So you'd be ok with government agents showing up at your door in the middle of the night and taking you involuntarily to the hospital to donate some of your organs to someone in the ER?
You define "child" based on a religious definition. That's /your/ religion, not mine. Feel free to follow it all you want, you don't need to involve the rest of us. We're not talking about children, we're talking about fetuses.
> Do you really want to be play that game? Because I'll have a field day with you.
Ah, an internet tough guy. Feel free to "have a field day." Your entire argument is premised on the idea that a fetus is a human life, which only has basis in religion.
Fetuses are unborn children. I realize this definition is rather inconvenient to your fragile narrative, but it is THE definition, not just my definition. Please refer to the dictionary, #4: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/child
> a human fetus
Or the Merriam webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
> 3a : an unborn or recently born person
or the oxford dictionary: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...
> a young human who is not yet an adult
Please, keep talking. I am enjoying this. Next you'll argue categorical definitions and facts are a religion.
The difference is that most Americans would be outraged if the government forbade them from eating meat, because that takes away their freedom and forces them to spend slightly more money on food that doesn't taste quite as good. It astounds me that these same people think the government should have the power to force someone to give birth to a child they don't want and can't afford. The amount of suffering that will cause is unimaginable.
Of course, most people who are against abortion won't hesitate to get one if they or their daughter needs it. It's always different when it's your life and dreams that are about to be destroyed.