The debate "Abortion =murder of innocent children" was started by
March 11, 2016, 11:03 pm.
83 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 47 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Alex posted 7 arguments, NerdTagz posted 13 arguments, fadi posted 5 arguments, oscar90000 posted 2 arguments, Razor posted 2 arguments, bigB posted 1 argument, SwaggerPoptart posted 12 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 13 arguments, RyanWakefield posted 2 arguments, Pugsly posted 1 argument, danielle posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
fadi, ReadyToBegin, Voidiq, NerdTagz, Kurisu_Sky, Alex, agent, Anthony, lucylou15, josiah, ProudAmerican888, inkaanabi_20, Anjali, ReedMurphy, mike5193, Razor, dalton7532, bigB, QueenQuirks, oscar90000, SwaggerPoptart, sabrina, LawfulOne, RogueAmerican, DB8101, Sad_Teddy_Bear, ad, TheC16, Zuhayr, blakelovesjesus, moneybagboyz, neveralone, Thejw, shuhel_2005, makson and 48 visitors agree.
Cato, PsychDave, Sosocratese, Pugsly, sickboyblonde, Upbeatethan, Juan3261, Emporerpineapple, RyanWakefield, danielle, Eilon, Bodaciouslady16, SueAnnMohr, Prithveesh, JGM, ADrunkenRobot, cmt11, rawblood, hello and 28 visitors disagree.
abortion is better than giving the responsibility of a life in the hands of dumb ppl who cant even handle their own lives
no a haploid cell will never develop into a human being
if given a chance sperm will develop into a person. so masturbation must be genocide.
if given the chance these cells will develop into a human being so you are killing a person of the future
DNA of a human is present in your appendix. that doesn't make your appendix a person. a fetus is not a person. it might become one at some point, but it isn't yet.
a caterpillar might be a butterfly some day, but it isn't yet. I don't understand how this idea confuses you.
dna of the sheep is present in the cells of sheep and human dna is present in human cells
ok. that is true. but they are both a cluster of cells. neither one is a sheep or a human.
a cluster of human cells sir is very different compared to a cluster of sheep cells
both the egg and the sperm were alive. the result is alive. that is not an issue.
but like I've said, having living cells is not the defininition of being a person. it does not become a person when a sperm meets an egg. it has no brain, it is just a cluster of cells.
there is no point when life becomes life... I just said that in my previous post.
it's always alive. and that is easily provable.
You must admit to the fact that the definition of when life becomes life according to science is arbitrary. There is no way to prove it because it isnt provable. Just because people said it was so, nor because it was found.
"This becomes a difficult argument because I believe definining life at a certain point in development is arbitrary while others find it fundamental."
this distinction is unnecessary as life never begins. it's continuous. there is no point at which the cells that will eventually become a baby were ever not alive.
the distinction is when does it become a person separate from the mother and an individual in its own right.
your argument is based on the that a fetus is a baby. it is not. it is a cluster of cells that might become a baby. a baby isn't an object, a fetus is.
So every woman is going to get a dangerous back alley abortion no matter what?
Making it easier will incentivise abortions. Some will pursue them, but some will be cut down. Those willing to break the law, as it is for all crimes, will pursue it.
Your argument is from the point that babies are objects, and bypass the opinion that this debate is for the defense of that child
except in this case it literally helps no one to ban it. the woman will still abort the pregnancy. she just has a much higher chance of being hurt or killed. and then you put her in prison and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars prosecuting and imprisoning her. banning abortion hurts everyone.
Ill stop it because its wrong.
I meant to say you cant stop somebody from acting. One obsessed with murder will carry out murder regardless of criminal prosecution. Does that therefore justify decriminalization?
if you agree that you can't force her to have it, then you agree you can't stop her from aborting it. then why would you try to stop her by making it illegal?
No I can't force a woman to have a baby, but I dont have to tolerate her abortion. This becomes a difficult argument because I believe definining life at a certain point in development is arbitrary while others find it fundamental. We argue from different definitions.
banning abortion has been proven to cause numerous other problems. you cannot force a woman to have a baby. trying to is pointless and violates her rights to control her own body.
The entirety of it; by its very nature is deadly. Where do you draw the line.
Also a good point
it's not about it being easy or hard. it's about being dangerous and deadly.
That's a good point.
