[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

A 16wk old foetus is most definitely different from what would be classed as a 12month foetus (3 month old baby). Hey, you may see no ethical difference, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

And a newborn child is most definitely different to a walking, talking 3 year old. Is there an ethical difference between killing a three year old and drowning a newborn? Historically there are many people who would have argued that there is, as newborn drownings were common not all that long ago (within the last hundred years in the western world, and ongoing in some parts of the world). I actually think there's a strong argument that murdering a 3 year old (who has formed relationships and connections and is aware of complex emotions) IS morally "worse" than killing a newborn. That doesn't make drowning a newborn ethically acceptable.

No, it's not birth control in the sense that we understand birth control to be. Birth control is preventative, abortion deals with the symptoms.

It's not birth control in the sense that you understand birth control to be, as clearly you are considering "birth control" and "contraception" to be synonymous when they are not. An abortion is not contraception, as contraception is "the prevention of conception". It clearly IS birth control, as birth control is plainly "the prevention of birth". Birth control encompasses contraception but they are not interchangeable terms.

I really don't know what you're arguing against if you wouldn't like to see an end to abortion

I would like to see an end to the abortion of healthy offspring. I would like people to wake up and see it for what it is; the deliberate termination of a human life. That might be arguably acceptable where the consequences are dire, e.g. a likelihood of death or disability for the mother or severe psychological trauma as may be the case with rape. It might be ethically arguable when the child is going to be born with severe disabilities. It SHOULD be morally abhorrent when it's the healthy product of consensual sexual activity. As for abstinence - I'm not saying "don't have sex if you don't want a baby". Contraception used correctly is almost, but not entirely, 100% effective (the small percentage where it's ineffective is almost always down to incorrect use, the risk with correct use is a tiny fraction of a percent). I *am* saying, if you're not ready to accept that tiny fraction of a possibility of dealing with the consequences of sexual activity, then just don't. Don't have vaginal sex. Lick and suck and finger whatever you want, but keep the babymakers separate, or accept the tiny risk.

I don't want it to be illegal, for completely separate reasons.

we've made society better for more children by not having every poor family in the world, be forced into having 8-10 children, which would automatically increase the rate of child deaths anyway, causing more pain and suffering than abortion.

Flawed statistics - this has been achieved through contraception. Taking abortion out of the equation would not make a significant difference to the overall birth rate. Unless you're suggesting that every family with 2 children in the western world has gone through 6 - 8 abortions. It also completely ignores the fact that developed nations currently rely on net immigration to be economically sustainable; overpopulation is not a concern in the countries where abortion rates are high, but not BECAUSE abortion rates are high.

Also flawed logically - "poor families" in global terms do not have access to abortion as an option, and DO have a high birth and infant mortality rate. Due to lack of education and contraception. Not due to a lack of said abortion facilities.

A final point would be that most abortions are NOT economically motivated in the sense of being literally unable to afford to raise a child. Most (non-rape, not related to disability) abortions are for comfort, convenience and because they disrupt a "life plan". I do wish that, at least, people would be honest about this unpalatable fact.