@AIDAN SIVITS How did you miss the contradiction in your comment? How does one have no emotion, thoughts, or actual life AND still experience? How does one have "no actual life" to have that right denied? This all sounds like Edgar Allan Poe material. I, too, hope you don't go killing 6-month old babies if that's going to be your mindset of someone who's pro-choice. But no worries, I just want to clarify my position for you. I think you would agree that biological parents have no legal obligation to preserve the life of their kid(s) via bodily donation, OR that my right to life should not extend to someone else's body. If either, then we're not denying the fetus' right to life because it never had that right to begin with just like the rest of us.

@yeeter-132 That's not how rights are given. Biological parents are not legally obligated to preserve the life of their child(s) via bodily donation. It goes against bodily autonomy, meaning no one has a right to life when it is at the expense of another's right to life. We should form equality, not punishment.

@Kavik So is pulling the plug on someone who's brain dead, by your own logic. So is denying a blood donation that could save a child who's on the transplant list. Murder is the unlawful killing of someone, but all these things are legal and should remain legal. Who else has rights to someone's body that the law should recognize? Can I use your body against your will because I'm a life with value and I have a right to life. Can we extend this right towards the father, and have his body used against his will - because this whole thing only targets people with a uterus and not people with a penis.

But the argument is legality. Explaining the procedure of an abortion (in a malicious fashion, but that's how prolifers are) is not an argument for abortion. Please justify why something should have rights to your body when it does not apply to everyone else.

I believe when people mention the word baby, they are speaking in a colloquial sense whether it be a newborn or their 14 year old child. Yes, the scientific term for a baby during the gestation period is fetus. I believe when people address the fetus as baby, they are doing this colloquially and manipulatively to appeal the emotions of others - say a friend to another friend with a wanted pregnancy. When arguing for abortion whether you are against it or not, should be structured in a way that's logically sound and substantiated. Unfortunately, language isn't the issue. It's a tangent, sidetracking from the actual topic which is whether an abortion should remain legal or become illegal. Whether you call the fetus a baby or not a baby, I see no justification for anyone to use another person's body in the absence of their willful and ongoing consent. Denying someone your body for them to live is not murder, it is your bodily right. Adoption is an alternative to parenting, because we are talking about someone legally bringing up a child as their own in place of the biological/legal parent. This has nothing to do with abortion. Telling someone with an unwanted pregnancy to give the baby up for adoption as a solution doesn't help, because they have an unwanted pregnancy and they shouldn't have to decide to keep it because others tell them they should.

@Srij Kark None of that is relevant to the point I am making. Did you forget that there is a thing called consent? Just because the vagina is "designed" for a penis, no man should go around penetrating women without their consent. What a terrible appeal to nature and it sets a dangerous precedent where a person's bodily autonomy can be disrespected and therefore violated using that same logic. No one is owed a body and no one should dictate others on making bodily decisions against their wishes, that's the idea behind slavery. Any form of bodily donation, whether it be a kidney or the entire body for nine months, must be met with the donor's ongoing consent. This is why you don't have hospitals forcing their patients to donate their bodies of any form, because that is illegal.

@Kavik What is your justification?

@Kavik So you agree that pregnant people aren't an exception? So they are not obligated to carry their pregnancy. Case closed.

@Kavik I owe no one my body. I am human and of value, but I still have no right to use my parents' bodies against their wishes - so that's irrelevant. And again, parents are not legally obligated to provide any form of BODILY DONATION to their born child but pregnant people are an exception. What is your justification for this?

I agree life begins at conception, but calling it a baby and saying they're being murdered is just sensationalism and overall irrelevant. No biological parent is legally obligated to provide their born child any form of bodily donation, but pregnant people are an exception? What's the justification for this?

If the mother had a two year old in need of an organ transplant and she is the only person who matches, should it be legal to force her to donate that organ? The two year old is a child by definition, so we have taken the term out of relevancy. Also if that same two year old is capable of using someone's body without their consent, I wouldn't declare them as innocent - so we have also taken innocence out of relevancy. So if the two year old cannot use his/her mother's body for an organ, then the fetus does not have that right either in regards for the pregnant person's ENTIRE body being used.

No baby is murdered. That's only sound through pro-life propaganda, but nowhere else. To think it is murder for a woman to deny gestation for the is the same as me denying to donate my blood, tissue, organs, etc. thus I am murdering the thousands of children on the donor list.

@Lee Scott Each of us hold an equal right to life to a degree, because no one has that right when it comes to using someone else's body without their consent. Acknowledging that the fetus is a life under is not justification to attribute it specials rights. This is literal a reinstatement of the original comment.