How do you feel about abortion?

[dimmidice]

Forcing someone to go through 9 months of pregnancy when they have no interest in having a child is just insanity. Forcing a kid to be born when they're not wanted is also insanity. Abortions should be easily accessible for anyone that wants them because they can prevent so much suffering. Plus you know there's too many people in the world anyway.


Also really pathetic how many of these anti abortion nutters are against sexual education in schools. Against condoms. Against more wellfare for single mothers. Basically they don't care about the children once they're born. They only care about protecting the embryos and fetuses. Just insanity.

 

[AdenTheThird]

Abortion is the worst crime in history. It's murder. It amazes me how stupid people are to try and legalize it

 

[pustal]

Abortion is the worst crime in history. It's murder. It amazes me how stupid people are to try and legalize it

So preventing a human being from existing before it is born, before it even has a brain is worse than actualling killing someone who is sentient? Wow, I sure was stupid to believe otherwise? /s

 

[AdenTheThird]

So preventing a human being from existing before it is born, before it even has a brain is worse than actualling killing someone who is sentient? Wow, I sure was stupid to believe otherwise? /s

Yes because it does have a brain. It IS a body. It's just... smaller.

 

[pustal]

Yes because it does have a brain. It IS a body. It's just... smaller.

It DOESN'T. The human brain is developed at the 12th week of pregnacyp and a woman can only safely have an abortion until the 12th week. And even then it doesn't have scentient thoughts for a while.

It amazes me rather how one can fight the legal battle against abortion without even understanding it.

 

[AdenTheThird]

I understand abortion well. You're still killing something that will BECOME something with a brain. You're killing a person, an entire lifetime, while that person is in a more vulnerable state.

And as for telling me I don't know how to fight the legal battle, DON'T even go there.

 

[Deleted User]

Why should life be judged just by their development? I am staunchly pro-life. Abortion is wrong. The process of abortion, especially very very late abortions is awful, and I don't know how anybody can support abortion after looking into abortions. Abortions should only be allowed if it is a life-threatening situation. It sickens me to no end that women travel from Ireland to get an abortion. People tweeting acting like abortions are just another fashion accessory. "Just boarded a plane to america to get a fetus ripped out of my uterus, yaaaa gurll" While I don't agree with Ireland on MOST things, I do agree with their abortion law. An unborn child/fetus/whatever you want to call it has the right to live.

 

[x65943]

Why should life be judged just by their development? I am staunchly pro-life. Abortion is wrong. The process of abortion, especially very very late abortions is awful, and I don't know how anybody can support abortion after looking into abortions. Abortions should only be allowed if it is a life-threatening situation. It sickens me to no end that women travel from Ireland to get an abortion. People tweeting acting like abortions are just another fashion accessory. "Just boarded a plane to america to get a fetus ripped out of my uterus, yaaaa gurll" While I don't agree with Ireland on MOST things, I do agree with their abortion law. An unborn child/fetus/whatever you want to call it has the right to live.

"why should a life be judged on its development"

But you are oversimplifying it. The key issue is - what is life?

And no one can agree. So you have this whole debate.

You are starting out calling it life. This shows that you misunderstand the central issue - or you do not hope to have a constructive conversation.

Offer reasoning for calling a 2 week old fetus life.

 

[pustal]

I understand abortion well. You're still killing something that will BECOME something with a brain. You're killing a person, an entire lifetime, while that person is in a more vulnerable state.

And as for telling me I don't know how to fight the legal battle, DON'T even go there.

For that kind of reasoning every time you don't have sex you're taking away the life of someone who yet to be. That makes no sense.

Instead focus on the misery you're preventing from a child of we're it to be would not be welcome, would not be loved or would not have the proper conditions to be raised. Or a cycle of poverty you are prepetuating. Many times preventing the mother from having an education and a career to get to a point in life were she has the actual means to raise a son. Or rape victims who would have a living reminder of what they been through.

And read again, I'm not saying you don't know how to fight the legal battle, but that people like you are fighting it without understanding basic human biology.

 

[AdenTheThird]

For that kind of reasoning every time you don't have sex you're taking away the life of someone who yet to be. That makes no sense.

