Abortion is morally wrong, no exceptions.

It’s precisely because this is an emotively charged debate that makes pro lifers unequivocally wrong on this subject because they toss all logic and facts out the window with the bath water. 

Do ya reckon god knows more about  Period pain  then ya average woman. 

At what point does a baby in the womb become living, and morally wrong to kill.

If a woman knows that if she gets pregnant, it could cause her to die, then that is her decision to get pregnant and face that risk.

The other downfall of the pro-lifer position is it always fails to take into consideration the effect of adding another human not only to society but also the planet will have. Especially when the mother is unwed and neither mentally and/or financially prepared for losing 18 years of their own life, giving it to another for free and with little to no appreciation from various individuals close to her and from those that have nothing to do with her yet would force this upon her.

But, regardless of my answer, the baby/fetus is still existing in a womb that isn't there's. Should a woman be required to carry the fetus/baby? To what extent does another person have a LEGAL responsibility to help another person survive? Should someone get manslaughter for evicting a squatter from their house if they freeze outside?

Should someone get manslaughter for evicting a squatter from their house if they freeze outside?

Saying that a woman is responsible for her actions, however, how responsible can people be? You don't get to assume how knowledgeable someone is, especially when, in the United States, only 38 states and DC mandate sex education. On top of this, 350,000 teen pregnancies a year in the United States with 82% of them unintentional have no way to hold children accountable for knowing where babies come from.

. Yeah, but there are tons of things I think are immoral (not holding the door for someone) that I wouldn't make illegal. I'm saying, in your ideal world, to what legal extent, do we have to help another to survive. Your disproving of the exact analogy I gave of the squatter doesn't answer the fundamental question, and I won't go down the rabbit hole of the analogy. 

 There are pregnant 12 year olds. I'm exactly saying that children don't know how safe sex works (not to mention the lack of perfect effectiveness).

1. So can a woman remove the fetus/baby and just let it go out in the world? Not kill it, just let it survive?

2. I don't think you get to make that assumption. What a literal child is and isn't aware of is all wonky and assumptions about that aren't helpful. What I'm saying is, despite the fact we're not policymakers, I maybe willing to horse trade agreement to comprehensive sex education nationwide for agreement to abortion bans.

 So the issue at hand isn't the act of killing, but not helping with survival, even if the help is necessary.

. Laws are not developed through courts. What would the court case be? Do you mean that abortion laws and comprehensive sex ed laws should be up to legislators, or are you talking about a specific instance of courts?

. Laws are supposed to be universal. If a law is unjust to some, and doesn't have a exemption or statute to rectify that, then it is a bad law. If your argument is that the law is fair to 99% of people (which it isn't, but that's the core of the the first part, so I won't cross apply it) then I would demand a plan to solve for the last 1%. This would just look like mandating a federal comprehensive sexual education course to graduate high school and allowing abortion for minors. 

Taking a fetus out of your body, is the equivalent of abortion. It hasn't fully developed with the ability to survive yet. It is still a human, but it still needs time to grow. 

when I said we should just let the women take it out and let it survive. Saying that you said the issue in question is not the act of killing it and it's a matter of helping it survive is using YOUR words. If you are simply against the act of killing, then a women can remove the fetus, not kill it, and anything that happens is not her fault. If it's a matter of her having to help the fetus survive, then I go back to my previous question you keep avoiding, in your ideal world, to what legal extent, do we have to help another to survive? If you don't have an answer to the Catch 22, just say it.

Back to the squatter example, is this different than putting someone outside in the cold where they freeze to death without helping them. The legal framework of you must help those you can stop from dying from preventable deaths does more to indict those with incredible wealth and those who interact with the homeless than a women engaging in an abortion.

Abortion just makes me sick,

The legal framework of you must help those you can stop from dying from preventable deaths does more to indict those with incredible wealth and those who interact with the homeless than a women engaging in an abortion.

Back to the squatter example, is this different than putting someone outside in the cold where they freeze to death without helping them.