You're correct, but I also think that it's oversimplified. We did alright without abortion for ages and, I know, a lot has changed since then.

Had the same argument with dechakin earlier. It's difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. It certainly isn't as easy as just banning it. Even saying that half of people would act more 'responsibly', which is a stretch, it would still mean over half a million useless brats every year. That's 10 million in 20 years, when the first of them reach the age of majority.

Yeah, but the stakes are higher here; much higher. We're talking right to exist here, not right to drive.

Of course, but it is just an example. There are few things where you cannot say: why this and not +1 or -1?

I'm not sure I agree that it has to be arbitrary. Most other rights aren't particularly arbitrary. You're not allowed to take other people's stuff, that's not arbitrary. You can't go around stabbing people, that's not arbitrary.

Eh, unless you have a sign that says "JUSTICE FOR GEORGE FLOYD", then it's fine. Now, yes, you can't take other people's stuff. But when does something become "other people's stuff"? That is sometimes arbitrary, and in fact, laws differ on it. Here as well, you cannot kill a human person, but when does it become a human person?

But the baby was moving prior to that. Well before. They just didn't have the means to measure it at the time but, if the initial logic for why quickening was important was adapted to today's standards, you're talking very early on in the pregnancy, and not around 15-20 weeks.

I meant the traditional view of quickening. If the baby is 'moving' before that, fine, but we could say that we only consider it significantly developed enough when the movement can actually be felt. After all, not to make the comparison, but even bacteria move, and move away from noxious substances.

Viability changes, as mentioned.

And precisely for that reason do we not put the limit on viability itself, but err on the side of caution.

Which is why so many laws are fucking retarded. And I don't think that's a justification for more nonsensical laws.

They're going to be nonsensical no matter what you do, because the political process is dirty. It does not aim at logic, consistency, or anything.

Yeah, to some extent it's the will of the people...but the people are retarded. Which is why we strive for representational systems, and not out-and-out democracy.

Yeah, about that. If I ask normal people whether they think kids should be castrated, they say no. Ask legislators, and they will call you a bigot for asking the question. Only slightly exaggerating. I wouldn't say it's the people who are retarded, but the corrupt politicians.

Laws should make sense, and the best ones do. The worse laws are usually the ones that don't make logical sense.

I disagree. You could say that allowing abortion up to birth makes more sense than 14 weeks, but it's objectively worse. Same for prohibiting it from the moment of conception. In some crazy theoretical world it makes sense to give fertilized eggs the same protections as actual babies, but not in the real world - at least according to most people.

And the idea of making laws 'people can live with' sounds pretty dangerous due to, again, the people being retarded.

You are assuming that there is some sort of alternative that is not retarded. It's retardation all the way down. Even worse retardation than 'the people'.