Instead focus on the misery you're preventing from a child of we're it to be would not be welcome, would not be loved or would not have the proper conditions to be raised. Or a cycle of poverty you are prepetuating. Many times preventing the mother from having an education and a career to get to a point in life were she has the actual means to raise a son. Or rape victims who would have a living reminder of what they been through.

And read again, I'm not saying you don't know how to fight the legal battle, but that people like you are fighting it without understanding basic human biology.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you've just given life to someone via conception, and immediately taken it away with abortion. If you really don't want the child, put him/her up for adoption so they'll at least have a CHANCE at getting a nice life. Would you commit suicide just because your life isn't perfect? That's what you're doing to the unborn baby-committing the ultimate crime to save them from lesser ones. You have it backwards-by committing abortion, you aren't doing them a favor by saving them from the troubles of life! God forbid, no! You're killing them. And that is taking away the opportunity of life from them forever. Yes, rape, poverty, poor living conditions are all pretty significant things. I don't blame you for not wanting a child to experience that. But the difference between all those things and abortion is that all those other things create scars. Sometimes those heal, and sometimes they don't. But abortion is different. Abortion means that the baby will never see the light of day. it will never feel, have feelings, touch, taste, smell. It will never grow up and have a life of it's own. And why? Because someone didn't want to keep it! That's just my opinion on abortion and why I think it's so terrible. I'm sorry for being such a hothead and rushing in like that.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

"why should a life be judged on its development"

But you are oversimplifying it. The key issue is - what is life?

And no one can agree. So you have this whole debate.

You are starting out calling it life. This shows that you misunderstand the central issue - or you do not hope to have a constructive conversation.

Offer reasoning for calling a 2 week old fetus life.

Life doesn't begin at birth. It begins at conception. I can't say any more without getting into a whole religious debate. It's really a fuzzy line between most people if life begins at birth or not, but I believe that it starts at conception. You can't 'offer reasoning' to something like life. So, to you I ask you the same question- what is life?

 

[Deleted User]

"why should a life be judged on its development"
But you are oversimplifying it. The key issue is - what is life?
And no one can agree. So you have this whole debate.
You are starting out calling it life. This shows that you misunderstand the central issue - or you do not hope to have a constructive conversation.
Offer reasoning for calling a 2 week old fetus life.

I feel like we are playing a game of semantics here.
It grows, it feeds off it's mother, it is living. The sperm and the egg create an alive organism, the fetus. The fetus is living off the mother's nutrients, is it not? If you cut the cord, it dies. Bacteria is alive, plants are alive, humans are alive.
What is living? This can get into a wormhole of sorts. You don't need to see something to know it's alive. Some people say living is being able to sustain self, being conscious. A fetus can sustain self from it's mother in the womb. If we pull up the point of consciousness, that brings up the point of are plants conscious? Are bacteria conscious? It also gets at a spiritual side. We can make the argument that the fetus has a spirit even before it is 2 weeks old. The fetus could first be a sparkle in God's eyes before the sperm even gets to the egg.

 

[x65943]

I feel like we are playing a game of semantics here.
It grows, it feeds off it's mother, it is living. The sperm and the egg create an alive organism, the fetus. The fetus is living off the mother's nutrients, is it not? If you cut the cord, it dies. Bacteria is alive, plants are alive, humans are alive.
What is living? This can get into a wormhole of sorts. You don't need to see something to know it's alive. Some people say living is being able to sustain self, being conscious. A fetus can sustain self from it's mother in the womb. If we pull up the point of consciousness, that brings up the point of are plants conscious? Are bacteria conscious? It also gets at a spiritual side. We can make the argument that the fetus has a spirit even before it is 2 weeks old. The fetus could first be a sparkle in God's eyes before the sperm even gets to the egg.

And so you see the point. It's all semantics and subjective.

You can say anything has a soul or draw lines wherever you want. But there will never be facts to backup opinions. So we are left in a place without clear answers. This breeds disharmony and the debate begins.

 

[AdenTheThird]

I feel like we are playing a game of semantics here.
It grows, it feeds off it's mother, it is living. The sperm and the egg create an alive organism, the fetus. The fetus is living off the mother's nutrients, is it not? If you cut the cord, it dies. Bacteria is alive, plants are alive, humans are alive.
What is living? This can get into a wormhole of sorts. You don't need to see something to know it's alive. Some people say living is being able to sustain self, being conscious. A fetus can sustain self from it's mother in the womb. If we pull up the point of consciousness, that brings up the point of are plants conscious? Are bacteria conscious? It also gets at a spiritual side. We can make the argument that the fetus has a spirit even before it is 2 weeks old. The fetus could first be a sparkle in God's eyes before the sperm even gets to the egg.

