A lot of people are saying really stupid things on here on both sides of the argument. Please try not to be emotional and to actually sincerely try to understand what someone else is saying. This is the way I see it:
1) The main question is when does life begin. Once we know this, we can determine our laws and rules more easily.
I believe life begins at conception. I don't believe this for religious reasons. I believe this because it seems most logical. This is when the two sex cells become fertilized and have all of the genetic material for the organism.
--I understand that some pro choicers don't think this, but I have never heard any of them give a clear example of when life begins. If you don't know when life begins, you cannot terminate it.
2) The viability argument- I have heard some prochoice people say that it is a person when it is viable (it could live if it were removed from the womb). The problem with this argument is that if you believe it, you have to accept that personhood is determined by medical technology and resources. A 6 month old child could be viable in a good hospital with a lot of resources in the US but that same child would not be viable in a small remove village in a country with obsolete medical technology.
3) It's a woman's right- You can't just declare something a right. This argument is a dishonest attempt to change the topic and to make the other side feel like they are anti-woman. Is it a woman's right to kill her one day old child? Is it her right to kill her child a minute before it is born? It depends on when life starts, but this argument avoids the real question.
4) You can't say anything because you're a man- This is the appeal to authority. Is the argument right or not? The validity of the argument is not dependent upon the person making the argument. I am pro life and a guy, so are my arguments any less valid than my girlfriend who is also pro life?
5) Republicans are only small government when they want to be- This might be true, but it is irrelevant.
6) Republicans only care about the babies before they are born- This might be true, but it is also irrelevant. Republicans don't want to pay taxes to support unwanted children. That doesn't mean that Republicans are okay with having children getting murdered (which is what abortion is from their perspective).
7)These arguments are fallacious and dishonest, and I haven't heard a convincing prochoice argument about why conception is not the start of life. I'm not even saying that all prolife arguments are honest. I'll be the first to admit that a lot of prolife arguments are just as dishonest as the prochoice ones. All I'm saying is that the prolife side seems logical while the prochoice side seems completely emotionally driven.
8) Once again, the main question that needs answering is: when does life begin? If we don't know, we should be cautious and not allow abortion. If it is conception, we should definitely not allow abortion.
1) So if a sperm meets and egg and they combine but skip implantation and land on a tampon in a week's time do I have to go help my friend through a miscarriage?
2) Most usually add on "without special measures" at this point, similar to how we also handle end of life and serious injury. If it is a chemical dropper for food and an incubator to stand a reasonable chance of making it then that is one thing. If it is going to be an array of tubes, specialist medics, high end medicines and such then even if it is available then yeah.
3) It is the woman's body, and lifestyle, that will have to suffer for the better part of a year, if not longer if they are also compelled to raise the result. That would be the foundation of that one. Generally the right to bodily autonomy is considered a fairly fundamental one.
4) I would agree, indeed you will find several posts in this thread and the other, saying that having the equipment which functions does not render you magically more capable of understanding things.
5) Didn't see that here but I would agree it is rather out of place here.
6) It does speak to a measure of double standard though. If it is life and it is so special and magical to then turn around and allow them to live a miserable and hard fought existence does seem rather contrary to the notions underpinning the former.
7) I would have probably come to the opposite conclusion. Something that can not feel, think, suffer, comprehend or otherwise be classified as sentient gets destroyed, and in doing so likely lifts a massive burden upon something that can feel, think, suffer, comprehend and otherwise be classified as sentient. Where is the big problem?
8) I would refer back to 7). Similarly I would also say life beginning is related at best but contemplating the suffering of things is where it is really at.
Back to 1) then what are these logical reasons for sperm meets egg (or virus self fertilises egg I guess)? The tech is such that you can probably scrape some cheek cells from someone and clone them. Do we care there? We can create strands of DNA from very much inert chemicals, assemble them into full sets of DNA and have the results very much count as alive, bacteria only right now (viruses before that) but no reason to suspect higher and higher orders of life can't be made.