Abortion on Demand Should Be Illegal

Hello again, I will going straight into rebuttals once againYour position seems to be very inconsistent. If it is okay to kill living human persons at 6 weeks, why not 6 months or six years?It isn't okay to kill a child at six weeks old, however it is acceptable to abort a fetus that is at six weeks development. Why should pain matter when killing a person? If I cause you pain, is that worse than killing you? Is the amount of evil of murder dependant upon the pain an individual feels? If so, murdering individuals painlessly should be completely legal. If you don't agree (and I hope you don't), then pain cannot be the standard we use to decide whether someone get's to live or die.I was asked to elaborate on my opinion as to when the fetus should be granted the right to live, and I believe the fetus gets the right to live when it is capable of feeling, not only pain, but feeling in generalAll human persons have intrinsic value. I get that from the belief in the existence of God, and I don't think you can consistently get it any other way.Please do not use religion as an argumentative point.Your analogy has absolutely nothing to do with my argument; perhaps you misunderstood it. My point was that we should not make acts legal based on the safety of those who commit those acts.If humans have intrinsic value (In your own words) why is this so?Again, you misunderstood my argument. Again, IF abortion should be illegal, THEN that fact does not change if mothers might perform unsafe illegal abortions. I simply used rape to justify that same principle in order to address the point you brought up. I am not saying rape is as bad as abortion, in fact, it is much less evil.I will use this as moment to remind everyone voting that these types of absurd and egregious comments should be considered when voting. Rape is in no way comparable to abortion, in fact being much, much, much worse than abortion.That was not the point being made. My point was that some rights are more important than other rights.While I do not believe some person's rights should trump the same rights of another, I do believe some rights are inherently more valuable. For example, my right not to be murdered by you is greater than your right to do whatever you want with your body. Similarly, in the case of the pregnant mother, the mother's right of convenience is less than the child's right not to be murdered. That is clearly the comparison that was being drawnActually, you are the one who brought up the convenience of the motherRefer to above rebuttal for proof against that statement We don't kill other children just because they may grow up in difficult conditions. If it is okay to kill people for these reasons, why not just kill children who are in those conditions. On the other hand, if this is not a good reason to kill older children, why is it a good reason to kill children in the womb?There's a glaring difference between killing a child who has lived in those conditions and from preventing a fetus who doesn't know they exist from entering such a horrible circumstance.I am neither arguing for nor against the law you cited. I am simply pointing out that there is already an exception for the fetus built-in. The fetus is regarded legally as a person, so this law wouldn't even need to be modified. Since such an exception exists, this law has nothing to do with the debate. Also, again I am not making the fetus' rights greater, I am making the right to life greater. Forgive me for being picky about the wording, but it is important.The fetus is legally regarded as a person, so the law still applies, as you say. You also believe that the right to live of someone who needs tissue, organ, or blood from your corpse is less than a fetus who needs the same three things from it's mother?I don't think I went far enough. Abortion is not equal to those evils, it is greater than both. More human persons have been killed, and more innocent blood has been shed as a result of abortion than either slavery or the holocaust. If you do truly believe humans have intrinsic value, then you should believe the same. All three of these evils occurred because people redefined human life based on whether they wanted it to be human. This is exactly what you are doing, and it will inevitably lead to tragedy.Shame on you, for trying to emotionally bait your argument misrepresenting the holocaust and slavery. Both slave owners and the higher ups of the german military never denied that blacks and jews were people, simply less valuable people. Conveniently both happened because of christianity and both were driven by christian values. This directly contradicts you saying that humans have intrinsic value purely from your belief in god, but the same belief in the same god is what caused the millions of deaths and all the anguish you are referencing.