I think you shed light on the fork in the road of the discussion.
At the fork is the existential question of, human or not human, in the womb.

In the spirit of not taking human rights lightly, we should decide, before embarking on a potentially tragic course of action, whether or not we're:

a) Terminating the growth of biological tissues.
Or.
b) Terminating the life of a human being.

"A" is neither here nor there, if that's indeed the truth.

"B" is genocide.

I don't think there'd be much of a silver lining to an alleged freedom loving society's knowing acceptance of genocide.

To advocate destroying assumed future criminals and poor people, in the name of fighting crime and poverty is as tyrannical as it gets, imo.
But, tyranny never looks like a tyranny at first.

I think we need to cast our individual ballots across our society.
Human or not human?

The conversation's less murky after we stake down our fundamental basis for our reasoning.

I would side with the idea that until a is able to survive outside the womb they have not yet gained personhood. Though this becomes an interesting question should technology advance to the point where we can grow people in artificial wombs, or "Iron Wombs" as I just find that more amusing/metal?
A personal worry on the subject of tyranny, is what happens if you go in the other direction and criminalize not having a . Fines and jail time each time a woman has a period. Masturbation criminalized due to wasting the potential genetic material of tomorrow's citizens.
Or lets say technology has advanced where it is easy to clone a person. But due to oddities in the law, the original is responsible for all clones regardless of how the clones came about. For the hell of it someone goes to a hair salon, gathers up the clippings and makes a few vats of new people and delivers them to your door. And you have to take care of it. You had no knowledge this was done, no say in the matter, and no fall back to help take care of the clone. Or to make this metaphor a bit more on the nose, when the clone baby arrives on your door, you can either get ride of it at no risk to you, or you have a 10% chance of dying of horrible internal injuries to accept it.
Another subject to ask is, is it right to submit someone to potential decades of and emotional hardship to support a person who may exist in the future. It is a very real possibility that a pregnant woman may die to give birth to a they did not want.
My personal solution to the question of abortion is make contraception as easy to use and obtain as possible. Make it so prevalent that it is a hassle to become fertile enough to have a . Of course then the problem there is what if the thing you have to do to have a has a bunch of extra loops to keep political dissonants or minorities from reproducing.

Personally though, I prefer the old tradition of waiting a few weeks to see if the baby can even survive. Though that went out with improvements to medicare. Would the modern version be I don't think someone is a person until they have all their vaccines?

@criminey359
It's entirely possible, that in time, technology will advance to the point of "artificial wombs".
75 years? 175 years?
For us to imagine this is like H.G. Wells imagining Apollo 11.
What won't change, is the life cycle of the organism growing in that womb.
It's identity, imo can only be human, for a thing can never, not be, what it is.
A chicken doesn't become a chicken in the egg.
It simply begins it's life cycle there.
Therefore, the identity of the organism growing in a chicken egg can only be a chicken.

As for the pendulum swinging the other way.

My position is based on the orientation the American founding documents take on the inalienable individual right to live.
To wit, the criminalization of masturbation via the 'potential citizen' example doesn't meet the definition of a human being, as 'potential genetic material' does not possess its own unique, individual human DNA, and therefore cannot be endowed with inalienable human rights, imo.

I can't comment on the clone examples.
I'm not tracking your logic there.

Finally, consider your comment about the possible unvailability of contraception to 'dissidents' and 'mintorities'.
The truth is, for whatever reason, black women, accounting for roughly 13% of the US population, get 36% of the abortions.
It's illogical to believe that a tyrannical, racist government would replace policies that systematically assist in the eradication of minorities, with policies that would assist with the proliferation of minorities, as the withholding of contraception would do.

@sooma6 The clone idea was through minimal fault or knowledge you suddenly have to deal with a baby and if you choose to accept it, there is a chance you would die from horrible internal bleeding.

I agree with you.
You're right.
And if you had written those same words about slavery 170 years ago, you'd still be right, but a lot of people would have disagreed back then.
Eventually abolitionists successfully articulated the evil of slavery, based on the merit of equality and the evolution of our understanding of humanity.
Now, It would be pretty tough to find people who'd agree that it's okay to own a person.
It's my opinion that the same articulation with regard to slavery is necessary to abolish abortion.
I'd encourage those who would like see the abolition of abortion engage in productive persuasion, rather than moralist accusations and rhetoric, which only cause people to double down on their ideology.

