I'm going to copy past the opening post of my group "Abortion Protects Children." This is a good starting point to explain why you're wrong. I apologize for the length, but many disagreements (including yours', obviously) involve a lack of understanding about how certain forms of sound abstract reasoning works, and that needs to be taught, and that can get wordy. There are further arguments that can be made in favor of the view that abortion, after fetuses can experience pain, generally protects children too. This is just regarding early abortions that occur before fetuses can likely experience pain. This is wordy enough for now though...and I don't even know if you'd like to discuss this in detail:

For the first, and most important post of this group, I'm going to argue a pretty foundational element of my worldview, that I think should be a foundational element of everyone's worldview. This is the view that **life cannot possibly benefit from coming into existence.

That's not to say that it's a bad thing to create new life...only that life cannot benefit from coming into existence. In other words, the creation of a life form may be equally beneficial to life form as it never having existed, but it cannot be a better fate for it than having never existed. This is because, before the life form existed nothing existed to potentially benefit from coming into existence.

Note that I'm not saying we should all kill ourselves or anything silly like that. We already exist. Therefore, the statement "life cannot possibly benefit from coming into existence" does not apply to us.

So first, I think everyone reading this should accept that. It's a pretty basic, simple idea. You automatically have to agree with it unless you believe we have some kind of moral obligation to endlessly pop out babies so as to "help" all the infinite non-existent beings who have not been conceived yet, by bringing them into existence.

So, once you agree with me that life cannot possibly benefit from coming into existence, read on. If you don't agree with me about that, I'd appreciate it if you made a comment in which you explained why you disagree.

Now, the reason why the above applies to abortion is because there are organisms that lose nothing more from death than non-existent beings lose from never having come into existence. For example, the earliest I've heard people who might have some idea of what they're talking about claim that fetuses might be able to experience pain is 12 or 13 weeks. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the U.K. say that fetuses can't experience pain before 24 weeks.

That's keeping in mind that about 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester. That means there are probably a very large percentage of abortions that are painless to the aborted.

Death is not inherently negative. It's simply transferring from being into unbeing...so if an organism doesn't fear it, doesn't experience pain or suffering from it, and can't comprehend the future enough to miss out on achieving their future goals if they die, death cannot harm the organism in any meaningful way...and that appears to be the case in the vast majority of abortions. In that way, fetuses that can't experience pain yet, and really most animals, are immune to death. They're not immune to suffering, but the ceasing-to-be-of death does not exist to them. Death is a concept that only self-aware humans and perhaps some tiny minority of other animals understand, and it doesn't exist to much else.

Now some people would argue, "But the fetus would have become a self-aware person if it were not aborted! You're stealing its future!"

The problem with that argument is you can say the exact same thing about yet-to-be-existent hypothetical beings. Therefore, if you believe that fetuses can be harmed by death before they can experience pain or suffering from that death, you must also believe we have a moral obligation to endlessly produce more children to help all the infinite non-existent, hypothetical beings who haven't been conceived yet, which is nonsensical. None of those beings can benefit from coming into existence, because no one who yet exists to benefit from coming into existence.

With all all the rest of that comment in mind...the cost of abortion, most of the time, is nearly nothing. The cost of giving birth can be a negative thing though. Your position has been refuted. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd welcome that.

@MrShittles Oh dear? You must be really young. The young have this idea that they know all. Thank you for your attempt to correct my thinking and how by your flawless logic I must be wrong. But I did read your answer and find it (SORRY) but a load of bull. Be respossible and there is no fetus and therefore no problem.

@Arty I just explained to you why the responsible route, if you don't want a child, is probably to get an abortion. If you disagree with that, the next step, if you want me to change my mind, is to explain to me why I'm wrong.

Given that most abortions are painless...and life loses nothing from not existing before it can experience pain...but life can lose something from coming into existence, giving birth is typically a mildly selfish act. Early abortion is the typically the more selfless act, so far as I can tell.

Regardless of whether or not a pregnancy should have happened in the first place, after it happens it doesn't make sense to punish the child for a potential mistake by the parent through bringing that child into existence, if the parent doesn't want a child, if an abortion could be gotten before pain can be experienced.

Now, if you want to discourage unsafe sex...that's a different topic entirely. Abortion is only an issue after the pregnancy has already occurred.

@MrShittles Abortions as a selfless act? What you have at the beginning of life is unmeasured and immeasurable potential. This could a Galileo Galilei or a Marie Curie but by your divine hand it ends before it can begin. Must be nice to consider yourself a god.

@Arty #1. You have a moral obligation to "play god." Whether fetuses are forced be born, or forced not to, either way they don't get a choice. You have to choose their fate for them, and it's up to you to choose a decent fate. Many people think not getting abortion is somehow less of an act of playing god than getting an abortion, or infringes on the free will of the fetus less than getting an abortion. They're wrong. The fetus is forced without its consent into every possible fate it can go into.

#2. Remember my comments about life gaining nothing from coming into existence? That applied to Galileo too. Galileo gained nothing from coming into existence, because before he existed, there was no one to benefit from coming into existence. With that in mind, before Galileo was born, there was no person who would lose more from death than a non-existent person would have lost from never having been conceived of...because a fetus doesn't care about or comprehend death. Now, the fetal Galileo would have cared about pain...but that will not occur in all abortions. Furthermore, it's up for debate whether or not the potential pain of an abortion is more harmful than future pain they'd experience through life.

@MrShittles History is filled with terrible instances of those who gave themselves permission to choose who should be allowed to live and to murder the unworthy. They are the instances that prove the ability of man to become monsters.

@Arty Correct...and history is filled with people who caused harm through not making a choice when they had no choice.

I went over this already. You have a moral obligation to "play god." If you do not make a decision in that way...if you just always assume everyone should live...at least if you force that legally...that's the worst decision. You'll become the monster that way.

Death is not this inherently negative thing you appear to think it is. Causing someone to die is not inherently murder.

@MrShittles You seem set on your course. You are well on the way to believing yourself god like and happy to commit monstrous acts.

@Arty You just described how I see the more extremist elements of the pro-life crowd. I'm set on my course, because I'm following my conscience...just like the more extremist elements of the pro-life crowd. The difference is, they're following their consciences in a dog-like impulsive way. I, on the other hand, am using my intelligence to determine how to truly help people most.

I've long been of the opinion that "playing god" should be viewed as a positive thing. I see it as implying that we're willing to take responsibility for both the power of our action, and inaction, rather than assuming that inaction is somehow inherently a safe and benign path.