That fetus is a human being, it's a human life--by scientific standards in fact. Biologically (and this is irrefutable...), life begins at conception. That's what science has determined and science would be correct. The life that is created has the human life support systems--a brain, a beating heart, a circulatory system, spinal cord, etc. as well as human DNA. It is a human life. People who don't want children should take the necessary precautions so that they either don't have children--or in the event that they do have children, they should put them up for adoption... It's not that difficult. They may define it as a "mistake," but this isn't like some insignificant typo in Microsoft Word where you press the "undo" button and that's that--no harm no foul. This is a human life by all standards and it was created and by moral and societal standards it needs to be given the chance that it deserves in this world.
No, this issue is completely the result of sexual irresponsibility and idiots who can't keep their legs closed. If you don't want kids, there's one pretty simple preventative measure that you can take isn't there? Yeah... That's the root of this problem. Abortion shouldn't even be an issue in the first place--killing human fetuses shouldn't be a something that people even consider as an option or availability... What kind of sick principle is that? Just that--a sick one.
Lets see here. With every action there is an equal and opposing reaction. A real smart guy once said that and it can be applied to this idea here as well. You make stupid choices, you deal with the damn consequences. Someone has sex, they get pregnant, that's the way it goes. It's unnatural, immoral, and weak for someone who chose to do something that they knew full well could result in pregnancy and then selfishly decide to end the life that was created by that choice. That sob story doesn't work in this society. People make choices, people deal with what nature gives them because of their choices
I'm surprised you weren't able to see what he meant. It seemed quite obvious, given the whole idea of this debate--but hey... I guess you can go ahead and argue semantics...
So what? One sperm cell and one egg are required for life to grow into a human being and by the process of human sexual reproduction, not all of them will be utilized. Thousands of sperm cells can't fertilize one egg--all but one are destined to die by the very process we're discussing, and if the woman hasn't had sex the egg is discarded by natural means. Your arguments in this general area hold no water. Yes, the process is random, meaning the sperm cells are "programmed" (if you will) to try and reach the egg, but only one will reach it and the rest will die. That's not human intervention, that's the human body's natural process, so if you're arguing that each individual sperm cell equates a human live, it's a very absurd argument indeed--rendered a complete fallacy by the systematic process of reproduction itself.
And that was exactly my point... The real problem is all the unwanted births. But who's to blame for the "unwanted" births? The people who for whatever reason (usually lack of self-control/sexual irresponsibility/stupidity) deem the lives they created "mistakes" and throw them at adoption agencies to take care of. The only thing that will fix this problem/issue is people stopping their lives of promiscuity and sexual irresponsibility...
Oh what a brilliant "argument" , allow me to commend you on such a completely illogical and completely absurd statement. My solution--which I already stated was to prevent sexual irresponsibility. So, straight from your own words--which are shown clearly above this text--it would seem you think that people who aren't sexually irresponsible are socially irresponsible? Or maybe just the idea of trying to educate people on the risk of sexual irresponsibility and trying to prevent people from taking those risks is socially irresponsible... I just have one question for you... What in the hell was the gist of that argument? By your own words, you associated sexual responsibility with social irresponsibility as if it's a bad thing. How in God's name does that work?
It would seem you don't understand the point of my argument. I'm trying to suggest alternative means to murdering innocent human lives. You can call them what you will, but they are human lives and were created with a purpose in nature--and abortion destroys many things: that purpose in nature, the human potential behind those lives, the chance that those human lives deserved and were never given because of selfish reasons, etc. So yes, it would be selfishly efficient, but those of us who appreciate the moral aspect and side of this debate--those of us who see murder and the snuffing out of a human life, the killing of a tiny human being for selfish reasons to be appalling and the truth that it goes against the very grain of nature--are suggesting alternatives, not combinations with that completely hideous and selfish "practice."
What's the keyword there? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. It's natural. The key word there is natural. That means it occurs naturally. How many more ways and times can I emphasize this? Humans physically murdering the human fetus--the tiny human life for selfish reasons--for individualistic and anarchical purpose--goes against the very grain of nature and in no way can it be logically compared to a stillbirth.
I already addressed this above, but for reference, here it is:

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke