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."I'm sorry, let us begin again. If its not a right to not refuse an entity that is not you (as you claim it is a separate life with its own value) to attach and feed off of you for survival, I wonder what you perceive self-ownership or bodily integrity to be? Foetuses cannot claim bodily integrity/ or even selfhood because they cannot live independently until they are 22-28 weeks. These are the principle behind the abortion argument. So we claim to have the right over total control of our bodies (tattoos, surgeries, sex, clothing etc, ...but when it comes to the choice of whether we want another being to use our bodies to sustain life, all bets are off because of someone else's (scientifically unproven or undetermined) claims of human life, value and right and wrong? Please see link:http://www.newsweek.com... ;"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..." My claim about the first trimester is not my own opinion, because it is scientifically evidenced that foetal viability is only 25% at 22 weeks, and that figure is seen as promising!!! And this is according to a recent study, prior to that it was 24-26 weeks, which is why the cutoff for abortions is around this time. But until then, it must take its nutrients from the host (lol), I mean mother. So if it cant survive on its own then the whole right to life becomes questionable, because that right does not include the infringement on the life of another. If a person sees thisphysiological relationships as undesirable, they have a right to sever it, because they have a right to bodily integrity.Also your claim, "it would eliminate the possiblity of the slippery slope developing." I must point out that the slippery slope argumeny is a textbook, logical fallacy. I tried to ignore it but you keep repeating it. Lol:SLIPPERY SLOPE: (sometimes called a snowball argument or domino theory) suggests that if one step or action is taken it will invariably lead to similar steps or actions, the end results of which are negative or undesirable. A slippery slope always assume a chain reaction of cause-effect events which result in some eventual dire outcome.Examples: "It would prevent governments ever saying that one life is worth less than another, and so we can get rid of it." (Abortion leads to the govt taking away the equal right to life of all citizens)Or "If everyone murdered, there would be no society, and so society deems it wrong." (Assumption that Society believes if one murders all will murder) The murder is addressed because it encroaches on an individuals right to life, which our govt must protect in order for us to give it authority to rule. It does not assume we will all kill each other if murderers are not punished..."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." That's commendable, but where's your proof for this best interest?"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."Ummm...not so. I never said to each his own, I believe I've made a few pleas for us to appeal to a common authority. Lol. I am saying according to what we commonly regard as true/rational (the law, nature, science, logic), the right to life does not yet apply to human beings who cannot self sustain that life. This is why it is not murder to disconnect people from life support. So to each his own... okay, but only if his life is his own (not directly dependent upon others), and only in as much as his own does not encroach upon the own of another (murder, violence, child abuse, etc. ) Lol."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." Well I did not specify "extremes", so I take your point, but I meant in a -leave-no-stone-unturned way, not in a murderous vigilante kind of way...lol"Easy, 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."Ummm...Murder is not murder whether unintentional or not...that's kind of the point. It is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." LolAnd my point of overpopulation was not to forward eugenics ...lol. I am saying that considering the current state of the humans that are here, why incriminate those who choose not to bring forth a life that they do not want responsibilty for?"Nothing has intrinsic value except for what we sayn 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."Nothing has intrinsic value, period. We cannot intrinsic value to things. The value we give things based on what is important to us is arbitrary. Intrinsic means that the value is inherent/ built-in/ inborn."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."Again, a parent beating their child is not an abortion. The child in your example has met the qualification for self sustaining life i.e., he will not perish if he is separated physically from his parent. So he is covered by the right to life, which is what makes the parent's actions unlawful. I would not be imposing anything, because my intervention (reason for doings so is preestablished) i.e.,the parent, child and I all have this right according to the law of the land. So though my personal view might condemn him, i cannot intervene without reasonable/ rational justification (common authority thing, again).