You can technically be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.

yes being for legalized abortion means you are pro choice

Greater good > NAP / harm principle

This seems to fundamentally ignore what it is that pro-life people believe. They believe that abortion is murder.

For the same reason that we outlaw regular adult on adult murder, they believe that we should outlaw doctor on baby (or fetus, which ever you want to call it) murder

If you are personally pro-life and believe in the policy of allowing abortion, you are just a pro-choice person that "chooses" not to get an abortion.

And saying that you shouldn't be able to "force your way up a woman's uterus" is a silly argument.

How would you feel applying it to other arguments?

If you aren't a gun owner, you shouldn't be able to offer any policy suggestions on gun control.

If you aren't a minority, you shouldn't be able to have any opinion on civil rights legislation.

If you aren't a murderer, you shouldn't be able to give a policy opinion on what to do with murderers. Not all perfect examples, but surely you get the point.

Simply taking this position of "you don't have X characteristic" or "you don't have any 'skin in the game'" isn't how I believe anyone wants to operate a country. Simply having certain sex organs doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid.

It is a cheap tactic to try to avoid valid criticisms of your position. All that matters is this: either a fetus is a person or it isn't. If it is, then abortion is murder, and murder is and should be illegal. If you can prove that a fetus isn't a person, then the pro-choice position is correct. If you fail to prove that, then the pro-life position is correct. (Since a human life is at stake, then I believe that pro-choicers have the burden of proof. If there is a shadow of a doubt that it is a human, then we should err on the side of not murdering millions of babies).

You can't be entirely pro life and pro choice at the same time.  Pro life means abortion should be banned.

"Murder" is ok in occasions, especially since fetuses, dead or alive, add basically no apparent value and only possibly potential value. Also, I understand that fetus technically isn't a "person" before they are born. In what nation they issue ID cards at conception? 

Plus, we should not tell other people what to do with their child. It is their choice. I don't understand why abortion should be illegal.

"We should not tell other people what to do with their child. It is their choice"

So by that logic, you think we should legalize child abuse and neglect, yes?

No.

Child abuses loses apparent value whereas Abortion does not.

If you are basing human life's worth based on "value", then killing a 10-month old baby would have to be 100% fine by you. That baby can't do anything of value, so why is abusing it wrong?

It isn't as wrong as abusing someone with lots of value. At birth the child can do nothing, and it has basically no value.

So killing a 10-month-old baby isn't THAT bad to you?

More wrong than abortion.

And since you think abortion isn't wrong at all, then I was correct in saying you don't believe that baby murder is very wrong.

I believe death penalty should only be used when its negativity exceeds all positivity that has done. If the fetus had brought grief and trouble and nothing else to the only person it'd ever know, then I believe it is just to abort it. You don't see a crime lord and a savior the same way, so you don't see a baby that has brought the mother utter grief the same as one tha brought overall joy.

Hold on, How about having those fetuses being placed into a machine so it could be revived, if the mother values the child's life but it is basically nothing but pain to keep having it, then how about test tubes and its likes?

I guess it is a better replacement for abortion, I guess.

You would be correct. That is, if losing a baby gains value in this world, then it is just. In most cases, it is not. That is why they don't do it.

Grief vs death. Tell me which is worse.

It is the fault of the parents for the pregnancy, not the baby's. So why should it suffer for their poor decision-making?

Well, I am not one of those radicals who think Abortion should be legal in all cases and should be encouraged. I don't believe that.

The baby does not yet have the ability to think, so why does its "decision" value more than the parents'?

One's death has emotional impacts. Its emotional impacts are dependent on the people around. Some being dead while very hated would bring positive impact to this world. Death is relief when the overall impact of this person is negative.

So, unintended pregnancy should be able to abort. Why should women who are pregnant unintendedly have the responsibility of keeping the child, especially in cases or rape?

If you are going to be 100 percent consistent with the pro-choice position, you should be in favor of defunding and abolishing CPS.

After All, CPS uses force, sometimes with armed police to protect a child, and that NAP is so important for society after all.

I wouldn't call myself 100% pro-choice. ABortions should only done in some cases.

It is an interesting question though. At what point does a fetus stop becoming the property of the woman and start becoming a ward of the state?

I think at birth. Of no cases you hand an ID card to a sperm.

Then Abortion up to birth should be legal.

Actually, I just thought of a creative compromise.

For a long time, the cutoff point for abortion was determined by the notion of "viability" outside of the womb.

If the State isn't going to allow abortions past the mandated viability point of gestation, then the State should give the woman the right to have induced labor for the sole purpose of handing off the unwanted child to the State as a ward.

Rape is .5% of cases and therefore irrelevant to the discussion. There are about 3% done for health reasons. I'm more interested in the other 96.5% in which it is done because of "not being ready to be a parent". If you aren't ready to be a parent, don't be sleeping around. Pretty simple concept.

Whether or not somebody else will care about a death is also irrelevant. Killing hobos with no family or friends wouldn't inflict emotional pain on anyone. Many of them don't contribute much of anything, often only taking. I would still see a problem with murdering them.

Sleeping around is basic instinct.

Most people would sleep around given half the chance.

It's just that women get pregnant and men don't, which makes it easy for men to pontificate.

Well men are biologically geared to sleeping with as many women as possible to procreate, but women aren't because they need help raising kids and guys don't like raising other peoples' kids for them.

But I am not pontificating. I hold both men and women accountable. After all, it takes two to do the (horizontal) tango.

Well there's an interesting juxtaposition between old and new in your reply.

And I wouldn't fully agree with your suggestions regarding women, in both a primal and modern context.

Similarly, induced abortion is a fairly recent development, that is judge by a variety of standards both old and new.

Though not so long ago both pregnancy and infant mortality were simply regarded as the facts of life that they were....Dead kid, move on with little thought or tears and have another go.

Have we become more civilised and advanced, or are we just becoming unrealistic softies, with a tendency for some, to pass the buck back to a mythical deity whenever necessary.

I'm not entirely sure that they didn't care about their child dying before.

And there is a large difference between an induced abortion and infant mortality. One is a deliberate act by the parent(s), and one is a terrible consequence of nature.