Abortion on Demand Should Be Illegal

Again, I understand your position; I am asking you to justify it. I justify my position based on the level of development of the fetus, as I've stated. Also, a point that I don't believe has been yet brought up is that abortion is humane in nature. The abortion process does not damage the mother, and regulations provide the guarantee that they are not paining the fetus itself. New guidelines from the ARAC state this about euthanasia of rodents (rats and mice) before 7 days of age: Hypothermia is an acceptable method of euthanasia for fetuses and altricial neonates as long as direct contact with ice/cold surfaces is avoided. While research shows this to be a humane method of euthanasia, although it may not appear so at first glance, and I contend the same with abortion of human fetuses. (NOTE: I am not saying we should freeze fetuses to abort) I get my belief that we should not kill people from God. I don't care how you get it, but since our rule of law is based on this principle, I hope you agree that we should not kill human persons. Therefore your entire argument stems from theism. Now, this would have to involve God. As I said, you cannot consistently get it in any other way, but I certainly hope you have. This seems like a good time to clarify the idea of separation of church and state. This was never intended (at least in America) to mean separation of God and state. Both institutions of church and state were designed to be equally ruled by God. That's why we have laws against things like murder. I don't think you can justify this outside of self-preservation without God. You still didn't answer the question. Does the intrinsic value of human beings automatically lower when being compared with a fetus? Does a person on life support who needs an organ transplant or blood transfusion have less intrinsic value than a non-born fetus? If this is so, please justify that claim and explain how the person on life support is intrinsically less valuable. We have laws about things like murder because as social animals, human beings have evolved with empathy and the sense of right and wrong. Human beings have evolved over their history to recognize that things like murder are wrong, human beings have evolved to realize that things like rape are wrong. Ducks, for example have an evolutionary trait (in females) that prevents cases of rape. (in ducks) Humans have an evolutionary mechanism against rape too, and that is the gift of the human conscious. When us, as people see animals killing each other do we not stop and think to ourselves that the behavior of those animals is wrong? It is more a matter of perspective than "God". Maybe you should reread my original argument again since you are clearly not understanding it in any way. I am not comparing rape to abortion, but since you ask.... Abortion is much worse in my opinion than rape since it ends a human life while rape damages one. Murder is worse than rape. If you disagree, please justify why. You compared the morality of rape, child rape nonetheless, to the act of excersizing choice. Murder and rape are in the same caliber of evil, and I believe in the death penalty and forced sterilization as many others do, but to compare the act of murder to the act of abortion is disingenuous. Why is such an argument valid for 5 weeks but not 25? If you still believe we should not kill children at 25 weeks, then you must admit the weakness of the above argument. If difficult circumstances do not justify abortion at 25 weeks, they cannot justify abortion at 5 weeks. You need a different reason. One should be responsible enough to know if they can raise a child before 25 weeks gestation, human beings need to hold some level of responsibility with abortion and that is one of those responsibilities. Yes, I believe the child's right not to be torn apart is greater than the inconvenience of the mother to take care of the child. Such seems rather obvious if the fetus is a human person as you agreed. Again, you never answered the question. If all human beings have the same intrinsic value how come the law cannot force you to donate blood, organs or tissue to someone who is dying just because they both have the same consistent intrinsic value? Your argument is inconsistent in this regard, as you say that all human beings have intrinsic value but there appears to be alot of variation in the intrinsic value human beings have. The Nazis were not Christians, but many of the slaveowners did claim to be. The difference is that when "Christians" do such things, they act contrary to what they are commanded to do, but when atheists do such atrocious acts, they do so in cooperation with their worldview. Again, I ask you to justify that. This displays simply lack of knowledge of history. Such people acted despite their worldview, not because of it. Also, if you can justify human intrinsic value without God, be my guest. The nazi's generally were not all Christians, but Hitler was, and has publically said that the jewish people were the enemies of god and that fighting against them was gods work. http://bigthink.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... You still have not properly justified why a child can be killed at 19 weeks and not 21. The only reason you gave was the lack of ability to feel pain, but this is problematic. If persons in the womb can be killed if they can't feel it, why can't others be killed painlessly? Pain it seems is an inconsistent reason to kill people. Once the thalamus forms, the procedure cannot be done humanely with a guarantee.