Emily Letts abortion video

[The Flood]

What you just said is completely contradictory. If he believes the government has the authority to choose whether a fetus lives or dies, then he believes it has the right to choose whether human beings live or die because a fetus is a human.

Don't be dense. Whether or not you agree with the pro-choice argument that a fetus is not a human being, it's the crux of the argument. The axiom.

There is no more argument that can be made to claim a fetus is not human then can be made claiming the Earth is flat. It's not open for debate, it's simply a scientific fact that it is human.

Whether it is a person can be debated, since everyone seems to make up their own definition of what that is, but whether it is human is not up for argument.

[Resora]

Don't be dense. Whether or not you agree with the pro-choice argument that a fetus is not a human being, it's the crux of the argument. The axiom.

There is no more argument that can be made to claim a fetus is not human then can be made claiming the Earth is flat. It's not open for debate, it's simply a scientific fact that it is human.

Whether it is a person can be debated, since everyone seems to make up their own definition of what that is, but whether it is human is not up for argument.

Hence I wrote "human being", which means something possessing personhood.

[The Flood]

Did you really just say that being dead can be what is best for a child? Absolute absurdity. Death is never, ever the answer.

Alright, let's just go down the flow here. I'm in a bit of a rush, so I won't be able to hit on everything though.

A. No, I said that it is better that the child is never born. Killing an acorn is not the same thing as killing a tree. Having an abortion can sometimes be what is best for the child, mother, and society depending on the circumstance. Like I said, abortion is a serious issue, and people need to think about what it would do to them (same with having a child).

An acorn is a tree, it just has not grown yet.

What's the better option? A 16-year old girl getting pregnant, dropping out of school, and raising a child that she doesn't want. Her parents kick her out and she is raising a baby that she is not prepared to raise alone. The child lives a hard life where their mother is not able to provide for them.
or...the girl graduates from high school and attends college after having the abortion. When she does get pregnant again, she is able to provide for her child and give it the life that it and she deserve.

Option C, she gives the baby up for adoption, finishes high school and college, gets a good job, and has a child later on that she can afford to raise herself.

C. At least you're absolutist in your rejection of women's rights. I do find it hard to believe that death is never the answer though.

If there is one thing in the abortion debate I will not stand for, it is the accusation of being against women's rights. You will not call me a sexist again.

[Mavorpen]

Alright, let's just go down the flow here. I'm in a bit of a rush, so I won't be able to hit on everything though.

A. No, I said that it is better that the child is never born. Killing an acorn is not the same thing as killing a tree. Having an abortion can sometimes be what is best for the child, mother, and society depending on the circumstance. Like I said, abortion is a serious issue, and people need to think about what it would do to them (same with having a child).

An acorn is a tree, it just has not grown yet.

This is a stretch. I mean, a REALLY big stretch. The meaning of "tree" has no specific definition that's universally recognized, but none of them allows for an acorn to be considered one.

[The Rhomaion]

Alright, let's just go down the flow here. I'm in a bit of a rush, so I won't be able to hit on everything though.

A. No, I said that it is better that the child is never born. Killing an acorn is not the same thing as killing a tree. Having an abortion can sometimes be what is best for the child, mother, and society depending on the circumstance. Like I said, abortion is a serious issue, and people need to think about what it would do to them (same with having a child).

An acorn is a tree, it just has not grown yet.

No, it's a thing which isn't a tree which has the potential to become a tree under a very specific set of circumstances.

What's the better option? A 16-year old girl getting pregnant, dropping out of school, and raising a child that she doesn't want. Her parents kick her out and she is raising a baby that she is not prepared to raise alone. The child lives a hard life where their mother is not able to provide for them.
or...the girl graduates from high school and attends college after having the abortion. When she does get pregnant again, she is able to provide for her child and give it the life that it and she deserve.

Option C, she gives the baby up for adoption, finishes high school and college, gets a good job, and has a child later on that she can afford to raise herself.

You're still forcing someone to give birth against their will and/or to carry that child for a number of weeks, until it's viable, and then have it removed. Either way, that's not a great position to be holding to, really.

C. At least you're absolutist in your rejection of women's rights. I do find it hard to believe that death is never the answer though.

