1. Killing innocent human beings is wrong

>2. The fetus is a human being

No, it isn't. It is a fetus, and at the point in which abortion is allowed, it is indistinguishable from the unfinished fetus or embryo in the womb of any other animal. To say that a fetus is a person is the same as saying that a seed is the same as a tree. Why is cutting down a tree illegal, but stepping on and crushing a seed isn't? Just as the seed can become a plant a fetus certainly has the ability to, eventually, after some time of gestation, become a person, but by the third month, it isn't a human being yet.

So here you go.

Romania tried to outlaw abortion in communist times as the post-boom hick-up slowed down their population growth. What they've achieved was another population boom, hooray. However, in a matter of decade they've found surprising development. Not only the population growth slowed down more than it did back when they've decided to outlaw abortion, but also there was sudden increase of infertile women.

What happened? Right after the ban was issued, enormous amount of kids that would normally get scrapped were born. After while the abortion black market was established and everything came back to pre-ban norm, except shoddily done abortions also made enormous amount of women infertile. However in my opinion it would only repeat in 50% in more developed countries that aren't police states - the black market will be established but the quality of abortions won't drop. The price will grow like mad though. Which is something gynaecologists endorse because they know that after few "bad" years a new era of prosperity will come to greet them!
Blackmarket abortion costs more therefore gynaecologists/abortionists support outlawing it. Your uncle is definitely not an gynaecologists though, you're doing it for pats on head from your wife's son. "Ur a good nigga, fighting for unborn buhbies and their right to live, u my hero" are his words to cheer you up when your wife went out on a date with his dad.

From the moment of conception it is a unique human organism that is growing. What reasons do you have to say it's not human?

Would you not agree that the seed is of the same species as the tree? That the only difference is the stage of development they're in?

It does not follow that an act should be made legal because some people might suffer harm while breaking the law. No doubt some bank robbers are injured or killed in automobile accidents while fleeing the scene of the crime. Does this mean that we should make bank robbery legal? The existence of blackmarket or criminal abortion does not negate either premise. It is still a human life, and it is still immoral to kill innocent human life.

It could also be stillborn, entirely of natural causes. There's no guarantee that a viable fetus will become a human being, just as there's no guarantee that an egg will be fertilized by sperm.
You're just picking an arbitrary point at which there's an X% percent chance that a child will be born, as opposed to waiting until the child is actually born.

The effectiveness of banning medical procedures is bound to be equal to 0. Especially as straight-up economical calculation tells you that it's cheaper to bribe the doctor to perform abortion rather than raise the kid, because the price would have to be really, really, really fucking high to make the whole thing more expensive than raising a child.

As such the "pro-lifers" are nothing more than a platform fighting for doctor's interests and are compromised of individuals who's reason for existence is getting good boy points for fighting for "humane" causes.

>1. Killing innocent human beings is wrong
>2. The fetus is a human being

Depending on how you define "human being," at least one of these statements is false.

Let me ask you this: what attributes do human beings have that make killing them wrong?

Sometimes people just die randomly in their sleep. It doesn't mean a human being didn't exist before they went to sleep. People dying of natural causes doesn't make murder acceptable.

>People dying of natural causes doesn't make murder acceptable.
Yes it does. You're sending them back to our Lord Jesus Christ faster.

>You're just picking an arbitrary point at which there's an X% percent chance that a child will be born, as opposed to waiting until the child is actually born.
And you aren't?
You're literally saying that exiting a hole makes him human

If making abortion illegal didn't stop a single abortion it would still be the right thing to do.

Being able to survive outside of the womb makes him human.
If the fetus is still at a point where the death of the mother inevitably results in the death of the child, then you can hardly claim that it's a distinct organism.

Yes, your uncle will rake more money so it WILL be a better thing to do.

Why does the ability to survive outside the womb matter?

It doesn't have any of the qualities we associate with a human being, except having the DNA of the same species - but hair has that, too.
It isn't human, it just has a high (but not even guaranteed) potentiality of becoming a human, just like bread matter has the potentially to be turned into a human.

Why should bread not be given human rights?