Legality and stopping it has little to do with it. Nothing can ever be eradicated, but yhe argument of backstreet abortions i feel is silly because why should something thats illegal be easy. Its illegal for a reason, not to accommodate individuals doing it.
Sorry friend, I'm just having a hard time taking sides on the legality side of this debate. I do believe abortion should be illegal. I don't agree with doctors performing abortions. However, making something illegal never eradicates it. And that is where I'm stuck. Illegal abortions are likely much more dangerous than legally performed ones, but making them illegal would dramatically decrease the amount of abortions that are performed. That's why I was more comfortable with the morality debate, because I have a defined opinion on it.
I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you are trying to argue. you said it should be illegal and that it being illegal is senseless in the same paragraph. and then followed up with you don't agree with doctors willingly preforming them. you are going to have to clarify what it is you want if we are going to debate.
I never said it shouldn't be banned. I said that's not what we are debating. We were debating the morality of the concept. I believe in many circumstances it should be illegal. Buff responded by saying it would happen anyway, and it would be worse for everyone. I agree with that, because when something becomes illegal, that never stops it entirely, so it is a bit senseless to make abortion illegal. This by no means proves I agree with doctors willingly performing abortions.
I realize you didn't create the topic, but it is the topic we are debating.
I suppose I can see how you could hold both beliefs. but what is the point of the debate? the title is that it is murder. if it is murder one would assume we should not allow it. but he has said we can't and shouldn't ban it.
if you have no intention of trying to stop it, then what is the point if arguing it's morality?
I believe he thinks it is morally wrong, but impractical to enforce. such seemingly contradictory beliefs work in highly complicated reality.
no, it is still very valid. what is the point of arguing the morality of abortion if you already agree that we cannot and should not ban it?
I dont see how you can both think of it as murder and accept that it is not something we should try to stop. your points seem completely contradictory.
Remember a few arguments ago when I agreed with you on that? That point was already settled. Stop bringing up irrelevant points.
I never said we COULD stop abortion, nor did I say we SHOULD. The argument was over whether abortion is right or not.
History has proven that making something illegal doesn't stop it from happening. I know someone who grows a marijuana farm, and that is highly illegal. Laws can't stop entirely stop anything from happening. That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
Your point is invalid.
fixing the foster system is good idea. but since that isn't the reason that abortions are a right, it is a little irrelevant to this discussion.
you cannot force a woman to have a baby. if they want to abort a pregnancy they will, whether it is legal or not. and there is nothing you can do to stop them. all you can do is make it more dangerous.
That's a good idea. A great idea even. But allowing parents to abort their children in the meantime is a bad idea.
a lot of teenagers may kill themselves, but being in the foster system increases that number 4x, with 5x the drug abuse.
I'm not saying abort them all, I'm saying fix the orphanage system.
i'm saying that not ALL of those kids are going to die. A lot of teenagers kill themselves, but we don't kill all five year olds si they don't "waste their lives"
I never said their suicide rate is perfect like that! but I did find this:
4x suicide rate and 5x drug abuse rate is pretty significant.
I would like to see a link to statistics about that. You can't guarantee that 100% of those kids commit suicide. One of the coolest people I ever met was a girl who was given up for adoption in Ukraine because she had a mental disability and was adopted and brought to the states. She is a very joyful and brilliant girl, and she didn't commit suicide. Saying that someone shouldn't be born because they might kill themselves is ludicrous. That's like saying, you should never have been born, because you might kill yourself one day. You can't deny someone the chance to live because they might end their life. That argument is so illogical is hurts.
I agree, abortion is bad in an ideal world, however as I previously stated, our orphanage system are horrendous places that breed suicide and mental illness.
if orphanages can't properly handle the current needs, how are they supposed to handle the flood of orphans that would inevitably result from banning abortions.
of course improving orphanages would involve social investment, which is not something most prolife politicians are fans of.
abortion may be the lesser of the evils.
The question isn't over whether or not the fetus is sentient. It's over why anyone has the right to deny a developing human it's life.
My expression of the kidney becoming an individual.... that was sarcasm. I was using sarcasm to show that your relation of a fetus to a kidney is illogical. Sorry about that friend. Sarcasm is not the best debate tool. The point I aimed to make from that sarcasm was a kidney is NOT going to develop into a person. A fetus is.
