SRSZabortion

Abortion is okay, and that isn't the only method to do it. You legit picked out the worst one to scare people.

What it really comes down to is when life truly begins. If it begins at conception, then abortion is murder. On the other hand, if it begins at birth, then it's not bad at all. Louis C.K. actually had a really great bit about this; essentially saying that it's either killing a baby or it's exactly the same as taking a shit. That's really what it comes down to. I personally am against it, but I'm understand both sides. What I'd like to see is for abortion to become less common and for adoption to become easier for both birth mothers and adoptive parents.

If it's retarded ABORT

I don't believe abortion is murder. The baby is unborn yet and is simply a fetus, a clutter of cells. If you say something like "it's still life" then fapping is also murder and should be made illegal. It just doesn't make sense and a woman has the right to make that choice.

There is a lot to unpack here.

1. I don't find the "That could have been a child" argument compelling. Sperm is part of DNA that COULD have been a child. If I don't inseminate someone with it am I making a significant waste of life and should be reprimanded? No , not really, most people agree that what COULD HAVE BEEN is irrelevant. One could apply that same conclusion to just about any baby to decide that what could have been is irrelevant to whether or not abortion is right. So I think it is best to not consider the argument of "He might've solved cancer if you didn't abort him?" as an important point.

2. The religious views that dominate this topic I mostly find irrelevant. I care about logic and objective truth. No religious narrative is a logical or an objective truth. Just an appeal to one's emotions. One's emotions can only go so far to influence the rights and freedoms of others.

3. The murder point relies upon the idea that the being there is a child and therefore has the right to life. The point at which it is considered a child is iffy. Sperm isn't a child. The inseminated egg is a cell but still not a child. Cells don't think or feel. It is just an advanced machine (machine in this case is a thing that functions but can't think in any capacity to do functions such as with a brain).
So when does the machine become a child which would give it a right to life that overrides the right the mother has to control their own body. It is a balance of rights. That is where the gray area starts to come in.
The second trimester abortion video shared on the previous page which has Doctor Levatino is concerning to me because the fetus has a brain and functioning nervous system which would seem, at least to me, as a reason that the machine is considered a child with rights like any other.
The key here is brain and nervous system. They both allow the thing to feel and think to a degree which should give it rights as far as I'm concerned. "I think, therefore I am" is the saying that my train of thought goes to regarding this. The fact that the activity going on here is not remembered at all and that there is little to no cognition from the child doesn't seem significant enough to sway me on this.
For me the threshold of development should probably be anywhere around 8-10 weeks since during that time the nervous system and brain develops and after that time the child is kicking and functioning like an organism and not just a machine like the weeks preceding (which clearly demonstrates the brain works and is functioning).
So for me 8-10 weeks is my current opinion on what would qualify as an abortion that would be in the legal rights of ANYONE regardless of insemination. Anything after and I think rape or sexual assault causing the insemination would be the only case of abortion that I would consider having legal standing (since the insemination was not given with consent from the mother). After that point someone who had consensual insemination wouldn't have any legal standing to me (since they have the obligation to get the abortion before the developing organism became a child with rights. They have to live with the consequences of their actions).

I also found the first trimester abortion from the same doctor Levatino who was shared in the second trimester abortion. So I guess this is essentially the threshold I'm fine with.

Of course I'm not a legal or medical expert so I could sway on this threshold.

- - - Updated - - -

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions

- - - Updated - - -

First rape, sexual assault, and the right to bodily integrity is completely disregarded.

Then a narrative is created on top of that to outright state that people who have abortions don't have any integrity to the point that they would have intercourse with anyone and that they need to get the abortion entirely because they were too stupid to use a condom (without stating any research to derive such information from). To make such a conclusion requires a ginormous jumping to conclusions that any reasonable person would recognize as way too broad to apply to all cases and has so little detail that many important factors would be left out.

- - - Updated - - -

To be frank, you would be a horrible legislator, judge, lawyer, civil servant, or leader of anything really if this was the kind of line of thinking you normally approach most issues you come across.