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.

Alright, then let's cut immigration a tiny bit (or all the way) to balance out. Boom, solved. But that would require sanity from the government, or people holding the government responsible, both of which are largely a pipedream.

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.

Doesn't make it legal. The law is clear, it's just not always applied justly.

Here as well, you cannot kill a human person, but when does it become a human person?

Uh, in that instance we're generally talking people who have been born, which is quite clear.

I meant the traditional view of quickening.

But, again, that's just because they didn't have the tools. We now know the baby is moving pre-quickening, and for the same reasons. And, again, it's still arbitrary, considering quickening can happen at different points. e.g. it would be alright to kill one baby at 20 weeks, but not alright to kill another at 13 weeks. That makes no fucking sense.

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

Viability is used in some legal definitions.