Abortion cannot be justified logically.

"If I can ignore it for the purpose of this debate, then it's not a hole in my argument." For the record, I mentioned that because it was a bit of a personal attack more than anything. And I don't like to force people to respond to personal attacks. Your other views aren't immediately relevant to the debate, but they're important nonetheless. And, this is a bit of a tangent, but it's worth asking because I've always wanted to know why libertarians want to privatize financial aid and other such things. Isn't that a little idealistic? Most private groups (i.e. corporations and whatnot) only care about money, to the point of denying people healthcare because they want to keep costs down. Why do you think they would just give it away to the poor? And if you think that it's grassroots groups or whatever, then why are you so sure that people are inherently good and will want to donate money? I'd much rather charge everyone to make sure people get the care they need than depend on people's goodwill. And for that matter, in hard times when people need help most, wouldn't people stop donating in order to keep their own families afloat? And wouldn't that essentially strand the poor? But on to the real argument, yes? Okay. Fine. A fertilized egg is technically alive, but so are tumors. Think about it. All tissue is alive, and actually by your definition of human life (being a cell, capable of cell division and able to perform cellular functions) a tumor qualifies. So, by your logic, tumors should not be removed because they are alive. Don't go curing that cancer, now. You'll be killing human life. You and I both know that there are different levels of ‘alive', and being alive does not necessarily mean that something's sentient. If I kill the poinsettia on your windowsill, you won't be going on about murder unless you have an unnatural attachment to houseplants. And I think, in our case, the scientific definition of life is pretty irrelevant to this argument for exactly that reason. Because, let's face it, using that definition, you'd have to argue that the average potato is intelligent. So, let's look at the medical definition of death, shall we? According to Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, which I'm sure is a fairly decent source of information on such things, the definition of death is "the irreversible cessation of all of the following: (1) total cerebral function, usually assessed by EEG as flat-line (2) spontaneous function of the respiratory system, and (3) spontaneous function of the circulatory system" At this point in the pregnancy, the fetus is capable of none of these things, and so is medically dead, unless you want to look at it as a lump of tissue. But again, lumps of tissue are not protected under the constitution, are they? As for killing someone in their sleep, they are most certainly thinking and feeling. Just because they're not particularly aware of the fact that they're thinking and feeling at the time doesn't mean they're not. Don't believe me? Go up to someone asleep. And then poke them. If they don't wake up, you may want to call the authorities. They still have enough feeling to respond to being poked. As for thinking, people have plenty of alpha and delta waves bouncing around while they're asleep. People who are asleep are certainly aware of what's going on around them, they're still processing all the stimuli around, there's just a momentary disconnect between parts of the brain, and the cognitive part isn‘t really aware of it. If you stopped thinking and feeling when asleep, you'd be medically dead every night. "Excuse me? If 88.2% of abortions don't really kill anything, then what are they for? The baby's heart was pounding, many of its vital systems were already functioning, and it was growing by the day. What is it, if not alive?" That's just the point. Its heart isn't pounding and it doesn't actually have any vital systems. I will concede that it is growing, but I think I already mentioned tumors. Again, living lump of tissue does not equal sentient being. "All humans are people. A "fetus" is a human, therefore, a fetus is a person. Granted, it is not a fully developed person, but neither is a one-year-old infant. Do you recommend that we start killing babies when they become inconvenient on the grounds that they are not fully developed, and therefore, not human?" A one-year-old infant can think, breathe, and circulate blood and is therefore medically alive, unlike a pre-fetus, which again, at this point, is a lump of cells. I'll certainly agree that it is illegal to kill a baby, but you can't kill something if it was never alive in the first place. ""Fetus" describes a baby in the later stages of development (long after the 12th week), meaning that it has a nervous system, and therefore, by your own definition, is alive." Oh, bah. You know as well as I do that that's just a matter of word choice. If I said you were contradicting yourself every time you chose the wrong word to describe something, we'd be here all day. Even you have to agree that was a bit of a cheap shot. But okay, if it bothers you so much, I'll remember to call it a pre-fetal lump of cells next time. And all this about emotions, there's a lot wrong with basing an argument on them. Some times they just don't make sense. I'm really into robotics, and whenever I build a robot, I look at the way it moves, looks, and behaves and start empathizing with it. Logic tells me that it's an unthinking and unfeeling machine, but my emotions say it's cute when it looks for the light source before driving toward it. We're evolved to see human characteristics when they're often not there, and this can often get in the way of reason. And for the record, you're grossly overestimating the "thousands" of abortions performed every day. In America, there's something like 140 a day, and I think it's gone down a bit since then. Now, I'll admit, that's not a figure I like, and I don't at all like the idea of killing pre-fetuses myself, but honestly, it beats the alternative. "Furthermore, what is wrong with the suggestion of adoption? You already suggested earlier that there are many couples unable to have kids, and go to fertility clinics to do so. Looks like you've solved your own problem." Actually, there's a big problem. People are selfish. Most of them don't want to raise someone else's kid, especially one from a foster home because they tend to be emotionally disturbed from being in a foster home. It's a harsh truth but most of us are hopelessly idealistic and want to raise our own kids from birth, and not someone else's. If adoptions were such a good idea, why aren't there more of them now? "I reject this categorically. Most women abort babies because they want to have sex, but they don't want to face the consequences of sex." I hate to say it, but in this day and age, that's okay. Why do we have contraception? You may be morally opposed to recreational sex but it's a pretty integral part of the nation now. Look at television, media, advertising, whatever. It's all pretty sexually charged. And as for this whole abstinence thing. From an evolutionary or religious or whatever standpoint you're coming from, you're right. But again, let's face it, people have sex out of wedlock now. It isn't the 1800's where women couldn't roll their sleeves up past their elbows. Times have changed. And no offense, but if you think this debate isn't going to do anything, why'd you start it? Unless you were looking to convince some people of your views by going on the internet and prophesizing you should be picketing the nearest abortion clinic or something. Before I stop, though, I just wanted to point out that by making abortion illegal, do you really think you're going to stop it? More likely, a bunch of illegal abortion clinics will pop up with untrained and possibly dangerous personnel.