If there is one thing in the abortion debate I will not stand for, it is the accusation of being against women's rights. You will not call me a sexist again.

Forcing women to give birth and denying them bodily sovereignty is not really a position that can be described in many ways other than sexist.

[Resora]

An acorn is a tree, it just has not grown yet.

That is an absurdity. A tree is something quite specific and separate from an acorn. The fact that an acorn can, in the right circumstances, turn into a tree does not make it a tree, any more than the dirt or the water or the sun is a tree.

By your reasoning, the sandwich I ate for lunch was a human being because it is now part of me, a human being, and thus I am a cannibal.

[Forsher]

Look, this is not an issue that I prefer to spend my discussing because often I dislike the arguments raised by people I largely agree with. The foetus as parasite is one that annoys me particularly. As a quick illustration, search foetus on Wikipedia an then ctrl-f "parasite", you'll find no matches.

Also, a developing baby is, more often than not, the same species as the mother[...]

I'll say this again: parasitism is not restricted to organisms of the same species. Kleptoparasitism exists, you know.

The objection here is that a foetus cannot be a parasite because it is the same species. It's a reasonable objection because parasites are of a different species.

Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species

When we look at the definition raised we see, again, this distinction is species.

"An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host." is the definition of a parasite.

A fetus grows, feeds, and is sheltered in a woman while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

This is a daft argument for abortion, especially considering there are ones that are actually good out there.

The other issue with this definition is that the whole point of reproduction is, typically, furthering the survival of the species and, unless I gravely misunderstood some books (well, a book) I've read, more accurately the genetic material of the reproducing organism/s. A parasite, of course, is all about, at heart, ensuring the survival of its genes... obviously, a foetus has pretty much the same genes so, um, yeah. We also get the further issue that a foetus can be perceived as a long term investment. Many do eventually become working people (once they're born and start working) and in any part of the world they are, to a greater or lesser extent, therefore the primary means of old-age security. The point of this explanation is that, in this context, if it's not necessarily true then it's not a worthwhile point.

*Whether it's by direct support, or simply being a worker contributing taxes; the former system is part of the poverty trap and the latter how the developing world works).

So, something made with a human father and a human mother with only the blueprints on how to build a human, is a rabbit? That makes sense!

I mean really, give a construction crew the blueprint for a small shoe store in a tiny town, will they build the Empire State Building? Not unless they are really bad at their jobs.

The species argument is a poor one because of the fact kleptoparasitism exists.

I do agree with Mav that a human fetus exhibits parasitic properties. However, I also agree with you that it isn't not because parasite's negative connotations, but because parasites are external agents, ergo agents that come into the host or somehow invade their property and space.

A fetus doesnt fill the criteria of being am external agent. As fetuses develop from part of a woman. Hence not a parasite, although it doesnt mean it doesnt have parasitic properties.

Kleptoparasitism is neither here nor there. Mav uses it as an example of a parasitical relationship that "is not restricted to organisms of the same species" in reply to a person arguing that because foetuses are the same species as their 'host' they aren't parasites: "a developing baby is, more often than not, the same species as the mother". What Mav should've done is found an example of a parasitical relationship between members of the same species. Looking at the definitions in this post (the one from Wiki, and the quoted one is some respects*) that would be an uphill battle.

In conclusion, just because there are some similarities between a foetus and a parasite (especially those that live in the host organism) don't think for a second that they're the same thing.

*Obviously, two members of the same species can be different organisms.

[Vettrera]

Alright, let's just go down the flow here. I'm in a bit of a rush, so I won't be able to hit on everything though.

A. No, I said that it is better that the child is never born. Killing an acorn is not the same thing as killing a tree. Having an abortion can sometimes be what is best for the child, mother, and society depending on the circumstance. Like I said, abortion is a serious issue, and people need to think about what it would do to them (same with having a child).

An acorn is a tree, it just has not grown yet.

What's the better option? A 16-year old girl getting pregnant, dropping out of school, and raising a child that she doesn't want. Her parents kick her out and she is raising a baby that she is not prepared to raise alone. The child lives a hard life where their mother is not able to provide for them.
or...the girl graduates from high school and attends college after having the abortion. When she does get pregnant again, she is able to provide for her child and give it the life that it and she deserve.