THANK YOU! That's everything I wanted to say but couldn't find the right words for! You're amazing man (:

 

[Dax_Fame]

We are human. We make mistakes and sometimes things go wrong. If you're in no position to raise a child it's irresponsible to try and bring them up based on stupid made up moral taboo. You will ruin your own life and the entire life of the child. It is an unfortunate position to be put in, a difficult decision to make and an extremely hard thing to go through but you must do what is best for the people involved and the child to be or not to be, not what will please some pie in the sky fairy tale. I've seen both sides. Don't be a hero, be smart.

 

[pustal]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you've just given life to someone via conception, and immediately taken it away with abortion. If you really don't want the child, put him/her up for adoption so they'll at least have a CHANCE at getting a nice life. Would you commit suicide just because your life isn't perfect? That's what you're doing to the unborn baby-committing the ultimate crime to save them from lesser ones. You have it backwards-by committing abortion, you aren't doing them a favor by saving them from the troubles of life! God forbid, no! You're killing them. And that is taking away the opportunity of life from them forever. Yes, rape, poverty, poor living conditions are all pretty significant things. I don't blame you for not wanting a child to experience that. But the difference between all those things and abortion is that all those other things create scars. Sometimes those heal, and sometimes they don't. But abortion is different. Abortion means that the baby will never see the light of day. it will never feel, have feelings, touch, taste, smell. It will never grow up and have a life of it's own. And why? Because someone didn't want to keep it! That's just my opinion on abortion and why I think it's so terrible. I'm sorry for being such a hothead and rushing in like that.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Life doesn't begin at birth. It begins at conception. I can't say any more without getting into a whole religious debate. It's really a fuzzy line between most people if life begins at birth or not, but I believe that it starts at conception. You can't 'offer reasoning' to something like life. So, to you I ask you the same question- what is life?

Do you have any idea of the difference in trauma to a woman to have a living breathing baby removed from her from having a yet-to-born taken away, want it or not? Or rather, you going to force a mother to go through all the pains of motherhood to not raise her child? How sexist that is. And to put one more child to the thousands that are already in orphanages? That sounds like a solid plan to you?

And yes, abortion mean that it won't see the life of day, and it's done before it's scentient, when it's state is nothing above what a plant is, there is no individuality there.

Taking away the choice to keep or not the child extremely underminds the power of women in society. A father can simply leave or deny fatherwood, a women cannot and has to suffer all the process. Why, because of religious and superticious beliefs over something that is not yet a person in detrimental to a person that already is - the mother.

A child is expensive, requires maturity, requires stability and requires love. The crime is to bring a child to this world laking any of that. If you are pro-life consider the people (including babies) that are already alive, born and scentient and their suffering, rather than the potential life of someone that isn't.

 

[FAST6191]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you've just given life to someone via conception, and immediately taken it away with abortion. If you really don't want the child, put him/her up for adoption so they'll at least have a CHANCE at getting a nice life. Would you commit suicide just because your life isn't perfect?

Life doesn't begin at birth. It begins at conception. I can't say any more without getting into a whole religious debate. It's really a fuzzy line between most people if life begins at birth or not, but I believe that it starts at conception. You can't 'offer reasoning' to something like life. So, to you I ask you the same question- what is life?

Simply not perfect? No. Can see a path to it though. Equally might that be a poor analogy? Potentially decades of experiences, connections and such compared to potentially nothing and in all but the most extreme cases then effectively nothing.

So you reckon conception (as opposed to simple gametes, or implantation -- the egg may be fertilised long before it is implanted in the uterus, the being methods also to prevent implantation) is the line? You say it is a religious debate. I don't believe in your religion and general philosophy of law these days is keep religion out of it, and while people to free to vote being influenced by their religion there are fundamental aspects of said law that will override what an implementation of the religion would see put in place on the grounds of various kinds of freedom. Why then is your religion, or indeed your interpretation of a religion, relevant to me or the law of the land? When then not got with "If you don't like one then don't have one"? Equally on the face of it your religion is potentially thousands of years old and unchanged during that time, and features all sorts of things one might find extraordinarily distasteful today, to lean into that would surely be an odd thing to do.
It is possible that it is the case but "muh religion" does not work for me in this. We can come to an agreement that stealing items is bad because it deprives the owner of their resources, no need to worry about what some old books or groups of people that like to read old books say.