By killing a fetus, you are killing a would be human. It may not be human by definition at the time you kill it, but nevertheless, you are stealing its opportunity to develop and live.
An argument of sentience is irrelevant. Of course it does not have a brain yet. It is not aware of what it is becoming. That does not mean it is not developing into a human being.
you are right, however that doesn't make the kidney any less alive, and the fetus (depending on the stage of development) any more sentient.
it's not even a fetus until week 9. prior to that it's just a collection of undifferentiated cells.
a kidney is part of another human, it will never be able to live on its own.
a fetus is separate from the mother, yet still inside. a kidney works for another, as a fetus only uses the mother to grow and survive. there are so many huge differences between a kidney and a fetus
a fetus is alive, so is a kidney.
the question is, is it an individual.
and more importantly, is it sentient.
A fetus is alive.
A fetus has the potential to grow and develop into an individual. (PS, please relate to me how a kidney has the potential to become a self sustaining individual body, i'm interested in that).
An abortion is the act of killing a living thing so that it cannot grow any further.
Contraception is the prevention of ANY development, and is therefore not DESTROYING something that is already alive, and is not hindering further development. It is simply continuing the fact that nothing was there. In order for myself to be against contraception, I would have to be against people not having sex, and that makes no sense. I would also have to be against girls giving away eggs to periods every month, which would not make any sense either.
Therefore, your argument that I would have to be against contraception in order to be against abortion is illogical. Contraception does not KILL a being that has the potential to develop into an individual, it keeps the status quo. Abortion destroys a living organism which is developing.
a fetus is alive, in the same sense that your kidney is alive. it is made up of living cells. but it is not self aware. it does not have a functioning brain. it is no more a person than your appendix. some day it might become a person if it has the chance, but if it doesn't develop to that point then it cannot be murder.
If you object to preventing life does that mean that all contraceptives are murder as well? they are preventing more lives than abortions.
I understand that we logically cannot stop woken from having an abortion, nor did I say we could. That is not what I wish to argue.
Perhaps by definition, aborting a fetus is not murder. However, definitions can change, as they often have and currently do. I do not want to argue the validity of whether or not by definition, abortion is murder.
Denying anyone the right to live should be considered murder. They may not be considered a person by exact definition, but they have the potential to become a person, to do great things, and to live, and by supporting abortion you are denying them that right.
Of course a mother should have right over her body. If the baby threatens her life, or if she has been a victim of rape and having the baby will cause her emotional scarring, no one should deny her the right to avoid that. But the baby should also have rights, whether it is "living" by so called definition or not.
Also, I would like to argue that you have provided no evidential material to prove that an underdeveloped fetus is not considered alive, and I would like an explanation of that, if you would please.
in order for it to be murder they must be a person. a fetus does not meet the defininition of a person, therefore it cannot be murder. even if you disagree with it, it cannot be a murder.
you are arguing that a cluster of cells that have no idea they even exist has equal rights to a person. and the rights of this cluster of cells overrides the fundamental right to self determination. that seems rediculous.
and finally you cannot stop woman from having an abortion. history has proven. banning them just forces women to have riskier illegal abortions which are much worse for everyone. if a woman doesn't want to have a baby, she won't. no law is going to force her to.
No matter what week in the pregnancy it is, I believe abortion is murder. Even if the person isn't technically "alive" yet, or isn't quite fully developed, aborting them is denying them the right to have a life. I understand circumstances such as rape etc that could be seen as acceptable to abort, and I would not blame a mother for aborting in these circumstances, but personally, if I was raped, I would keep the child. Just because something bad happened to me, doesn't mean I can't allow something good to come of it. I ABSOLUTELY agree that if a mother discovers her child will have a disability, she should NOT abort it. Many doctors construe information about disabilities or make then seem worse than they are, and tests for that kind of thing are not always accurate. My little sister was born with Down Syndrome. She was not diagnosed before she was born, but if she was, there is no telling whether my parents would have aborted her based on doctors' warnings of heart conditions and learning disabilities, etc. But I could not imagine my life without her, I love her to death. She is the reason I wake up in the morning. Under no circumstances would I prevent her from coming to my life, which is why I could never see a mother preventing a child from having a life. Even if they choose to give it up for adoption, that's still better than denying it the right to live.
