When I think of abortion, I don't think of it as killing babies. I think of it as killing a collection of cells that some day perhaps might be a child. But it is not one. I don't see how one can say that a clump of 64 cells is a child, given that it has the potential to be one, but not also take issue with their sperm not fertilizing an egg. Isn't every sperm a potential child as well? On what point of the scale to you draw the line and say "this is now a child" vs "this is a collection of biological material that may become a child if proper conditions are met?"
I think the first trimester is a fairly decent cutoff.
Thats not what I'm talking about (although I admit I'm generally against.)
See "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" and "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act" to get an idea.
Edit:
I think the first trimester is a fairly decent cutoff.
As far as I am aware this is not a general cutoff in the US.
I am pro-choice by the way.
The Orwellianness of this turn-of-phrase never ceases to amaze.
How is that not an unborn child?
Thank you for demonstrating the Orwellian nature of this phrasing.
By unconditionally accepting this you are defending some really really questionable practices. The fact that the laws I mentioned above (or below) even had to be made in the first place says something about this.