Either way I find lessening suffering to be the better choice for figuring out something, and it is the thing that informs most of everything else in finance, philosophy, law and indeed much of religion for that matter if you are coming from there. This is also why we end up with a more complicated process that looks at the potential troubles for the host and the would be unborn.

"You can't 'offer reasoning' to something like life"
Humans can create it in a lab now -- https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form
Stack enough inert chemicals together and you have something that conforms to most definitions of life used -- reproduction, consumption of fuel, response to stimuli deriving internally ( http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/potter_life.html ).

 

[AdenTheThird]

Do you have any idea of the difference in trauma to a woman to have a living breathing baby removed from her from having a yet-to-born taken away, want it or not? Or rather, you going to force a mother to go through all the pains of motherhood to not raise her child? How sexist that is. And to put one more child to the thousands that are already in orphanages? That sounds like a solid plan to you?

And yes, abortion mean that it won't see the life of day, and it's done before it's scentient, when it's state is nothing above what a plant is, there is no individuality there.

Taking away the choice to keep or not the child extremely underminds the power of women in society. A father can simply leave or deny fatherwood, a women cannot and has to suffer all the process. Why, because of religious and superticious beliefs over something that is not yet a person in detrimental to a person that already is - the mother.

A child is expensive, requires maturity, requires stability and requires love. The crime is to bring a child to this world laking any of that. If you are pro-life consider the people (including babies) that are already alive, born and scentient and their suffering, rather than the potential life of someone that isn't.

What happens i

Do you have any idea of the difference in trauma to a woman to have a living breathing baby removed from her from having a yet-to-born taken away, want it or not? Or rather, you going to force a mother to go through all the pains of motherhood to not raise her child? How sexist that is. And to put one more child to the thousands that are already in orphanages? That sounds like a solid plan to you?

And yes, abortion mean that it won't see the life of day, and it's done before it's scentient, when it's state is nothing above what a plant is, there is no individuality there.

Taking away the choice to keep or not the child extremely underminds the power of women in society. A father can simply leave or deny fatherwood, a women cannot and has to suffer all the process. Why, because of religious and superticious beliefs over something that is not yet a person in detrimental to a person that already is - the mother.

A child is expensive, requires maturity, requires stability and requires love. The crime is to bring a child to this world laking any of that. If you are pro-life consider the people (including babies) that are already alive, born and scentient and their suffering, rather than the potential life of someone that isn't.

So you're basically saying that abortion is justification for men being able to walk out on a family? I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that killing your child-to-be just for gender equality is a good thing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Simply not perfect? No. Can see a path to it though. Equally might that be a poor analogy? Potentially decades of experiences, connections and such compared to potentially nothing and in all but the most extreme cases then effectively nothing.

So you reckon conception (as opposed to simple gametes, or implantation -- the egg may be fertilised long before it is implanted in the uterus, the being methods also to prevent implantation) is the line? You say it is a religious debate. I don't believe in your religion and general philosophy of law these days is keep religion out of it, and while people to free to vote being influenced by their religion there are fundamental aspects of said law that will override what an implementation of the religion would see put in place on the grounds of various kinds of freedom. Why then is your religion, or indeed your interpretation of a religion, relevant to me or the law of the land? When then not got with "If you don't like one then don't have one"? Equally on the face of it your religion is potentially thousands of years old and unchanged during that time, and features all sorts of things one might find extraordinarily distasteful today, to lean into that would surely be an odd thing to do.
It is possible that it is the case but "muh religion" does not work for me in this. We can come to an agreement that stealing items is bad because it deprives the owner of their resources, no need to worry about what some old books or groups of people that like to read old books say.

Either way I find lessening suffering to be the better choice for figuring out something, and it is the thing that informs most of everything else in finance, philosophy, law and indeed much of religion for that matter if you are coming from there. This is also why we end up with a more complicated process that looks at the potential troubles for the host and the would be unborn.