*I would consider abortion killing a life after the eighth week* not the twelfth, my bad. (Predictive text)
*the heart is pumping blood* my bad.
But I have a question for y'all. Would you consider brain activity life?
Hey let's not get into a defensive or attack mode. That's not what debating is about, leave that please.
I would say killing a life is wrong in all aspects; however, the definition of life is greatly skewed. In the fourth week of development (embryonic stage) the heart is plumbing blood, by the eighth week of development (still the embryonic stage) all brain regions are present and we see the first brain waves. By the twelfth week genitalia is fully present. So, by the twelfth week a fetus (child) is basically developed. I would consider abortion killing a life after the twelfth week. I understand the fetus might not be able to survive outside the womb before twenty-seventh or twenty-eighth week. But the fetus has basic brain functions at eight weeks. I think if a woman was raped or what have you, she should have the choice to abort; but only before the first eight weeks of pregnancy. If a woman discovers (after three months) her baby will be underdeveloped or have some "disease" (didn't know how to put the last one) then she should not kill her child. I'm pretty religious (as many of you long time debaters know), and she should raise her child because that is the hand she was dealt. Maybe God has a plan for her, who knows. However, religion set aside and from a scientific stand point the woman should choose before the eighth week of development
The question is, "do we have the right to prevent someone from having a life?"
Earlier it was said, "Murdering a living conscious person is very different to removing a foetus." So if I knock you unconscious and then kill you it is not murder?
Congrats. You correctly anticipated that I would call you on your stupidity. Are you ever going to respond, or just keep patting yourself on the back for knowing I will criticize your lack or argument?
i knew it
It's funny that you can't bring yourself to answer a simple yes or no question. Your life must be very unpleasant.
Someone could litterally be bashing your brains out of your head with a bat and i believe strongly that you would keep asking the same question. Morons act like that.
psycho dave, you are a broken record saying the same $hlt. You understand that I've proven points and you say the same thing over and over and soon enough I just quit playing to your low intelligence? Now you will say that again because your brain is totally mauled. it's a wasteland in there.
So still no explanation. Let me know when you figure out how debates work.
Do you understand what brain death is?
you pick little things that are meaningless and try to cash in and thats pathetic. All while you avoid the bigger and more real issue.
your points that you have are actually nothing but you being worried about crumbd on a floor while the house is falling down.
you have no point to argue. only juvenile rants that are hardly points.
psycho dave, is a baby a hair or a skin cell?
What am I distorting? You seem to be using that as a way of avoiding arguments you can't counter.
danielle, i fear that someone is in fact blinded but rest assure that it's not me! France is going to hell in a hand bag, and you wave in illegal, unvetted middle easterners? You most likely hate the voice of reason in France due to listening to propaganda(Marine Le Pen). You my friend are so mixed up that your feet smell and your nose runs.
it comes across as desperation from you, as it should. you are a desperate person.
Psycho dave, please stop distorting things. Thats not what I said and you like to do this twisting of points to your advantage.
history buff, who else are you here? Yes I am a libertarian and i am explaining a point. I did not say it should be law. please stop confusing that.
also, you claimed to be a libertarian. if that is true then you should believe that women can do whatever they want with their body. if not then it's just another bald faced lie you've told.
historybuff is right, just cos your religion or belief says it's wrong doesn't mean abortion isn't an option. Also you are blinded by your opinions so you can't see why abortions may be needed.
Maximus, if you think the legal definition of life is a micro-nonpoint, there is no point debating with you since you apparently don't care to listen to anything but the sound of your own voice.
i've never in my life saw people defend reversed racism, try to divide women and men and then show such lack of care for the biggest gift that life could personally give you. This is sad and i would honestly ask if you have any humanity still coursing through your veins that you take a long, hard look at yourself and if this is really for which you stand!
And on a broader note, this proves my point when you liberals say that you are sensitive to sixism and racism but on the same day can go abort your very one creation. This proves that it's just an act, you can for nothing but like to stoke flames and are ALL about yourself.
danielle, shouldn't be made to have them? How about if better precaution and more responsibility are taken to avoid such then as opposed to aborting creation. It's sad if someone is so out of control that they feel that abortion is a good way to cover up their selfish mistakes.
if you don't want children there are many options. pretending there are only two is stupid. there is also contraception and abortion. just because your religion doesn't approve doesn't mean they aren't options.
wihile dave digs up micro-nonpoints. I think we can ALL agree to a fact. CREATION is in play when sperm attached successfully to the egg and a pregnancy test or other medical tests prove it. CORRECT? This means that +1 life is being created and that is a fact. So you ARE IN FACT aborting a life in progress! The idea of saying brainwaves or cells or anything else is pointless babble and nothing more.
if you don't want children there are two options 1. don't have sex, 2. adoption. why do we result to killing then?
no you should be allowed to have as many children if you want, but equally if you don't want children you shouldn't be made to have them!
