Abortion is a reproductive right

I say that it is not scientifically provable because so many people appear to be ready to claim 'This is NOT human yet, and so I have the right to kill it' which I don't think is logically sound. If we cannot scientfically deduce whether the foetus is human or not, in order to avoid bias, we should say that human life either starts at conception or at birth. To say any point inbetween is simply to give your own personal opinion (if I can turn it around on you) and say 'This point in time is good enough for me' which is not a logical point. I think that my values are better than yours because if we are to say, without exception, that human life has value, then it would eliminate the possiblity of the slippery slope developing. It would prevent governments ever saying that one life is worth less than another, and so we can get rid of it. You ask why murder exists, they exist because murderers cannot grasp a socially compatible morality. If everyone murdered, there would be no society, and so society deems it wrong. Murderers simply disagree with this morality, that I would argue, if we want social cohesion, is a worse morality than my own. You'll notice that wars that are not justified are often condemned by the general public and murders are put in prison. Humans perhaps don't typically think human life has value, however I think it is in the best interests of society if such an idea is taken up. This would lead to punishment for murder, and avoiding wars at all costs. Ultimately this comes down to your next, and arguably most important, point which is 'So on whose authority do you say claim a certain typr of nurure or unwiilngnes to nurture is wrong?'. If we take this position and say to each their own, it means that there should be no discouragement or punishment for child abuse, murder, torture and all the other things that we generslly deem unacceptable. Nurture is subjective, but surely you'd agree child protection services should step in if a child is being abused? Even if this is simply the parent's way of bringing up their child? The law is not always right, and a short time ago child protection services didn't exist. However I think the law should change as we start to recognise better versions of right and wrong. I think that introducing child protection was a good idea, which you may disagree with, but I feel very strongly that parents should not have ultimate control of their children, including the right to kil. If a fetus must depend on the life of the mother, then the mother has the right to allow it to persist or not.Again this is an arbitrary point in time, why is this the case? What is the logical argument for if the life depends on her, it can be killed? I probably would go to extremes to ascertain the cause of death of a childYou would personally? Are would you prefer to have a police system that investigates these matters? Because by your logic, this kind of system is trying to inforce what you consider right and wrong, and so is unjustified. After all, some parents do kill their children, so not every agrees with you. See what I mean? 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!!!Here we come to the enormous problem I have with this. A foetus is not a kidney or limb. It is a human life. It is so easy to dehumanise the cells in the womb to make it easier to kill. In Nazi Germany, the untermenschen were killed because they were sub humans. It is the same argument we hear from murders all across the world, you dehumanise it before you kill it, because that way you don't have to feel bad about it. If you can justify imposing a lifelong responsibility, for an unintentional result of a very natural actEasy, whether its intentional or not, murder is murder, and murder is wrong. If murder is not wrong in certain conditions, why not extend those to killing the disabled. You mentioned earlier that over population is a problem. Why not kill all the old who aren't being productive, and all the disabled who can't function as well as ourselves. 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 positionNope I don't back off, I said you could only argue such a thing in the case of rape, and I still would not budge. Rape is very unfortunate, but I don't think killing a child is an appropriate response. And if mother and child are at risk I would back off a little as I'm pro-life in general not just of foetuses, and so if its two lives gone or one, I'd go for one. The unlawfulness of murder, has nothing to do with intrinsic value for human life, but rather what is good for our society. Nothing has intrinsic value except for what we say it has. Water has no intrinsic value considering the universe doesn't care if life exists or not. However it is important to us, hence intrinsic value. We decide what has value because it is good for our society. I forward my view because I think that life has value. If you saw a child being beaten death by they're parent, would you not intervene? Because if you did that would be imposing your beliefs, which is big no no in your books. We think the holocaust was awful. But thats just our opinion, Hitler didn't share it, and so the holocaust shall continue. Horrible things happen every day, and it is the duty of everyone to raise their voices to challenge such things. I am doing it with abortion. If I had complete control of the world, it would be bad if I imposed my values, but I don't. I can only make my points and try to convince others to join me. If enough people think abortion is bad, it will be banned and there you go. I impose my beliefs only to the extent of convincing others that my view of human life is the right one.