Option C, she gives the baby up for adoption, finishes high school and college, gets a good job, and has a child later on that she can afford to raise herself.

C. At least you're absolutist in your rejection of women's rights. I do find it hard to believe that death is never the answer though.

If there is one thing in the abortion debate I will not stand for, it is the accusation of being against women's rights. You will not call me a sexist again.

A: An acorn most definitely isn't a tree. A caterpillar isn't a butterfly, and a house is not your home. They all have the potential to become those things....But they aren't. If you can prove that an acorn and an acorn tree are the same thing then I encourage you to prove it

B. Firstly that girl could still be kicked out of the house for simply being pregnant and having to keep the baby. And she'd still have to deal with the public backlash.

Secondly, you're essentially justifying clogging an already dysfunctional adoption system and you assume that the child won't have to deal with the emotional toll of knowing his mother didn't want him. You also assume that kids in adoption systems have a high quality of life.

C. I actually will. You see, by forcing that girl to carry a baby for 9 months despite what it could do to her psychologically and socially, you've just justified slut shaming. Also, you fail to recognize that in some cultures, women are blamed when they are raped and are ultimately excommunicated from their people and own family. They become trash. Hell, some families in America victim-bash. By forcing her to have a baby when she didn't even consent ruins her life and her future. People can tell when you're pregnant, you can't hide for 9 months and just give it up....You don't understand what pro-life fully entails.

(If this is unreadable, I used a phone for this)

[The Flood]

I've got something for you guys. Brittney and Abigail Hensel.

They share one single body. So if Brittney decides she doesn't want Abigail there anymore, using her body, does that then give her the right to kill Abigail? I think not, she would most certainly be charged with murder. And the situation is very similar to pregnancy, two beings, inhabiting a single body, just in a different way.

[Mavorpen]

The objection here is that a foetus cannot be a parasite because it is the same species. It's a reasonable objection because parasites are of a different species.

That's nice. I have no idea why you're telling ME this. I never said a fetus is a parasite. My post was only in response to the claim that a parasites must be of a different species than their host. That's clearly not true.

Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species

When we look at the definition raised we see, again, this distinction is species.

Again, that's nice. It also completely and utterly ignores the link I posted. The Wikipedia definition is such because that's a general statement. There is, however, no indication whatsoever on that Wikipedia page this this is ALWAYS true. In fact, your own source states:

Social parasites take advantage of interactions between members of social organisms such as ants or termites. An example is Phengaris arion, a butterfly whose larvae employ mimicry to parasitize certain species of ants.[10] In kleptoparasitism, parasites appropriate food gathered by the host. An example is the brood parasitism practiced by cuckoos and cowbirds, which do not build nests of their own and leave their eggs in nests of other species. The host behaves as a "babysitter" as they raise the young as their own. If the host removes the cuckoo's eggs, some cuckoos will return and attack the nest to compel host birds to remain subject to this parasitism.[11]

Intraspecific social parasitism may also occur. One example of this is parasitic nursing, where some individuals take milk from unrelated females. In wedge-capped capuchins, higher ranking females sometimes take milk from low ranking females without any reciprocation. The high ranking females benefit at the expense of the low ranking females.[12]

Parasitism can take the form of isolated cheating or exploitation among more generalized mutualistic interactions. For example, broad classes of plants and fungi exchange carbon and nutrients in common mutualistic mycorrhizal relationships; however, some plant species known as myco-heterotrophs "cheat" by taking carbon from a fungus rather than donating it.

An adelpho-parasite is a parasite in which the host species is closely related to the parasite, often being a member of the same family or genus. An example of this is the citrus blackfly parasitoid, Encarsia perplexa, unmated females of which may lay haploid eggs in the fully developed larvae of their own species. These result in the production of male offspring.[13] The marine worm Bonellia viridis has a similar reproductive strategy, although the larvae are planktonic.[14]

Judging from the fact that my OWN source is a clear example of a case where parasitism can be between two organisms of the same species, and your own damn source admits that this is possible, you're taking that definition to heart WAY too much.

