When it comes to abortion, the real question that's divisive is not if a women should have the right to control her own body, but where we as a society draw the line between what is a human life and what is technically part of a women's body. I think everybody would agree that a human has certain basic rights. Some people would disagree on what those rights are but here at least, I'd fully expect people to agree that yes, the right to live is a basic human right. So the real question of abortion comes down to this; "At what point in human development can we consider something "human" and thus meaning it has basic rights? Well, let's first think about this question in a greater context. To be alive your brain needs to be functioning. Agreed? You can cut limbs off a person and as long as their brain is working they will still be living. If somebody is brain dead are they dead? I would say certainly yes. Life in terms of humanity means having consciousness. If your body is still functioning but you're not thinking are you "you." Well obviously not. The concept applies to software in a computer. If you stop running the software that software is "dead." The hardware (human body) is just the means to run the software and can still work without the software but without the software isn't not (alive.) Point being, if we would not consider a full grown adult that is brain dead (but the body is still working) living, why would we not then consider a fetus that has no consciousness as also not alive. If the fetus is not alive then it is the property of mother and she can do what she pleases with it. However, this then leads into another question. How do we define consciousness? Well, it's general accepted that having some form of self awareness or understanding of "one's self" generally means you have consciousness. Do newborns have some understanding of self? I honestly don't know the answer to that question but the point when a human seems to be able to understand the world they exist in appears to be around the ages of a toddler. For the sake of this argument just assume that be to true. A great deal of "programming" happens around these ages and once it's complete the consciousness3.exe program boots up and a human is born!!! Therefore, it does seem logically that children under the ages of 3 or 4 or somewhere around that period are not technically human and therefore don't have rights. Thus, abortion should be legal up until the point a child becomes self aware. [spoiler] To clarify here; No I'm not 100% in support of this argument. I don't believe it should be legal for a mother/ father to harm a new born child. Ignoring the issue of not knowing when a child first becomes self aware at the point of birth there is a clear difference between an undeveloped fetus and a newborn child. For starters the unborn baby has a brain that functions. It can feel pain and while not self aware I would say generally causing pain to anything living should be criminal and should never be done. For the most part; I think that line of reasoning applies to animals. I don't think it should be legal to subject a being that can feel pain to pain. I don't think for example it should be legal to just cut an animal's limb off. You know. Believe what you want but we as a society don't give equal rights to children. Children don't have the right to sign a contract. They don't have a right to their body. As far as society id concerned children are the property of their guardians and aren't "full people." I have however always found it somewhat hypocritical that "pro life" supports would hold such grand value on a fetus that cannot feel or think but have no concern for the horrible conductions of some species of animals are put in. No living being that can feel pain should be subjected in such a way.[/spoiler]