Every pro-lifer always, without fail, gets it wrong on abortion.

My general opinion on the topic is that if there were a good argument for abortion, I would probably have become pro choice by now. The entitlement of this should be self-explanatory given that I am pro life.  

Abortion reduces crime

• My view is that, I don't necessarily see how this would lead to the conclusion that abortion should be legal. I can grant this true or not, but killing all people with low IQ would reduce crime, and that does not seem to suggest this should be legal. 
  

-->@TWS1405

Abortion reduces crime

• My view is that, I don't necessarily see how this would lead to the conclusion that abortion should be legal. I can grant this true or not, but killing all people with low IQ would reduce crime, and that does not seem to suggest this should be legal. 
  

• You seemed to be making a modus ponens inference: "abortion reduces crime therefore abortion should be legal."
  
• I am using your same inference, and applying it to other potential policies: "killing people with low IQ reduces crime therefore killing people with low IQ should be legal"
  

No one's life ceases to be any less or more of [a] life (physical existence) when sleeping

it is a necessity for good/balanced mental and physical health

A born human being is an actualized human being. Once actualized, that human being never becomes anything less than, that is, until death, naturally.

Why is it illegal to smash bald eagle eggs., but not rip apart a human fetus. Yet oddly legal to take all the chicken eggs we want and do what ever we want with them? Abortion is about the arbitrary establishment of when human rights begin not when human life begins. 

The ONLY stage of gestational development where the fetus can be equates to that of [a] human being is the point of fetal viability.

if there were a good argument for abortion, I would probably have become pro choice by now

-->

@Novice_II

My general opinion on the topic is that if there were a good argument for abortion, I would probably have become pro choice by now. The entitlement of this should be self-explanatory given that I am pro life. 

Legalized abortion and crime effect - Wikipedia

Abortion reduces crime.

As such, abortion reduces the number of "human weeds" that need to be plucked from humanity/reality.

The current state of the world PROVES why "eugenics" works

Living matter is being rendered lifeless via abortion.

Human in origin, though how we choose to label it further is a semantics issue rather than a moral issue.

How we choose to compare said matter with post-natal human beings varies.

As does how we choose to apply viability and importance during the process of pre-natal development.

And unfortunately, as does how we apply importance to fully developed humans and other living organisms.

Hence Hypocrisy and selective morality are rife.

So you’re pro choice?

--> @zedvictor4

Living matter is being rendered lifeless via abortion.

And? 

Every time a guy jerks off and ejaculates, “living matter is being rendered lifeless.”

Every time you bleed after being cut expelling skin tissue and blood, “living matter is being rendered lifeless.”

I can go on and on and on…

Human in origin, though how we choose to label it further is a semantics issue rather than a moral issue.

Every cell in the human organism is human in origin. It’s not semantics. It’s scientific fact. 

How we choose to compare said matter with post-natal human beings varies.

And each time will be a false equivalency fallacy. 

As does how we choose to apply viability and importance during the process of pre-natal development.

Nope. There is only one kind of relevant viability where a pregnancy is concerned, fetal viability. 

And unfortunately, as does how we apply importance to fully developed humans and other living organisms.

False equivalency fallacy 

Hence Hypocrisy and selective morality are rife.

Nope. Remove your logical fallacy problems and there is no hypocrisy or selective morality issue(s). 

Abortion reduces crime.

As such, abortion reduces the number of "human weeds" that need to be plucked from humanity/reality.

The current state of the world PROVES why "eugenics" works. 

1. Do non-persons have rights and, 
   
2. What are the criteria of traits that make one a person? 
   

--> @Double_R

Novice_II: Well, people can use their body to do many things, such as committing rape, or jumping off a bridge etc. Anything logically possible. 

I am sure we can agree that people should be prevented from doing some things using their body, so I am just asking for the argument as to why abortion is not one of those things. It seems quite simple to me. 

>@TWS1405

Okay, so, let me ask you two questions. 

1. Do non-persons have rights and, 
   
2. What are the criteria of traits that make one a person? 
   

-->@Double_R

Well, people can use their body to do many things, such as committing rape, or jumping off a bridge etc. Anything logically possible. 

I am sure we can agree that people should be prevented from doing some things using their body, so I am just asking for the argument as to why abortion is not one of those things. It seems quite simple to me. 

1. Utterly irrelevant to this debate/discussion

2.  Birth

• Can you give the argument for that? 
  

-->@TWS1405

Okay, this is good, because now we can keep responding to these demarcations.

1. Utterly irrelevant to this debate/discussion

• I do not see how this is the case. You seem to have said that the difference between the previous 2 propositions was that one involved the killing of persons and one did not. I want clarification as to whether your normative ethical framework gives any form of right to non-persons. 
  

2.  Birth

• Can you give the argument for that? 
  

• Prop 1: People have the ability to do anything that is logically possible with their body (includes rape/murder). 
  
• Prop 2: People should be prevented from doing some things with their body. 
  
• Would you say both of these propositions are true? If they are, my question becomes, what is the argument as to why abortion does not fall under the things we should prevent people from doing under prop 2. 
  

@TWS1405

Okay...so lets see if we can go through some of the propositions here.

• Prop 1: People have the ability to do anything that is logically possible with their body (includes rape/murder). 
  
• Prop 2: People should be prevented from doing some things with their body. 
  
• Would you say both of these propositions are true? If they are, my question becomes, what is the argument as to why abortion does not fall under the things we should prevent people from doing under prop 2. 
  

Illogic and ignorance are often a simple thing to many.

Born people making autonomous choices to harm themselves and/or others who are also already born persons has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate/discussion. 

--> @Shila

For the record, each and every time you make a completely uneducated comment directed at me, I shall ignore it. 

I have neither the time nor patience to entertain your ignorance

1. Abortion involves one person, the female, be it a girl or a woman who is [a] person. She has rights. The pregnancy does not have any rights, regardless of gestational stage.

I know where you are going with the nonsensical "form of rights to non-persons," and it is a both irrelevant and a red herring. 

• I want to press here a little, because I am not sure why you won't answer this question. Here is its relevance: you stated, that an unborn at any stage of pregnancy has no rights because it is a non-person. So, I am curious. If you also argue that an unborn person has no rights. I assume that is (a) because they are non persons or (b) some other reason.
  
• If a, this would commit your normative ethical view to asserting that no non-persons should have rights. 
  
• If b, I would like an argument as to what determines whether a non-person has rights or not. 

2. 14th Amendment.

• The 14th amendment does not seem to be an argument. It appears to necessitate using the negative inference fallacy as just because citizenship is given at birth, does not mean that unborns should not be given personhood. How about this, do you have a normative ethical argument for personhood beginning at birth? 
  

• Well, that's fine if you just refuse to answer the question. At least we have a clear statement of this. Maybe I can make my own thread later and see if I can get these answers from someone else. 
  

Novice_II:

• I want to press here a little, because I am not sure why you won't answer this question. Here is its relevance: you stated, that an unborn at any stage of pregnancy has no rights because it is a non-person. So, I am curious. If you also argue that an unborn person has no rights. I assume that is (a) because they are non persons or (b) some other reason. 
  
• If a, this would commit your normative ethical view to asserting that no non-persons should have rights. 
  
• If b, I would like an argument as to what determines whether a non-person has rights or not.