Kleptoparasitism is neither here nor there. Mav uses it as an example of a parasitical relationship that "is not restricted to organisms of the same species" in reply to a person arguing that because foetuses are the same species as their 'host' they aren't parasites: "a developing baby is, more often than not, the same species as the mother". What Mav should've done is found an example of a parasitical relationship between members of the same species. Looking at the definitions in this post (the one from Wiki, and the quoted one is some respects*) that would be an uphill battle.

Uh... what? No I didn't. Kleptoparasitism, per my source:

Kleptoparasitism may be intraspecific (the parasite is the same species as the victim) or interspecific (the parasite is a different species). In the latter case, the parasites are commonly close relatives of the organisms they parasitize ("Emery's Rule").

I have no idea what could have possibly given you the idea that I was trying to give an example where parasitism is of the same species. It was, in fact, the opposite.

[Cuprum]

Crap°

[Vettrera]

I've got something for you guys. Brittney and Abigail Hensel.

They share one single body. So if Brittney decides she doesn't want Abigail there anymore, using her body, does that then give her the right to kill Abigail? I think not, she would most certainly be charged with murder. And the situation is very similar to pregnancy, two beings, inhabiting a single body, just in a different way.

This is non-sequitur and a false analogy. Both are sentient and are already fully developed humans. This adds nothing to your absolutist stance. Refer back to my most recent post to understand why

[Bythibus]

Also, there is actually a short term increase in risk of breast cancer after giving birth. Furthermore, becoming pregnant later in life increases changes of getting breast cancer during said pregnancy.

Seriously, the fact that they had to stretch so hard to think of only 6 benefits is pretty strong evidence of just how untrue the "benefit" claim is.

How sticky were your hands after this particular circlejerk?

Yes. Pregnancy boosts the woman's immune response and reduces the risk of cancer. As does postnatal care.

And?
That's not really important if the mother simply doesn't want a baby.

Haven't you been posting in this thread for a while? I think my position on the choice of the mother is pronounced.

Yes. Pregnancy boosts the woman's immune response and reduces the risk of cancer. As does postnatal care.

Ahahahaha. Awesome. You know parasites often boost your immune response. It's the natural response to your body being invaded. No one would call a tape worm symbiotic just because of the increased immune response or the weight loss.

Seriously, you just made the term parasite meaningless.

Err, no. My rejection of the rather liberal use of the term parasite is not rendering the term meaningless.

[Dyakovo]

Alright, let's just go down the flow here. I'm in a bit of a rush, so I won't be able to hit on everything though.

A. No, I said that it is better that the child is never born. Killing an acorn is not the same thing as killing a tree. Having an abortion can sometimes be what is best for the child, mother, and society depending on the circumstance. Like I said, abortion is a serious issue, and people need to think about what it would do to them (same with having a child).

An acorn is a tree, it just has not grown yet.¹

What's the better option? A 16-year old girl getting pregnant, dropping out of school, and raising a child that she doesn't want. Her parents kick her out and she is raising a baby that she is not prepared to raise alone. The child lives a hard life where their mother is not able to provide for them.
or...the girl graduates from high school and attends college after having the abortion. When she does get pregnant again, she is able to provide for her child and give it the life that it and she deserve.

Option C, she gives the baby up for adoption, finishes high school and college, gets a good job, and has a child later on that she can afford to raise herself.²

C. At least you're absolutist in your rejection of women's rights. I do find it hard to believe that death is never the answer though.

If there is one thing in the abortion debate I will not stand for, it is the accusation of being against women's rights. ³You will not call me a sexist again.

1: Wrong. An acorn is not a tree, it's a seed.
2: So, option "A" with only the child suffering instead of the mother and child.
3: Stop opposing women's rights and we'll stop saying you oppose women's rights.

[The Rhomaion]

I've got something for you guys. Brittney and Abigail Hensel.

They share one single body. So if Brittney decides she doesn't want Abigail there anymore, using her body, does that then give her the right to kill Abigail? I think not, she would most certainly be charged with murder. And the situation is very similar to pregnancy, two beings, inhabiting a single body, just in a different way.

It's not similar to pregnancy at all, because neither of them are foetuses, both are persons, both are legal adults and they are together viable. They're sharing a body rather than having two bodies with one being totally dependent on the other. And yes, of course it would be murder for one of them to illegally kill the other, if in doing so their actions met the definition of murder.

