This is a well reasoned argument.
Yet another mis conception the "evangerighties" (another word I just made up) like to use referring to pro-choice advocates as "pro-abortion."
I don't think anyone is "pro-abortion" only "pro-choice."
I, as a man, will never know how difficult that decision must be.
I like the argument: what would do if a hospital is on fire. You know your time is limited and you can only do one action before dying yourself. In a corridor, on one side there's a that weighs 15lbs alive but unconscious in a bed on the other side is a liquid nitrogen canister that weighs the same amount with a clear sign on it that says fertilized healthy human embryos. Ask a pro-lifer which action they will take. Their answer should be the fertilized eggs because they are human and have rights.
I wish everyone saw and understood the issue this clearly. He touches on a really good point that is at the heart of a lot of male alarm at abortion. "Especially when she doesn't like the guy who got her pregnant. She doesn't want anything to do with your genes!"
There is an idea among certain men that they're owed children and/or womens attentions , some how missing the point that women are not sex and child factories just here to fulfill male wants.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that his "scientific" argument is that miscarriages happen naturally so abortion is OK, "especially if she doesn't like the guy that got her pregnant." Is this really the current level of argument in favor of abortion being legal?
Good address. Here's a thought. A human embryo undergoes a cycle through it's evolutionary history, At first it even has gills, like a fish. Finally, having passed through the various steps of its evolution (at one point it is an amphibian, like a frog, it finally starts vaguely to resemble a human. Surely, during all this stage, it is not remotely human? Anti-abortion fanatics see nothing wrong with killing frogs, so why not early stage embryos?