Catholics are all about bringing children into the world. I know families with 8,9, even 10 kids. and population isn't a problem.
so the law in China that you can only have 1 child is right with you?
that's not what I said is it!
what I said is that it would not be right to force people to bring children into a world where there isn't enough resources to keep them alive. I think thats much worse.
You need to stop twisting what people are saying
we don't have food for people- let's kill them.
that doesn't sound evil to you?
So you admit that scientifically and medically they are not alive at that point?
Before 24 weeks can it survive outside the womb....no,
and dead is the wrong word to use, when they weren't fully 'alive' in the first place.
we can't even house the 70,000 kids that are already in care if that number increased by 200,000 a year, In 5 years that would be a million more children without families. and if abortion was illegal in every single country the earths population would be increasing faster than ever before. We don't have enough food and resources for them!
well since they don't meet the defininition of people you will have a hard time defending that statement.
so 130,000 dead people is better then 200,000 people in foster care?
Brain activity? How about the fact that embryonic heartbeat exists, the foetus simply cannot feel pain due to undeveloped nervous systems. But it does not mean that it isn't enough to be " alive ", perhaps, on a scientific view, it isn't. But on a more humane view of being " alive " - the complete opposite.
How would you know if the foetus is not conscious. Electromagnetic brainwave scans?
eurgh how many times with this debate.
-Abortions are not allowed after 24 weeks
-A foetus is not conscious
-A foetus before 24 weeks cannot feel pain
-Abortions can be necessary
No one has an abortion for the fun of it. If someone has an abortion there is always a good reason for it. 2 doctors have to both agree that the abortion is necessary before it is carried out.
Murdering a living conscious person is very different to removing a foetus. People are always going to be against. But it would be impossible to make it illegal so this another one of those pointless debates.
another factor is, in the UK we have 70,000 children in care. if you were to make abortion illegal that number would increase by 200,000 every year. We cannot cope with that amount of children, not to mention the possible psychological issues they may face.
agreed people should be careful when having sex, they should always use protection etc, but if a mistake is made or the contraception doesn't work then that isn't their fault and you can't force them into anything they didn't want in the first place. Also you can't tell couples not to have sex! That's ridiculous, there's actually evidence that the more sex a couple has the deeper their bond becomes and that's because of a chemical called dopamine. so stopping people having sex could potentially make their bond less stable. obviously there are other factors with falling in love.
But my point is, there are too many if's and but's for it to be as simple as making it illegal. like I said, no one has one for fun.
You are hardly one to criticize someone for not contributing.
When brain activity stops, someone is legally dead. By the same token, until brain activity starts they are not legally alive. Do you feel that we should not be able to take someone off life supports until all cellular activities stop? Because hair and nails can grow after death for quite a while.
it has nothing to do with removing a cell from a human body, and to you tells that the reaction that creats when the sperms coming into the egg does not mean life, yes of course it means life, cause that is how all human life is created and it makes it a murder to remove something that created by that reaction
"So by that logic you are committing murder when you remove any cell from a human body. Are you going to be the first leading the protest to have all barbers charged with genocide and/or mass murder?"
This ^guy here always saying amazingly meaningless things that offer and contribute no value.
does that mean if you wasted you're killing a baby
The counterargument to that is that whole it is a potential future person, at the time of the abortion there is no brain activity, thus they are not alive. Chemical reactions are not evidence of life.
to all those talking about sperms not alive as main argument, you should know that it is a reaction when those sperms coming into the egg, that reaction creats human life, it's that very same way all of us is created, abortion happens after the reaction, that means it is a murder of a insistent child
This argument is going back and forth repeated. I give up. goodnight though :)
lol you don't know much science if you think sperm is as equal to you cause there both cells. sperm and eggs isn't a living organism.
different in what way? we are all just cells.
eggs are cell just like sperms are cells. that's different.
at what point in the pregnancy do you draw the line on when abortion should be legal?
by that logic egg cells are future children, and a woman produces one every month! we must make sure each egg cell gets fertilised then! but wait! then only one of the millions of sperm cells will survive! we must kill the entire human race!
