You didn't understand my post at all. I didn't say you were wrong in saying that they were babies. I said that it is more ambiguous than unborn fetus, and in this context they mean the same thing (according to you), so we should use the less ambiguous word choice.

Fine. They're "Unborn Fetuses". Our argument is that because they develop into adult humans, which are already established as having intrinsic value as human life, Fetuses too have the same intrinsic value. That's not to say they should never be killed, just that the decision to end their life must be taken very seriously, and with a lot of thought.

I agree with that completely. Just to be clear, I don't know of ANYONE who is pro-abortion. No one LIKES it. Pro-choice advocates just see it as something necessary in certain situations. It's also an argument that the government shouldn't be able to over step their boundary's into the rights of the people.

EDIT: Well, re-read the quote. I agree with it pretty much; not completely. I don't see it as 'ending' life, I see it as 'preventing.'

Ok, here's my take as a bioengineering scholar:

The justification of abortion is based wholly on the question of whether the unborn fetus is a human or not.

The answer:
On the twelfth day after conception, the embryo begins developing the central nervous system (brain and spine). What sets humans aside from other carbon-based life-forms is the brain, etc. Therefore, once this system has begun development, the embryo essentially attains the status of humanity and must be recognized as such. Abortions after the twelfth day are thereby unjustified and inhuman.

Abortion after day twelve is not acceptable. Abortions before this are perfectly ethical. This argument also demonstrates that contraceptives are moral.

You make an interesting point, but what if I point out that dogs and cats also have a brain and central nervous system? Is euthanasia of suffering animals immoral then? (Sidebar: I accepted your game submission into the archives)

That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The idea is that the mind of a human is different from the mind of any animal. Therefore, the carrier of the mind (viz, the brain) is what differentiates a human from a nonhuman.
Once a human brain begins to develop, the embryo must necessarily be considered human.

Good point on the term 'officially'. I thought I had altered that to 'essentially', but my browser was having problems. Thanks for pointing that out so I could fix it.

I wouldn't say that abortion is always unacceptable in those cases, depending on the circumstances(age of the mother, complications, etc.) it may be the only viable option.

No.

I disagree. But that's not to say abortion shouldn't be on the table when other options just aren't viable.

That's true, dshiznit, and extenuating circumstances where not having an abortion would cost the mother's life are about the only exception I can see to this otherwise generally applicable principle. Better to lose one life than two.

I can also see exceptions for traumatic stress and serious organ damage in young teen or child mothers.

Perhaps, although most of these pregnancies could be avoided through commonsense precautions such as contraceptives, or better, abstinence (criminal activities excluded). With regard to criminally-induced pregnancy, the incidence would likely be lower if more people learned to defend themselves by studying jiu jutsu, kung fu, or mind control, etc. Although I'm a male, I am studying the use of telekinesis as a possible substitute for the above (hence my avatar).

More like crush the fetus with your mind.

I think you misunderstood my point.

And the avatar thing was a joke. I picked that one because it was cool. Can't believe people took me seriously.

Although I am interested in the possibilities of telekinesis as a self-defense mechanism.

this

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/baby-brain-activity-sleep/