"You can't 'offer reasoning' to something like life"
Humans can create it in a lab now -- https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form
Stack enough inert chemicals together and you have something that conforms to most definitions of life used -- reproduction, consumption of fuel, response to stimuli deriving internally ( http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/potter_life.html ).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have to be honest in saying that some of this is personal belief. If you're religious, you believe that life is created by God and not duplicate able. Since this is what I believe, I disagree with scientists in saying that life can be created in a lab (the key word here being "'most' definitions of life used"). If you are Atheist, nonreligious, or otherwise, then you agree with the above in stating that life can be created in a lab, that it begins at birth, etc. As long as religion is not in unison, we will keep disagreeing, arguing, and countering. I didn't reply on this thread to start a fight. I just came to state my opinion. I don't think I'm alone in this. It's tiring to reply over and over again to this thread, so I'm going to state my opinion and leave the debate to someone else. I know what I believe, and nothing is going to change that. I know I am not the only one feeling that, so the real question is:

Why on Earth are we still arguing?

 

[FAST6191]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have to be honest in saying that some of this is personal belief. If you're religious, you believe that life is created by God and not duplicate able. Since this is what I believe, I disagree with scientists in saying that life can be created in a lab (the key word here being "'most' definitions of life used"). If you are Atheist, nonreligious, or otherwise, then you agree with the above in stating that life can be created in a lab, that it begins at birth, etc. As long as religion is not in unison, we will keep disagreeing, arguing, and countering. I didn't reply on this thread to start a fight. I just came to state my opinion. I don't think I'm alone in this. It's tiring to reply over and over again to this thread, so I'm going to state my opinion and leave the debate to someone else. I know what I believe, and nothing is going to change that. I know I am not the only one feeling that, so the real question is:

Why on Earth are we still arguing?

Depends what religion but yes many religions do seem to have a belief that their supernatural pantheon (or single supernatural being) were the ones to create life. Similarly many would claim that life itself is endowed with a special "spark" that man can not recreate, though this is less common than the former (though by no means terribly uncommon). To be a religion, or indeed religious, does not necessitate beliefs in either of those, though to be irreligious probably does.

""most" definitions" refers more to the virus that the same people created in a lab some 15 years ago now http://www.nature.com/news/1998/031110/full/news031110-17.html
Whether a virus is alive is a debatable thing in biology, bacteria however, which the original link covers, is not questioned seriously by anybody about being alive.
If you want to go further back in history then a similar logic was once applied to organic chemistry, http://www.pasteurbrewing.com/organic-chemistry-and-the-idea-of-the-molecule/ with the ideas of a guy named Berzelius being the foundation of a lot of that if you want to go further. A patently absurd and demonstrably false notion today. The stuff linked earlier it still relatively new, and indeed many thought it some time before it would or could happen (if it ever would) before Venter and co said "hold my beer".

At the same time there are religions and interpretations which change, religions with multiple broad and narrow interpretations (possibly to the point that they are separate religions), there are religions which excise sections of various texts, proclaim sections outdated and otherwise come to an opinion that is different than the ones held before.

State your opinion, many others have, however if in said opinion you are going to accuse me (and most of the world, and systems of laws and ethics) of being immoral or draw an equivalence to an immoral act then I am going to take exception. If you provide no reasoning for this, especially after being asked, then your opinions would have to be dismissed which I don't want to have to do. Similarly if you are so staunch in your beliefs I would like to know how you get there -- I have many unanswered questions and things to consider on this subject, the existence of an apparently immovable position then holds some serious allure and is worth exploring.

A choice thought at this junction. A man may state that his wife is the most beautiful in the world. Some have argued that religion should be treated the same way. Others still have argued that the former is a statement of your internal mind where I do not live, if however the religion declares something about the workings of the universe then as I live in the universe I have a stake in it and thus is can be debated.

If you are going to remain in a fixed philosophy on the nature of the universe and morality, one fundamentally different from my own, then barring my suddenly aligning with that (an unlikely event as the broad strokes of your apparent philosophy is not exactly a new concept to me) we are going to have to first take a long time to establish a framework before we can reasonably discuss this issue.

To answer the final question. I am always up for learning something new or gaining new understanding -- it seems to be a thing I greatly enjoy in life. If someone seemingly can offer that then I am going to ask questions.

