Con's choice

First of all, I contest your definition of fetus and human. Not one of the sources you provided listed the definitions you used. Therefore, my definition stands. Second, you still have not proven a fetus to be a human. A fetus is not a baby. definition of fetus-the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation. http://dictionary.reference.com... The definition of baby-A very young human being, from birth to a couple of years old. http://en.wiktionary.org... Therefore baby /=/ fetus. So, I have now proven that a baby is not equal to a fetus. Now i will prove that a fetus is not a human. First of all, feti (sic?) cannot feel pain until third trimester. http://jama.ama-assn.org... Second, feti are not capable of passing or even taking the most basic conciousness tests such as the Turing test or mirror test. Thus, while these cannot prove that they lack conciousness, they cannot prove that it exists. Third, before 12 weeks, there is no brain function in the fetus, meaning that there is definitely no conciousness prior. Also, even though there is brain function at 12 weeks, this does not positively prove consiousness. In addition, since the basic nerves to sense pain are not even intact by 26 weeks by the earliest estimate, and pain is one of the most basic brain function, it is the logical conclusion that there is no higher brain function, the kind that is necessary for conciousness. http://en.wikipedia.org... Your argument to fetal conciousness is not valid. If kicking, fighting, and sucking on one's thumb proves conciousness, than I'm sure just about everything in the animal kingdom would qualify as having conciousness (if the criterion could be changed from "thumb" to "appendage") >If every woman got an abortion, then there would be no children to continue the process.< Yes, but since there are I'm told many joys of children, i can't see why everyone would. Also, this is irrelevant, as it is impossible, and proves nothing. And there is another option: cloning. >If you don't know whether the child is alive yet or not, then don't risk it actually being alive and being ripped apart limb by limb, and having the brains sucked out.< I believe i have successfully proved lack of life earlier. >If you wouldn't be able to do it to an animal, without charges of animal cruelity, than why would you do it to a baby, and why should it be legal?< Well, since they put animals down all the time, and i doubt that it's completely painless, i don't see how it is relevant. Especially since feti can't feel pain until beginning of third trimester, at which point, as i said, there should not be abortion except in cases of emergency. >It is not an opinion it is a fact. If you know what sex is then you know you (if you are a woman) CAN get pregnant, no amount of birth control, can change that FACT< The part that was opinion was when you said that a woman should not get pregnant unless she can devote 18+ years to raising a child. Yes, most women know they can get pregnant. But whether they know what risks they take or not, that has no bearing on whether they should be allowed to get an abortion. Although you may not like it if someone knows the risks and does it anyway, then refuses to carry to term, that does not matter. Just because people might not like that is not a reason to outlaw it. >I was pretty sure I excluded cases of rape.< My mistake i'm sorry.