So by that logic you are committing murder when you remove any cell from a human body. Are you going to be the first leading the protest to have all barbers charged with genocide and/or mass murder?
a fetus is more than a cluster of cells. an embryo is a cluster of cells. a fetus is already a cluster of organs or protorgans.
Imo it becomes an individual when the cortex, or maybe the prefrontal cortex becomes activated. that is probably towards the end of the pregnancy tho.
I'm a cluster of cells that is independent and has a fully functioning brain. a fetus is not.
your a cluster of cells
you are preventing a human from ever existing. so is a condom. a cluster of cells is not a person. that cluster might some day become a person, but if aborted it never does. and therefore cannot be murder.
a single cell that has human dna in is a human cell that will develop into a human being so you are murdering a child to be
once there's a new set of DNA for another organism that is evolving into a human its a human
and so just because a human can not think it is not important?
were all technically a clump of cells?
there are people who have disorders where they have no actual brain
a fetus has its own indivual DNA. of course its dependent on the mother. just like a baby is. just because its organs are not fully developed doesn't mean anything.
NerdTagz, the part of that definition that foetuses don't meet is "individual". A foetus is a clump of cells that is wholly dependent on its mother's organs to supply blood, food, and remove waste. It does not think, has no brain activity and, at the moment of conception, has no organs.
The girl is important but we all should know its not even about being sexist or anyhing. I coudl care less if the carrier was a guy or girl its the fact there's life.
The moment and egg is fertilized the moment it has its own unique DNA that you won't find anywhere else.
a human being is definined as 'any individual of the genus homo, especially a member of the species homo sapians; a person representing the human species. Which doesn't exclude babies not yet born.
if fetus is not considered a form of life to anyone? It considered a form of life. and if yes when you abort your destroying that form of life. Now I wouldn't say that's murder but what I'm saying is its wrong.
Born children are able to mature and reproduce but they haven't reach the stage of development yet. It doesn't make a10 year old less human. human fetuses aren't excluded from the definitions. are considered human and a life form. The only reason why its not because its considered murder is because its in someone's body. That's it. So we have to deal with two humans instead of one.
In living I was pertaining to organisms. Sperm is. a cell that's a tool for reproduction just like eggs basically.
I said life and technically its there child but anways I said its considered life and it will be if the process already began
what children? if they count as children before they're born, you may as well say sperm cells are innocent children and ban masturbation.
Honestly when it comes to abortion I don't care about the girl as much as I do about the baby. Some ppl just don't know how to wear a condom creates life and just goes to a clinic to kill it like its no big deal. As long as that can be changed I don't believe abortion depending on the circumstances. So just because there body is gonna go through 9 months of pregnancy and there gonna deliver the baby. That's a bigger deal than life itself. Its all about the girl because? she can do what she want with her body. Once your in charge of the baby making it will be your responsibility to deal with it and its a huge deal because its life were talking about. Not some thing in your stomach. Just because it doesn't seem like life doesn't mean it isn't life. So what if its not developed to your standards of what life is suppose to be. The process of life began therefore its life.
PsychDave: when does the fetus become human, which week?
After a point, foetuses can feel pain and there is brain activity and such. That is why abortions cannot be performed after a specified age. I don't support the use of abortions as birth control, but I also don't have the right to tell someone what they must do with their body.
No. No one can remember being in the womb.
It really about one's perceptive. Generally abortion is removing the fetus from mothers womb. An unborn fetus is not considered as a person. A fetus is not given equal status 2 a person unless its born n independent from the mothers womb. Guess then abortion is killing that has a potential 2 become human. Fetuses feel pain, as said by most experts.
Honestly I agree. I was an accident and I'm glad my mom didn't know she was pregnant for a bit and I live with my dad. She's gone from my life and I'm not for abortion unless it will actually kill the mother. Aren't there people who remember being inside the womb?
seeing as a fetus doesn't meet the defininition of a child I would have to say no. the scientific community would say so as well. so no. you're wrong.