 

[pustal]

What happens i

So you're basically saying that abortion is justification for men being able to walk out on a family? I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that killing your child-to-be just for gender equality is a good thing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have to be honest in saying that some of this is personal belief. If you're religious, you believe that life is created by God and not duplicate able. Since this is what I believe, I disagree with scientists in saying that life can be created in a lab (the key word here being "'most' definitions of life used"). If you are Atheist, nonreligious, or otherwise, then you agree with the above in stating that life can be created in a lab, that it begins at birth, etc. As long as religion is not in unison, we will keep disagreeing, arguing, and countering. I didn't reply on this thread to start a fight. I just came to state my opinion. I don't think I'm alone in this. It's tiring to reply over and over again to this thread, so I'm going to state my opinion and leave the debate to someone else. I know what I believe, and nothing is going to change that. I know I am not the only one feeling that, so the real question is:

Why on Earth are we still arguing?

Not for gender equality but to provide the mother the means over to properly get her life straight before and if she wants a child, instead of being imprisoned to one that isn't yet.

Providing women with choice and contraception and you are effectively providing tools not only to equality but to fight poverty and misery. Pay attention to the works of Melinda Gates and the effect her project has on people.

 

[SG854]

Do you have any idea of the difference in trauma to a woman to have a living breathing baby removed from her from having a yet-to-born taken away, want it or not? Or rather, you going to force a mother to go through all the pains of motherhood to not raise her child? How sexist that is. And to put one more child to the thousands that are already in orphanages? That sounds like a solid plan to you?

And yes, abortion mean that it won't see the life of day, and it's done before it's scentient, when it's state is nothing above what a plant is, there is no individuality there.

Taking away the choice to keep or not the child extremely underminds the power of women in society. A father can simply leave or deny fatherwood, a women cannot and has to suffer all the process. Why, because of religious and superticious beliefs over something that is not yet a person in detrimental to a person that already is - the mother.

A child is expensive, requires maturity, requires stability and requires love. The crime is to bring a child to this world laking any of that. If you are pro-life consider the people (including babies) that are already alive, born and scentient and their suffering, rather than the potential life of someone that isn't.

In the states a Father cannot avoid being responsible for his kids. There’s child support and alimony. If he doesn’t support his kids he can go to jail.

And a women can avoid legal, moral and financial responsibility of the kids and opt out of motherhood after the baby is born. She doesn’t have to be forced to take care of the kid if she doesn’t want to.

If a women has a kid but doesn’t want it she can opt out and give the baby up for adoption.

A women can also give up a baby to the state under Safe Haven laws, remain legally anonymous and won’t be charged with abandonment.

Depending on state kids can be 78 hrs to 18 yrs old. If the man tries to give up the baby under Safe Haven laws without the mother’s consent he can be arrested for kidnapping and is likely to be forced to pay child support.

I feel like we are playing a game of semantics here.
It grows, it feeds off it's mother, it is living. The sperm and the egg create an alive organism, the fetus. The fetus is living off the mother's nutrients, is it not? If you cut the cord, it dies. Bacteria is alive, plants are alive, humans are alive.
What is living? This can get into a wormhole of sorts. You don't need to see something to know it's alive. Some people say living is being able to sustain self, being conscious. A fetus can sustain self from it's mother in the womb. If we pull up the point of consciousness, that brings up the point of are plants conscious? Are bacteria conscious? It also gets at a spiritual side. We can make the argument that the fetus has a spirit even before it is 2 weeks old. The fetus could first be a sparkle in God's eyes before the sperm even gets to the egg.

People have no problem killing “living” bugs, bacteria (with hand sanitizers), eating plants, killing animals for food, and killing pests like rodents. Life is not a concern for us unless it’s human life, except for a few peta. And even peta doesn’t mind killing bacteria and germs.

A plant is not conscience like humans because it doesn’t have neurons. Bacteria are not conscience either.

The whole abortion debate surrounds religion, when does a fetus starts to have conscience, is it wrong to abort something that has a conscience, and is it ok for the baby to be born if the biological parents don’t want to be parents.

People don’t really care about the life of a snail, ant, or bacteria. And most doesn’t even care about the life of conscience creatures like cows or pigs. They kill them all time. Most peoples only concern is humans.