Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart News

[Aegon]

Indeed, we do value some lives more than others. But this is not a matter of weighing one life versus anther. This discussion is about valuing one life which has already been started against another which, until birth, remain potential.

But if life begins at conception, it is not a potential life, it already is a human life, with the potential to grow and develop its capacities.

I gotta say, this argument is going nowhere and it hurts to watch.

Although I'm confident in most of my beliefs, the topic of abortion is something I've gone back and forth on. I'm pro-choice, but I was pro-life not too long ago and sometimes I find myself agreeing with the pro-life crowd more often than not. But this is mostly because I think the pro-choice movement sort of hides behind the "fetus is not a human, not autonomous" argument when the pro-life crowd obviously has a fundamental disagreement with that classification. Am I wrong to say that the scientific community hasn't even reached a consensus on when life begins? I've read plenty of convincing literature arguing that human life begins at conception. The problem I have is... even if the fetus is a human being, are they legally a "person"? Women obviously are persons legally, and for that reason have their bodily autonomy (among other things) protected under the laws of civil society. Fetuses do not. So, regardless of whether the fetus is human or not, they do not have personhood. This was the argument in Roe v Wade, no? It makes sense to me. It's why I'm still pro-choice.  

We could debate whether or not a fetus should be a person, but I find the debate about whether they are human to be irrelevant. Both the woman and the fetus can be human and the woman's bodily autonomy can still take precedent over the fetus's.

There's also the "Right to live". Doesn't matter fetus or not it does have the right to live and the right to die. Aborting it would be taking away its god given right to live. Just doesn't sit well with me. But I understand if a woman is under danger of her own life or other situations like rape. But to trivialize it to the point of getting an abortion because of a "whoopsie" is just inhumane. Regulating abortions would be nice, outright denying abortions does seem a bit extreme.

Nobody has a God-given right to live. We are, however, protected under the laws of civil society and government and given our right to live by the government. In the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment applies to all citizens and persons. But every definition of "person" in the Constitution applies only to those who have already been born.

Although I obviously understand the desire to allow abortions in those situations you mentioned, I can't help but point out that it is logically inconsistent. By allowing abortion in any scenario, you say that the fetus no longer has the right to life or that the mother's life matters more than the fetus's. Which is essentially the pro-choice argument. Is it the fault of the fetus that it is a product of rape? By allowing the mother to abort the fetus in that scenario, you are giving the mother's bodily autonomy precedence over the fetus's. But from the fetus's POV, dying is dying regardless of the reason. Does it really matter to the fetus why it is being aborted?