I saw that some other guy hosted a debate (I believe it was SuperDuckMan), so I feel like making one as well. I'm a pro-choicer. Let's debate!

A fetus is human. A pro-choice person will say it's "just a bunch of cells", by so are you and I and everybody else. Saying it's morally defendable to kill a fetus simply because they are at an earlier stage of development than you is like an adult wanting to kill a teenager and justifying it by stating they haven't matured into an adult fully yet. I read before on reddit I believe, and correct me if I'm false, that burning people at the stake wasn't as much a painful death as it seems, as after a while all nerve endings are destroyed and the person can no longer feel it. If somebody was to remove the person from the stake at this point and shoot them dead, would that be murder? Of course it would, but if they can't feel pain why does it matter in your opinion? Or if you were to smother a person in their sleep, it would probably be painless, would that be justifiable due to the lack of pain?

you can't call batter a muffin

No, but that's because batter and muffins are different things. A human being, with unique DNA, is a human being at any stage of their life. Yes they grow and develop throughout their lives, but the species of an organism is not defined by the stage of development they're at. You see for an organism to develop from a child to a teen, they'll have to be a child to start with. There's no creature which can change its species corresponding to development. And if it's human throughout its life, why should it be deprived of equal rights under the law based on its stage of development? Rights are for everybody, not just reserved for adults, teens, children or any other specific developmental stage.

You may claim that the fetus is a parasite, and the right to bodily autonomy outweighs this parasite's right to feed off its host. However, according to the scientific definition, a parasite has to be of a different species to the host. As they are both human, this can not be true. And a human's right to life outweighs the right to bodily autonomy.

For example: * You can eat or drink any substance you wish, be it tea, coffee, pizza, tobacco, etc., but if a substance is a health risk (e.g. heroin, cocaine) the law removes that right to take it. That's because the law cares more about your life than your right to take any substance you wish. * The law allows you to change your body if you wish, for example you are legally allowed to be overweight or to be physically fit. However if you want to end your own life, but don't succeed, doctors can detain you until you are no longer a risk to your own life (which is referred to as suicide watch). Again, the law stops you from doing what you wish with your own body as it conflicts with your life.

/r/prolife Thread