You can only look at eastern, or western philosophy and I'm fine with that. I personally haven't yet looked too deep into eastern philosophies, but would some day like to look at it all. I think that only accepting one or the other however to be a closed minded way to look at things. Why not try to fix western philosophy by incorporating eastern philosophy to it instead of just complaining about it? (Sorry, that isn't intended to sound as rude as it probably did)

I really don't think I have anything more to say on the topic of abortion. I'll just be repeating myself if I go on any further. I've made my point and I'm going to stick to it. Maybe I am being a social engineer, what's wrong with that? I believe morality changes depending on the situation. In war, you may be allowed to kill, in an event where there is some home invader seeking blood, why not kill them too? In these types of cases, there are large groups that benefit. In this situation, there is no need for anyone to be populating the world more than it already is as it doesn't benefit anyone in the end. Killing a fetus is fine by my eyes until other things have been fixed.

In your argument of not looking into the future, would you allow people, if they wish to commit suicide because in the moment the person is at the lowest point in their life and you can't assume that things will get better.
With my innocence argument all I was saying was that you can predict that innocence will be lost and in this case innocence is on a metaphorical train track to eventually be lost. You had made an argument, to which my understanding, you had equated "innocence" to somehow meaning that the fetus was more deserving of something. The fact that innocence can be lost means there is no innocence. To me, the use of innocence in this argument is all just an equivocation.

The fact is that religion is the defining factor in the Pro-Life or Pro-Choice argument.

Technically Church and State should be separated, and since all arguments for anti-abortion boil down to 'The baby has a soul' and that's purely a religious connotation... then Pro-Choice should prevail.

I don't believe anyone has the right to impose their lifestyle on other people. If you are Christian/Catholic/etc and do not believe in Abortion, don't practice, tell your kid's not to practice... but don't go walking into other people's live's and trying to govern them by YOUR values.

That's how I feel about it.

@iMinstrelsy Although being nonreligious I sympathize with this view, it is not realistic to expect religious people to edit this part of their personality out when making political decisions. Or, put in another manner, if Mitt Romney ever signs a bill into law he will be doing it while wearing his magical underpants. The magical underpants stay on. That's political reality.

As for the religious nature of the antiabortion argument, I agree this is true for the extreme view, but not for the moderate one. A fetus does not require religion to imbue it with significance. It is a small innocent animal which in all liklihood has an internal world. My stance against killing it out of convenience is as religious as my stance against running over turtles for the LULZ.

I'm actually surprised that religion hasn't played a bigger part in this debate. While some people (including myself) have said they believe that a fetus has a soul, no argument has been made based upon that belief.

@Doomed: you believe that since there are already millions of starving people in the world, we don't need to add any more. This is indeed a valid concern, and I agree that something should be done, but we differ on the how. Since modern science has gotten us into this mess (by allowing people to live longer, and more people to live in a smaller area, etc.), I believe that science should get us out. We have the technology, we lack only the will and conviction to act.

@iMinstrelsy: While it's true that Pro-lifers tend to be religious, the argument does not boil down to whether a fetus has a soul, but whether the fetus is a person. If the fetus were indeed a person, then the constitution guarantees it the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree that we shouldn't impose our religion on others, but religion and values are different. Different religions can and do hold the same values, e.g. don't kill, don't steal, etc. I feel that I must make that distinction.

My opinion of Abortion, is that people need to have the choice. I mean...people say it's murder, but it's not that bad. The woman doesn't want to have the kid. Maybe she can't afford it, maybe she moves around alot, maybe she's 13 and messed up. It really should be the mother's choice.