it is separated, especially in the first trimester, it will wither and die, like a kidney or a limb!!! Embryos cannot be moved after implantation. Also women do not have to get pregnant. Sex is an act that has become increasingly about sensual pleasure, rather than to procreate. If you can justify imposing a lifelong responsibility, for an unintentional result of a very natural act, I am all ears/eyes. The harsh truth is that to abort a child that you do not want is more responsible than giving birth to it and either keeping it (which creates resentment) or maing it society's responsibility. People gripe everyday about having to support parents who cannot support themselves and their children, and the poor socialization (rearing) of children who become liabilities to our society. The only argument you could make with saying women didn't choose to be able to bear children is to argue rape victims should be allowed abortions, which does not make it a reproductive right. So you are willing, in the case of rape (emotional/psychological) or risk to the life of the woman (physical), to back off your pro-life position, but the life inside her is still not responsible for its own origin. Is the value of a life less in these situations? Or is the life of an unborn child, simply subordinate to the condition (physical and emotional)? Well that’s all I’m saying too, I just think volition is a valid justification as well. ...This shows that people are more than happy to end life when it suits them, which is not something I think society should be encouraging. So again, human life doesn’t have objective or shared value,as there are people (adults and children alike who suffer and perish without just cause (even in a wealthy country like ours). The unlawfulness of murder, has nothing to do with intrinsic value for human life, but rather what is good for our society. Governments, like people, rationalize death and killing every day. The world is overpopulated, so adding another unwanted life is not the answer to our problems. If you can prove that it is better that women should bear children, regardless of their volition, the circumstances surrounding conception, or their health, this would be a quality argument. Also if you believe that a life has value/purpose, wouldn’t it be more appropriate that the life created arrive with that purpose in mind and not as an impediment to the purpose the parents feel it has for them? Your view that the reproductive rights are just a loophole for people who want to kill their children is an attempt to impose a responsibility on the unwilling simply so that you can forward your view of what you believe to be right.