Pro-lifers be like:
>If you say that a child that isn't born yet or that is below a certain number of weeks is ok to be aborted, then you are drawing arbitrary lines!
>If you list any criteria for what makes human life protected, then you always also catch some mentally ill people with your definition, and thus you allow their euthanasia
>Life begins at conception!
The chain goes:
>At the beginning, it is just a lump of cells, it's not a child.
>But it WILL BE a child.
Well, what about if you have a sperm cell and an egg cell. If they are separated it is not a child and put them together, and magically it is a child?
THAT is where you draw the line?
It's just as retarded.
The cold harsh truth is the following:
Existence is a spectrum.
A baby is less than a grown man.
A bunch of cells is less than a baby.
An animal is less than a human but is more than a plant.
All systems change, and killing a bunch of cells is morally exactly the same as not creating the bunch of cells in the first place.
Abortion is an event horizon, our conventional morality completely breaks down there.
THE LAW has a different origin, the law originates from the social contract and its purpose is NOT to enforce what is morally right, but what is necessary for the existence of society.
Therefore in a free society, abortions must be legal, because the unborn child is not a member of society and is therefore not protected by the social contract.
I honestly like to look at it this way:
If someone is on your property, then you have the right to remove him from your property with deadly force.
A child that is inside a woman is just like a parasite, and she has the right to have it removed by the same justification.
Of course, it's the murder of an innocent child, but property rights are more important than the rights of trespassers.
Morally it's on the same level as the lowest of murderers and anyone who tries to banalize it is an imbecile, there is no denying that. But it should still be legal.