>The fetus is a human being
The fetus isn't a human being. It is a fetus.

Leftists believe in egalitarianism, i.e. that human life is of equal worth regardless of social status, age, race, etc. Therefore you see egalitarian apologetics such as and arguing that fetuses are not human life in any meaningful sense.

From my right-wing perspective, abortion is justified in many cases because of the simple truth that not all human life is equally valuable. In most cases the value of the life of a non-sentient bundle of cells that constitutes a fetus is much less valuable than the efforts and resources of the mother and state raising it (assuming the father is absent, which is the case in most abortions). Consider also the case of teenage abortion where the cost of not aborting the fetus often means raising a child in an unstable environment (mother, state resources, grandparents) at the cost of not being able to delay childbirth until a stable home environment (nuclear family) can be created. In expectation, a child raised in the latter environment is more valuable than a child raised in the former.

>implying its better to have a child raised in horrible conditions, or at least sub-par than not live at all and know no suffering
>assuming human life has any inherent value (just putting that argument out there)

It's morally reprehensible, but socially convenient to have pro-choice laws.

Why do people always try to pass this whole issue as something else when it's literally as simple as this.

Abortions are wrong? Yes, killing a project of a unique human being is wrong.

Is it socially convenient to legalize abortions? Yes, you are making sure every child is appreciated by their parents so they don't become a burden to rest of society (this isn't necessarily true 100% of the times, but it applies to most cases).

The usual time people consider a fetus a person is when it starts having brain functions. Which is around the 3 month pregnancy time. The fact that OP didnt mention this means this is a retarded troll thread.

It kills off Niggers, masturbators, the Irish, and other undesirables who get abortions in numbers disproportionate to their population size.

What, not good enough for you? It's good enough for the United States Government. Hell, it still is.

not a righty, but this guy makes a good point

So premature babies that can't survive on their own and need to be put in incubators aren't human either then?

That has nothing to do with global resources. Texas could not support everyone on planet earth living in it.

>Abortions are wrong? Yes, killing a project of a unique human being is wrong.
Then we should outlaw natural births the moment artificial wombs become viable, as natural wombs spontaneously abort without the approval of the conscious mind all the time.

I think the only qualities that truly matter when defining what a living human is unique human DNA, and whether or not it's in a state of development. Hair and bread don't fill these requirements. Things like the ability to feel pain or experience consciousness are actions that grown human can perform, but to say those are what makes us human commits the fallacy of confusing cause and effect. We have a be a human before we can act like one, so we have to be a human before we can think or feel.

And you know he would prefer oblivion because?

I mean if you're a depressed faggot just kill yourself, don't try snuffing out others

There are plenty of people living in horrible conditions now but we wouldn't be okay with their slaughter. If it's not okay to kill born people for this reason than we shouldn't use it to kill the unborn.

Because in case of developmental issues like microcephaly(although I am aware that many prolifers argue that in similar situations early abortion should be legal so I hope you won't consider it to be some strawman) you will set the life of the mother in danger(doctors WILL have to do caesarean section) while the kid is bound to die in a week or so anyway, as they simply don't have and will never have enough brain to live on their own. Let's just say it's not the only example of such issue.

Don't be a fucking idiot without a trace of logical reasoning. Do you really need me to state the obvious?

Protip: I never mentioned spontaenous abortions because it doesn't have a place in this discussion.

>A reasonable person would consider this death by natural causes. There is no killing in this scenario.

>impying fetuses can think with undeveloped minds that arent conscious yet, so how could they prefer anything

& Humanities was a fucking mistake.
It absolutely is a fucking mistake.
Holy fucking shit Japmoot why the fuck did you do this?
Jesus Christ.
Back in /int/ and Veeky Forums we just wanted a history board
A HISTORY BOARD
but some asshole added & humanities to it and japmoot went along
Fucks sake
Veeky Forums is not a mistake
& humanities is.
Humanities
that stupid, aimless body of "knowledge" that is based on conundrums, muh feels, and conjectures.
History is NOT humanities, it is it's own fucking thing.
Holy shit who decided "& humanities"