With regard to the legality of abortion, I'd like to mention that I'm not an ideologue. If there's a more accurate representation of the truth, I'm all ears, and willing to be persuaded.
Until then, this is my perspective:
First.
One must individually answer the "What is a human? and "When is a human created?" questions for themselves.
For me, the conclusion I've come to is, "I began as a human at the time I became an individually unique biological organism, at conception".
I had my individual identity from that moment on.

I think It's critically important answer those questions, one way or another.
If you agree that humans are created at conception, accepting abortion is impossible.
If you don't, then fair enough, at least you've answered the question, and at least have a basis for your opinion.
Anyone who says "I don't know", yet accepts the practice of abortion, must acknowledge that they may be accepting genocide as a legal practice.

Second.
It must also be acknowledged that, If a person is human while in the womb, then they are endowed with basic human rights, the first of which is the right to not be killed, thereby nullifying any laws that legalize and protect abortion, just as
laws protecting slavery were nullified after emancipation.
In the case of both abortion and slavery, the only chance such laws have to exist is to render the object of the law less than human.
When wrapped in the mantle of humanity, those who were once considered to be biological tissue or private property are suddenly protected under the full authority of the Bill of Rights and constitutional amendments.
That is why, in my opinion, the question of the laws and legality of abortion hinge on the existential question of "What is a human?"

Perhaps, but it is rational to kill the infirm and elderly because they do not contribute to a society based on economic equations? Without some degree of morality, society devolves (not evolves) into survival of the strong. So a true critical thinker would include morality because it addresses aspects of the human condition that mere rational (or rationalization) cannot. "Practical" is a dangerous word because it comes with its own biases. "Practical" without moral is simply efficient, not humane.

@DanTige Let's expel elderly you mentioned, 'cause it's not about them. That's whole different subject.
Ppl like to moralize, in order to feel better about themselves. The reality is, we're bunch of savages when water reach our nose. Of course, I'm generalizing here, but that's the fact for great majority.
It seem that great number of western ppl simply can't understand how it looks when you literally have not enough money for basic living. Depeche Mode would say "Try walking in my shoes"
In that situation you don't want a baby, because you'll worsen your situation, you'll destroy child's life raising it in poverty, you'll create another social case... and who wants that kind of future for his child? Only this reason is enough to allow abortion.
In the other hand, I'm against late abortion simply because it points to very possible irresponsibility of a mother. Although even then, one should consider what happened meanwhile (illness, sudden financial bankruptcy, homelessness...) so mother decided to abort.
The thing is, when we moralize (to feel better about ourselves) and perceive given situation through our own, very specific life situation, as a consequence, someone has to live according to our morals which we impose on them. How moral does this sound to you? In order for you to feel better about yourself, there has to be X destroyed lives, for which tomorrow you'll say "but hey, that's not my problem. They are responsible for it"
Just one more thing about moral... we all have our inner compass and we don't need anyone to tell us what's moral or not. We just know that ...it's only, we often tend to ignore it, in order to get what we want

@Evolve2More It all boils down to individual responsibility and morality. My father came from a family of 10 children and was the second youngest. He was on his own at 16. He was at Normandy. He had 6 children of his own.

My wife comes from a family of 8 children whose father was an enlisted man in the Air Force and whose mother stayed home to take care of the children. They lived in very modest homes... small 3 br ranch style... and ate very modest meals. The younger children all worn hand-me-downs. Plainly speaking, they were poor and would have qualified for all sorts of welfare programs now. But every child was accepted and loved.

So you can go on and on about hardship, but that's just BS rationalization. You either have morality or you are amoral. I suspect you ascribe to the latter as your philosophical basis for life.

