There is no such thing as pro-choice. There is anti-choice

Uh, I'm going to assume you meant no such thing as pro-life.

I do not respond to the points made in red herring arguments.

One could easily interpret this as completely ignoring the question. Also, claiming that someone's argument is false because of a fallacy is a fallacy in and of itself. But even then I do not see how it is a red herring, you clearly stated a 'human' is one who feels and thinks.

There is anti-choice and their ideas come from one of three or all three possible reasons.

Not understanding the facts.

Lying about or having been lied to about the science.

I can understand you are passionate about this, I understand you are probably angry at what you perceive to be hate and injustice. I can even understand it. But please, just try, actually try, to hear me out an not view me as some villain who wishes to see the world burn and women suffer. Now, let's deconstruct your points. It seems to me that you think you can use science to prove your side of the argument. This is a moral debate, it has to do with humans and a certain social construct called rights. You can't scientifically prove pro-choice or pro-life to be true by science just like you can't prove murder is wrong. It's a social construct. You could use science however to defend your position if you so wish. I'm going to assume you're talking about the nature of the fetus correct? In which case I should probably clarify what I said earlier. It's considered alive because it's a living organism and it isn't any less alive because it can't survive outside it's environment (uterus) any more than an adult isn't alive because it can't survive outside of it's environment (the surface of the Earth). Luckily we have a definition for alive. It's is alive if it's is composed of cell(s) which maintain Homeostasis, Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to stimuli, & Reproduction, which the cells of a fetus do in fact, do. Saying a fetus is not alive is like saying a liver is not alive. If they were dead, there would be no abortion debate since there would be no need for abortions. The body will simply flush about the corpse before it rots and cause infections just like our bodies already do. They're also human because they have human DNA and human body structure. They're also a separate individuals since they maintain their own separate structures, not even the blood is shared with the mother. Now you ask, is a fetus technically considered a parasite? Yup! (Though not an invasive one). Now, we have established it's alive, human, and living inside another body, but what does it all mean!? In and of itself, not much. Why? The question is whether it is a person who deserves legal protection from the state. There is no law about killing living organism, no law against killing parasites, but when it comes to human, in general it is illegal to kill a human. Now, does that mean that all humans are to be treated as legal person!? To be protected from death by other humans, to be counted in the census, is there an obligation to save their life by a doctor, can they hold land and titles!? That my friend is what the debate is about. Not about whether it can think or feel, not about whether it's alive, not about whether it's a parasite, or even if its/they're human, but whether they deserve legal protection.

No birth control is 100% effective and sex is not always consentual.

I said abortion is tolerable, acceptable, and even preferable in many situations. I was talking specifically about the situation where two people engage in consented heterosexual vaginal sex and and the there is an unplanned pregnancy. My arguments were specifically about this exact situation. Even if literally everything else was legalized and fully paid for without exceptions at any time, I will still find this exact specific situation unjust and immoral. Irregardless of the use of contraception, when people engage in consensual vaginal sex, the vast majority of people are not ignorant of what happen. People know the biological function of sex, they know full well and yet wish to take the risk anyways. Disconnecting sex with pregnancy is a very dangerous thing, even if the risk is small. It's like disconnecting the falling part of bungee jumping, even if the risk of slamming on the ground is small. The consensual part is key, people chose to play with fire, people know the function of sex is to reproduce and that the pleasure part is a secondary feature (which evolved to encourage the first). Now I know what you're going to say, who am I to say people can't have sex for fun? Humans aren't bound by nature, we can choose to do what we please and what makes us happy, it is our own body! And you know what, yes, I am not one to say that you can not choose what to do with your sexuality, just like I am not one to say you can't jump off a bridge for fun. Animals (incl. humans) have been doing this for millions of years and will probably continue to do so, ain't nothing I can do about it. But the thing is, one is not blameless when an unplanned pregnancy occurs though many will speak about it like it is. It was no accident, no freak coincidence of nature, not supernatural curse that was beyond your control. You rolled the dice, you spun the wheel, and you can not claim you had no responsibility for the outcome. Not targeting women either, both men and women are responsible in consensual sex, it takes 2 to make 3. My point being, you can choose to take the risk, you can choose to play with fire for that sweet sweet dopamine high, it is your life, but always remember, you reap what you sow. And thus, when something has to give, that something is usually the life of the unborn.

certainly not an innocent.

Innocence means free of guilt. Culpability requires one to be capable of committing an action in the first place. But lack of guilt requires no capability of committing an action, how could it. The requirement is still met. Also, person or no person, it is still a living organism of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

This increases suffering needlessly for at least two parties, the newborn which by that time is an individual capable of suffering and the woman.

You have given me a strong argument, I am even considering rethinking my position Still, even then8, I see no harm in teaching that when engaging in consensual sex, it is *highly advisable that you don't do it when you are in a position where an unplanned pregnancy will seriously screw up your life, such as when young and adolescent, not financially stable, in school, not physically/mentally/emotionally prepared, etc. Even if abortion is the path of least suffering (though still death), my entire paragraph on consensual sex still applies, it isn't just the rantings of a judgmental redditor, it's the reality of the situation. Also, abortion should be the absolute and final option once everything else has been exhausted. Adoption is still wholly superior abortion, and even more if they decide to keep it. Life of humans should still be respected. I see very few situations where it will even get to a point where abortion is even a viable option. If there is a problem with out nation's adoption system, then it should seriously be fixed so that is is a viable option. If they would have kept it weren't it for the fact that they can't (family, finances, etc.) then this should also be immediately fixed. Also, I sure hope the first time was a valuable teaching lesson. Life can be such a cruel mister, abortion is never easy to go through. Hopefully the sacrifice of an unborn kid would not have been born in vain. If people however continue to engage in consensual sex and keep getting pregnant and keep aborting the child, then I will seriously shed a tear. Human life is always valuable, an abortion is never "nothing special."

Exactly. We shall not go back to the bad old days of backalley abortions, while the rich do as they always have done and go to "wintersports" or "rehab" and come back without being pregnant. Because that is what the GOP wants. Make no mistake, anti-abortion laws always have and always will target the poor to middle class and them alone.

Politically outspoken aren't we? Though it was pretty obvious by this point. At least we can agree on that it is not the most efficient thing to target abortion laws & clinics alone/directly, though the other things you said were pretty cringe-y.

you come off as an ass

I am moral, just, righteous and judgemental. I have no interest in sugarcoating reality. Sue me.

OH MY GOD NO, THIS IS NOT WHAT I MEANT! Whenever I say "you" I am not referring to you personally /u/Merari01, I am using the "people in general" definition of you. In fact, most of the time I say "you," you are not included in it at all! Context clues people! Look at the sentence where I said "you come off as an ass," there is nothing there that insinuates that I am calling /u/Merari01 an ass. I am refering to what will happen when people target abortion clinics and laws directly and exclusively. Go ahead, check the comment, it is unedited.

To provide early and good sex education and allow birth control to be accessible and cheap, none of which is on the agenda of anti-choicers. Quite the opposite in fact.

You have a pre-defined narrative of what a pro-lifers is. Honest pro-lifers do do support early and good sex education and effective birth control.

I oppose those wishing to punish women for having sex. I do not hate.

There is no punishment for women.

Which should terrify you.

No, morality is a social construct and is based on what the people believe to be right and wrong. Also propaganda can't be applied to anything you don't agree with.