Alright first of all, we just became best friends because you're able to further discourse.... a true rarity outside of tight-knit debate and intellectual circles in my general area. And we're on Sherdog, so I'm not setting the bar at fully flushed boolean logic equations or anything of that sort, obviously (nor should you). So no worries there. This is a ramble forum, to be sure.
Second, I'm still going to hold you to your error in assumption that at conception = human life because you noted "most fertilized eggs". An approx 50% of pregnancy ends up in miscarriage, and while I do not utilize this as a "that's why we should allow abortion", it does weaken your argument for "most fertilized eggs", as this is just natural basic miscarriage.
You also utilize a false equivocation and red herring of the inconsistency of government morality with the 100-year-old murder victim. Not only is this nowhere cohesive to my stance, but the 100-year-old person is just that.... a person. My position is that the fetus is not a person, nor can it be described as human (bearing in mind that I do believe there is a "too late to abort" threshhold, as does our government barring any health concerns for the mother).
To be wholly honest you're going to fall very short at your initial claim when arguing against my point: Human Life cannot be taken, and Fetus is a human life. Also, not to get knit-picky but you appealed to authority after your assumption.... but to be fair I utilized a fallacy in my own construct so we'll call it even. .
As I have stated, it is a potential human life, and holds the same potential as a sperm and an egg. So until you can actualize the fetus as human (which I would assert you cannot) and separate it from it's potential status, your argument remains impotent (no pun intended). More important, and what the governmental moral standard is: Impeding on the mother, who is certainly a human and a person, for the sake of a potential human and person, is inconsistent with human rights.
While brevity has now been lost and I truly must start work, I'll point again to the cake analogy once again. You have a combination of ingredients, and when them together is when you can create a cake. This is the requirement of a cake, in fact, and each ingredient alone cannot produce the cake. However, this batter is only a potential cake. If you place it in the oven for, say two minutes, and then remove the batter.... it is not a cake still. There is no cake. There is batter, "aborted". Now surely I have conflated the complexity of human biology quite a bit, but at the very least, even if you do not agree, you can likely grasp my argument.
Now, since we've found our crux of disagreement, let me divulge my stance on abortion: I believe society is woefully uneducated on this matter. I believe it is a serious issue that deserves proper education. Women and men should not be flippant about it, nor should it be an automatic option for an unwanted child. However I find in many cases of its use, it is a positive option that allows the flourishing of the actor's life as well as the life of his/her immediate family and loved ones. I find careless abortions to be a true outlier statistic and which can be lessened with proper education. As someone that volunteers with at-risk youth, I have had the misfortune/fortune of sitting with young men and women on 4 different occasions when unwanted pregnancy was a reality. Twice it was due to rape/sexual assault. Once it was carelessness between two people who did not really know each other. Once it was a couple who had been dating for years. In all cases I discussed with each of them the options, and noted abortion as one such option. Only once was there a conversation about as an "almost necessary" option. Never was it considered an easy choice or a wanted result.