@DanTige If it all boils down to individual morality and responsibility, why do you want to prohibit abortion??
No offence, but you just sold me typical story I've heard about dozens of times. Like everyone else, you don't want to think about "small" details which means huge differences in real life. For example, you're not considering fact that your father was born in very different time, which got nothing in common with today.
Like everyone else you're sticking to chosen "successful" stories, yet ignoring all those which ended tragically. And if you're going to compare these two, you'll find out there's much more tragic ones than successful. But you don't see all the tragedies that are happening on daily basis, ' cause you live in different neighborhood and you refuse to see further than your neighborhood. That's not your problem, right? While those who are in real trouble doesn't have internet to tell you what it means to have a child and have no electricity, no heating, food, etc.
Without any anger, or hate toward you, but rather as critical thinker, I can tell you that you're perfect fit into ignorant majority, who likes to play the game called "morality", while not interested in games like "deep thinking", "decision vs consequences", "decision vs responsibility" and so on. Sorry, but that's my opinion

@Evolve2More If you don't like "morality", then I presume "convenience" is key for you.

@DanTige You should figured out by now, that you're actually not talking about morality. You're just using the word.

@Evolve2More I'll give you an example of morality: human life is sacred and every effort should be made to protect it.

The rational response is: "sacred" is a superstitious concept based on supposed "divine" nature of humanity. The reality is that we are just sentient meat and eliminating the unwanted or unproductive units is good policy for the herd.

@DanTige Oh, someones ego going wild. Ok, you want it - you got it.
Thank you for the lesson. Now let me present you lesson about hypocrisy... It's when you're arguing with me how abortion should be prohibited, while you don't give a damn how these ppl and children will end up afterwards.

And what you said about rational response - it's incorrect. That would be sociopath response, not rational. You should at least better educate yourself, before showing open desire to dictate other ppl how they should live their lives. I have to tell you, you'd be a bad king

Also allow me to remind you that we have only one life in this dimension. Next time when you start imposing >>your<< morality over someone, think a bit about - who gives you the right to dictate anyone how to spend their time while here on Earth.

And btw, I don't like to talk this way. I wouldn't be so harsh, if you didn't ask for it. Now please stop

@Evolve2More "Also allow me to remind you that we have only one life in this dimension." Although estimates vary somewhat, there have been approximately 60 million abortions in the U.S. since it became legal. Those are individual decisions and we have to respect those decisions even if we disagree with the morality. Still, it is sad to think that the number of lives that have been lost to abortion is in the range of worldwide lives lost to World War II and never really had a life in this dimension.

I'm not "imposing" my morality on anyone, but I am saying there is a distinct lack of morality using abortion as belated birth control. Yes, some abortion is morally ambiguous and second-guessing those is futile and not beneficial. I'm not religious, but I think there is a real danger in believing that a "non-moral" approach can easily cross into an "amoral" rationalization of the human life which assigns weight to an individual based on age and contribution. We've seen those societies where there is no moral weight attributed to human life and how the state can crush individuals. Most "rational" societies exist with some form of morality whether religious or philosophical, such as humanism. So, to argue that morality has no place in society is simply to argue that you reject most of Western religion and humanism that is the foundation for our societies. The alternative is the tyranny of the state.

@DanTige My friend, you're ignoring my comments and jumping from one thing to another. That's not discussion; it's monologue. No offence, but I don't talk that way. It's waste of my time.
Wishing you all the best and more wisdom in the future. Take care

A million practical ways to kill a baby....????????????? Even moments before birth???????/

If a fetus is only considered a biological organinism, like any other organism; a tape worm or a humming bird, for example, then I understand there could be lots of reasons that could be articulated in the light of lots of situations that could rationalize a need to terminate.
On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to expect all moral judgements to be expelled in the name of critical thinking.
Imo, The Age of Reason evolved and articulated a few moral judgments that we have gradually come to better understand, like equality regardless of class and that human life is exceptionally valuable.
I greatly agree, that the moralism we see behind most ideologies harms a rational discourse.
Nevertheless, some modicum of moral agreement, I think, is necessary.

@sooma6 I don't know have you read all my comments, but in one of them I said that ppl today moralizing without deeper thought about it ...like what happens when unwanted child is born. For most of those who are against abortion, there's end of story; baby is saved. But in reality, that mother have to keep living and keep on life that child. Very few think about that "detail"
If you're willing, go read my comments and you'll find all the answers on what you said. I'm not excluding moral from the story. I'm claiming that prohibition of abortion in world as we know today is exactly the opposite of moral ...it's amoral and oppressive like almost everything else in our way of living

Well, with regard to Christianity/critical thought:
I suppose there are lots of people who claim to invoke reason and critical thought, but in fact are only presupposing there can only be a humanist solution to any problem.
I see critical thought differently.
For the sake of discussion, let's define a couple terms.
Believer: A person claiming a belief in God, His Word, and His authority.
Non-Believer: People who don't agree with the believer; at all or in part.

