With abortion, conservatives rely entirely too much on moral arguments about how things SHOULD be according to their personal moral views rather than trying to apply existing principles to the situation. And conservatives DO have a point on abortion, but it's rarely the one they're bothering to argue.

For instance, it is terribly difficult from a scientific point of view to establish that a fetus is not a human in development. As is an adult. As is an elderly person. If the right to life is an inherent part of being human, what differentiates a fetus from any other human being in development?

Sperm is not a human in development, so masturbation doesn't kill humans. Mucus from your nose is not a human in development. A fetus would be.

Despite my best attempts, I cannot differentiate from a development point of view why a fetus would be different than any other human in development IF rights (such as the right to life) are inherent to being human. The only connection is its reliance on the mother, which is largely conditional on our technology to keep the fetus alive separate from the mother. Do our rights to life exist based entirely on how convenient it is for technology to accommodate those rights? An infant is still dependent on its mother, so why is it not therefore legal for a mother to kill an infant? What's the difference?

The question isn't whether the fetus is a human in development or not. It is. The question is whether or not a woman has the right to kill a human being in development when pregnant. That's a different philosophical argument.

That's the argument YOU want to have. But it's not the one most liberals are having. And they are just as frustrated with your refusal to acknowledge their point as you are with them.

The abortion argument consists of two sides who are having different arguments and refuse to acknowledge that the other side has a point on their own arguments. It IS absolutely a right to life issue. It is ALSO absolutely a women's liberty issue. Both of those issues exist, and for one to exist, the other has to be diminished.

Until both sides agree on some of the fundamental contexts, neither side is going to get anywhere on this. And posting pictures of dead fetuses accomplishes nothing. Appealing to the Bible accomplishes nothing.

Focus on rights. If all humans have a right to life inherently as a condition of being human, then there needs to be some scientific reason that we do not classify a fetus as human. If we can't do that, then we therefore accept that a fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception; otherwise, we're claiming that humans grant other humans the right to life, which isn't how it's supposed to work. If that IS the way it's going to work with abortion, then we need to justify why.

Getting emotional about this doesn't advance your argument whatsoever. The less your argument relies on emotional, moral, or religious appeal, the more likely you are to make a point that is difficult to ignore.

Conservatives rely entirely too much on moral arguments about how things SHOULD be rather than trying to apply existing principles to the situation. And conservatives DO have a point on abortion, but it's rarely the one they're bothering to argue.

For instance, it is terribly difficult from a scientific point of view to establish that a fetus is not a human in development. As is an adult. As is an elderly person. If the right to life is an inherent part of being human, what differentiates a fetus from any other human being in development?

Sperm is not a human in development, so masturbation doesn't kill humans. Mucus from your nose is not a human in development. A fetus would be.

Despite my best attempts, I cannot differentiate from a development point of view why a fetus would be different than any other human in development IF rights (such as the right to life) are inherent to being human. The only connection is its reliance on the mother, which is largely conditional on our technology to keep the fetus alive separate from the mother. Do our rights to life exist based entirely on how convenient it is for technology to accommodate those rights? An infant is still dependent on its mother, so why is it not therefore legal for a mother to kill an infant? What's the difference?

The question isn't whether the fetus is a human in development or not. It is. The question is whether or not a woman has the right to kill a human being in development when pregnant. That's a different philosophical argument.

That's the argument YOU want to have. But it's not the one most liberals are having. And they are just as frustrated with your refusal to acknowledge their point as you are with them.

The abortion argument consists of two sides who are having different arguments and refuse to acknowledge that the other side has a point on their own arguments. It IS absolutely a right to life issue. It is ALSO absolutely a women's liberty issue. Both of those issues exist, and for one to exist, the other has to be diminished.

Until both sides agree on some of the fundamental contexts, neither side is going to get anywhere on this. And posting pictures of dead fetuses accomplishes nothing. Appealing to the Bible accomplishes nothing.

Focus on rights. If all humans have a right to life inherently as a condition of being human, then there needs to be some scientific reason that we do not classify a fetus as human. If we can't do that, then we therefore accept that a fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception; otherwise, we're claiming that humans grant other humans the right to life, which isn't how it's supposed to work. If that IS the way it's going to work with abortion, then we need to justify why.

Getting emotional about this doesn't advance your argument whatsoever. The less your argument relies on emotional, moral, or religious appeal, the more likely you are to make a point that is difficult to ignore.