>>5792176You contradict yourself when you admit that there is such a thing as a non-rape abortion (meaning that there is abortion in cases of rape, according to what you stated) while simultaneously claiming that "Abortions exist because people are sexually irresponsible when it comes to contraception.". By the way, the suffragettes and other workers rights activists who defended abortion are also the same people who first advocated contraception. So your argument is both inconsistent and ahistorical.
You also present a false argument when you say that the definition of life is fuzzy. And by the way, you are in complete accordance with the modern biosurveillance-genetic modification-miltary industrial complex, who want to blur anything we had as established knowledge and rendering us constant consumers of their "expertise". Because, let me ask you something: do you eat meat? Aren't you accepting the killing of a life then? You do. Now, if human life is held above that of animals (and it should be, we are humans after all and we should take care of one another and this position doesn't advocate animal torture or suffering at all) what MAKES IT more sacred? Consciousness. An embryo doesn't have consciousness.
And it may surprise you to know that women don't go lightly through an abortion. It is an invasive procedure at their most privates, at what constitutes their womanhood.
