Googling 'abortion clinic near me'? The top result often an anti-abortion clinic

> terminating the life of a fetus isn't "infanticide" it's a "choice"

To make abortion sound worse, you redefine infanticide. Encyclopedia Britannica says: "infanticide, the killing of the newborn" - notice how being born is a necessary precondition?

> an abortion clinic isn't "an execution center" it's "a medical center"

Yes, just like any other place that does healthcare.

> people who are against abortion aren't "pro-life" they're "anti-choice"

Yes, you want to take people's choice away.

> abortion isn't "child murder" it's "healthcare"

Yes, because the child develops during pregnancy, it's not there from the moment of conception. Makes it pretty difficult to murder a child if there is no child yet.

But that's what you have to do to make your arguments work - there is no logical basis, so you have to warp everything around you to hopefully find some way to manipulate those around you.

I know. It just has no relation to the actual meaning of absolutist.

> The portion of the population living under an abortion ban of under 10-12 weeks is around 5% in Europe (due to Poland) and closer to 15% in the US. These Americans live under legal restrictions that are otherwise almost entirely confined to Africa, South America, and Poland:

The geographically European portion of Russia alone accounts for around 15% of the continent's people, and Russia draws the line at 12 weeks. The next-most populous country, Germany, accounting for around another 10%, has not legalized abortion whatsoever, except in extenuating circumstances. Italy, accounting for another 8%, also draws the line at 12 weeks. If we play with the arbitrary 12-week line you've drawn, and raise it to, say, 14, we pull in France, Spain, and others.

> It is certainly not. A foetus is a living thing, but so is lettuce; or a tumour. Biology has no view on when the foetus becomes a person, i.e. a being with the same moral value as that of an actual live human. That is purely a question of spiritual faith.

This is kind of an interesting line of thinking. It stands to reason, then, that if we're talking about western countries nurtured by Platonic, Aristotelian, and Christian philosophical and religious traditions, it makes sense to preserve the notion of life that follows from them, the one that you're arguing against for some reason.

Pain is irrelevant to the question of humanity.

> Again, prohibitive does not mean forbidden because it is murder. Islam forbids consuming alcohol and Judaism forbids tattoos or lighting a fire on Saturday -- to a stronger degree than they forbid abortion, BTW -- but they don't forbid these things, or abortion, because they are the same as or similar to murder.

The Malikis, for instance, believe that a fetus is ensouled at the moment of conception. What's more, I think it's hard to make the argument that most peoples consider a fetus as something totally unrelated to human life. Maybe an inferior or developing case, but still worthy of respect, which is what I've seen more often than the laissez-faire attitude towards them that you ascribe to Judaism (which I am ignorant on, so I won't speak there). Is it possible that you're projecting your own cultural background on to others?

> There certainly is. It is primarily Christianity that forbids abortion because of the belief that the foetus is a person at or close to conception. It's because of that the the issue takes on a particular vehemence where Christianity is popular.

Again, three of the four biggest religions, together accounting for a simple majority of the global population, are in agreement. Additionally, another 15% or are irreligious, the majority of whom are likely from a cultural background founded on those religions.

1. Anything living is wrong to kill. 2. Human embryos and early fetuses are living 3. Therefore, human embryos shouldn't be "killed"

#1 is clearly wrong, #2 is a misdirect, #3 leads to the author's desired conclusion as a result. That paper based on the presumption that "opponents" argue that fetuses are not biologically living organisms. Fertilized eggs and embryos are living human organisms certainly, but it's not a person yet. Is an egg a chicken? Is a seed a tree? Is a caterpillar a butterfly? Is a collection of human cells with the potential to become a human, human? I believe "no" to all of the above. Potential for development into a more complex living organism is not the same as being that other organism.

The situation in the US is generally worse, and is a humanitarian situation that is concerning for us in Europe.

If you've ever been pregnant or known someone who has been, there's a huge difference between week 6 and week 12. 1 in 3 people only know they're pregnant after 6 weeks. That difference alone means that before 12 weeks you almost definitely know you're pregnant, but at 6 weeks you have a high chance of not even knowing.

> it makes sense to preserve the notion of life that follows from them, the one that you're arguing against for some reason.

I'm arguing against the peculiarly Christian definition of human life. Debates over Christianity are a defining feature of Western culture.

> Pain is irrelevant to the question of humanity.

I agree. It's mostly a question of how Christian you are (or influenced by Christianity).

> The Malikis, for instance, believe that a fetus is ensouled at the moment of conception

That may be the case, but I didn't say that the belief that a foetus is a person is solely Christian, just largely Christian (and, possibly, Buddhist).

> I think it's hard to make the argument that most peoples consider a fetus as something totally unrelated to human life

I didn't say it's totally unrelated to human life. Intentionally maiming one's finger, say, is also related to human life, but an observant Jew who would neither condone abortion nor self mutilation without good reason would still find it strange to think of a foetus or a finger as a baby.

> are in agreement

They are not in agreement that a foetus is a person at all. That is the only point I've been trying to make. And it is the religious belief that a foetus is a person that raises the temperature of that particular debate in majority Christian countries, even compared to other countries with traditions that may forbid abortion for reasons other than "fetal personhood"

> Is it possible that you're projecting your own cultural background on to others?

I expect we all do to some degree or another.

Depending on how you define Western Europe, the most populous country is either Germany or the UK. Both offer abortion for practically any reason within 12 or 24 weeks, respectively, and for health reasons even later. BTW, the cost is covered by the state or statutory insurance (depending on need) in both countries.

> How many states does that apply to?

Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Wisconsin and quite a few others. About 15% of Americans.

> And I think that the "unpersoning" of the fetus is a similar coping mechanism.

I respect other people's spiritual beliefs, but you need to understand that as someone who grew up in a Jewish home, the thought that a foetus is a person sounds as foreign to me as the thought of a tree as an ancestral spirit or of a communion wafer transmuting into the body of Jesus. I know there are people who actually believe such things because of long traditions, but it's impossible for me to believe in them.