So, as a believer, I submit myself to God's authority, of my own free will. I choose to believe the tenets of my faith and acknowledge that it is based in my belief and trust in things I cannot prove.
That's all well and good for me, I can discuss things in the light of faith or, as best I can, reason.
My faith leads me to believe that God, as creator, created mathematics, psychology, biology, chemistry, philosophy etc., and that there is truth in His creation.
For me, such things provide evidence of His existence and the truth of His word, they don't disprove it. Faith and reason compliment each other. They don't contradict each other, imo.

To attempt to get non-believers to "see it my way", is akin to a Muslim debating a Christian by citing the Koran, or vice versa.
It will fall on deaf ears.

Yet, the value of loyalty, devotion, honesty and contentment can easily be communicated between the two without using a faith oriented message.

Some of God's basic truths can be identified even by the humanist, who cannot identify with a faith based message.

To that end, the Abolitionists of the 1800's applied reason to the liberal idea that it was immoral to enslave blacks.
They persuaded a lot of people.
Some thumped bibles, yes.
But so did a lot of slave owners.
In the end, God's truth is self evident.
Yet it can often be explained logically.

I think the same applies to abortion.
I can engage within the context of faith to the non-believer, but I may as well be preaching Mohammed to a Baptist choir.

@sooma6 Agreed, sooma6, with most of your post, with the exception of the free will comment. God is most certainly reasonable. he, in fact, invites us to "come and let us reason together". It is the fool that says in his heart: "There is no God", and arguing or reasoning with fools is sometimes not recommended.

I think one of our great missions in life is to come into agreement with The Creator, our Father. He it is Who defines what is right and wrong. Murder is wrong. Abortion is murder. Abortion is wrong.

@dmatic For clarity, my free will comment was with regard to me freely making the choice to accept God's authority.

That's an important point you make; that life begins before birth, and really has me thinking.

Consider this perspective:
(Please forgive the train of thought. I'm not lecturing, just organizing my thoughts.)

The abortion advocate acknowledges the presence of biological life too.
They simply think it's within a pregnant woman's rights to kill that organism, in the same way she would kill a tape worm, for example.
Morally permissible, not because it's not alive, but because it's not a person.
So, as I see it, the biology's the easy part; viable, non-viable, whatever.
The biological characteristics of the organism aren't relevant, imo. Rather, the determining factor with regard to the morality of the killing is the existential identity of the organism. That is, whether or not that organism is human.

I apply the following example of logic to establish the identity of an animal:

The fertilized organism within a chicken egg is, chicken.
A chicken, is the only thing that can inhabit a chicken egg.
Therefore, it's impossible for a chicken to possess any identity other than chicken. Right?

Accordingly, the only thing a woman can carry, en utero, is a human.
Begotten by humans, carried by humans and possessing unique and individual, human DNA. It's impossible for it to be anything else.
And, if such an organism is acknowledged to be human, it is therefore also endowed with basic human rights, the first of which, is a right to not be killed.

The only protection against violations of human rights, is a societal intolerance for the suppression of human rights.
A renewed acknowledgement of the sanctity of human life.
We'll never achieve that intolerance, so long as exceptions are rationalized to be necessary, or worse yet, morally responsible.

"Would you have supported your mother's decision to have an abortion?"

That's a pretty remarkable question to ask an abortion advocate.

Where to begin to unpack that?

As a former fetus, I tend to consider myself as me, during the full duration of my mother's pregnancy.
Therefore, if I would support her decision to kill me during that time, I would have to support her decision to kill me at anytime, including now, due to the fact that my individual identity has never changed.
During my life cycle, I have never not been me, en utero or out, yet for me to support my mother's decision to abort me, is really only to rationalize my killing solely based on my inability to comprehend a time before my birth.
That's why, I think someone would twist themselves into that kind of ideological pretzel to underscore their agenda.
Otherwise, you'd have to acknowledge that if mom could kill you, while you were you, way back then...
Then, she can kill you while you're still you now.
With your support, of course.