Abortion is a reproductive right

I wonder what you perceive self-ownership or bodily integrity to be?I would say bodily integrity is controlling your body unless it contains another life! I don't think of a foetus as a kidney up until it could survive 25% of the time outside the womb, at which point its value sky rockets. What is the logical step between survival outside the womb, and it being valuable enough to ban discarding? It appears to me to just be another arbitrary point in time. If you would accept that it is a human life in there, how can you say this life only gains worth when it can survive unaided (although not entirely unaided of course, most babies would die of starvation even after birth unless tended to reasonably often). What you appear to say is it gains worth when it can survive with aid only when that aid isn't given inside the mother, which doesn't seem like a logical point at all. 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. To turn your argument on you, why does the right to life become questionable? Why does the right to life not apply if another's life is infringed? You appear to be making two points here: 1) Its right to life is questionable if it can't survive on its own and 2) it does not have the right to life because it infringes on anothers life. Two separate points that I think are a little confused here. Unless you mean it is only questionable if it infringes upon anothers life AND it cant survive on its own. Which seems like a personal opinion to me. (something which you have criticised me of). I must point out that the slippery slope argumeny is a textbook, logical fallacy.I did not argue that abortion leads to a slippery slope, I said that a limited view on human value leads to a slippery slope. The Jews in Nazi Europe were considered lesser beings and less worthy of their lives, which promptly led to their extermination. Blacks have often been killed due to their lives being considered less valuable than white lives. We already have Richard Dawkins claiming that 'not aborting a baby with down syndrome is cruel' or words to that effect. Why is it a logical fallacy that saying human life does not have value (or only has value in certain circumstances) will lead to ending human life? If we are to agree that it is thus best to say human life invariably has value, we must also apply that to foetuses.the right to life does not yet apply to human beings who cannot self sustain that life.And so it never should apply? Because blacks didn't have the right to life once, and thank God that idea changed. Morality changes, nothing is set in stone, and I think that using the whole 'it isnt against the law, therefore its okay' attitude isn't helpful with ethical problems.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."Ahh I see, true, it isn't murder. Although I'd argue that it is a bad definition, considering premediated implies a killing of passion doesn't classify as murder. But true murder is the wrong word, although killing still applies. My apologies.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? Bring forth a life might imply that a foetus isn't alive, which isn't true. They are alive as are all cells. And if you mean bring up a life, again what if a parent didn't want to raise their disabled child? Killing it doesn't justify it. The child in your example has met the qualification for self sustaining lifeAgain what is this qualification? Why is self sustaining life just a milestone that it gives humans rights they did not initially have? Self sustaining also only means sustained by very careful attention by scientists in a lab. Hardly self sustained.