It's a terrible example and nothing like pregnancy at all.

[Bythibus]

Alright, let's just go down the flow here. I'm in a bit of a rush, so I won't be able to hit on everything though.

A. No, I said that it is better that the child is never born. Killing an acorn is not the same thing as killing a tree. Having an abortion can sometimes be what is best for the child, mother, and society depending on the circumstance. Like I said, abortion is a serious issue, and people need to think about what it would do to them (same with having a child).

An acorn is a tree, it just has not grown yet.

What's the better option? A 16-year old girl getting pregnant, dropping out of school, and raising a child that she doesn't want. Her parents kick her out and she is raising a baby that she is not prepared to raise alone. The child lives a hard life where their mother is not able to provide for them.
or...the girl graduates from high school and attends college after having the abortion. When she does get pregnant again, she is able to provide for her child and give it the life that it and she deserve.

Option C, she gives the baby up for adoption, finishes high school and college, gets a good job, and has a child later on that she can afford to raise herself.

C. At least you're absolutist in your rejection of women's rights. I do find it hard to believe that death is never the answer though.

If there is one thing in the abortion debate I will not stand for, it is the accusation of being against women's rights. You will not call me a sexist again.

Opposing women's rights is sexist. You are sexist.

[The Flood]

I've got something for you guys. Brittney and Abigail Hensel.
They share one single body. So if Brittney decides she doesn't want Abigail there anymore, using her body, does that then give her the right to kill Abigail? I think not, she would most certainly be charged with murder. And the situation is very similar to pregnancy, two beings, inhabiting a single body, just in a different way.

This is non-sequitur and a false analogy. Both are sentient and are already fully developed humans. This adds nothing to your absolutist stance. Refer back to my most recent post to understand why

Developemental status is irrelevant. Basing a person's right to live on it is ageism, which is a bigotry just as bad as any other ism. Denying a human being their right to live based on age is no different then denying it based on race, or sex, or financial status.

[Dyakovo]

I've got something for you guys. Brittney and Abigail Hensel.

They share one single body. So if Brittney decides she doesn't want Abigail there anymore, using her body, does that then give her the right to kill Abigail? I think not, she would most certainly be charged with murder. And the situation is very similar to pregnancy, two beings, inhabiting a single body, just in a different way.

No, Brittany and Abigail are both people.

[Bythibus]

This is non-sequitur and a false analogy. Both are sentient and are already fully developed humans. This adds nothing to your absolutist stance. Refer back to my most recent post to understand why

Developemental status is irrelevant. Basing a person's right to live on it is ageism, which is a bigotry just as bad as any other ism. Denying a human being their right to live based on age is no different then denying it based on race, or sex, or financial status.

You're claiming ageism? really? Get real, son.

[Dyakovo]

This is non-sequitur and a false analogy. Both are sentient and are already fully developed humans. This adds nothing to your absolutist stance. Refer back to my most recent post to understand why

Developemental status is irrelevant. Basing a person's right to live on it is ageism, which is a bigotry just as bad as any other ism. Denying a human being their right to live based on age is no different then denying it based on race, or sex, or financial status.

[Mavorpen]

Developemental status is irrelevant. Basing a person's right to live on it is ageism, which is a bigotry just as bad as any other ism. Denying a human being their right to live based on age is no different then denying it based on race, or sex, or financial status.

This is the problem, here. I mean, this really gets at the core problem of why no one ever gets anywhere discussing this. For some reason, people who are pro-life tend to have tunnel vision. I have no idea why, but you keep pretending as though there is only one argument being made here. There isn't. Our beliefs are NOT based solely around developmental status. That's a straw man and an oversimplification around the issue.

[Vettrera]

This is non-sequitur and a false analogy. Both are sentient and are already fully developed humans. This adds nothing to your absolutist stance. Refer back to my most recent post to understand why

Developemental status is irrelevant. Basing a person's right to live on it is ageism, which is a bigotry just as bad as any other ism. Denying a human being their right to live based on age is no different then denying it based on race, or sex, or financial status.

(Wow, called a bigot by the person that's justified slut shaming and punishing rape victims. Ok.)

A fetus and a person are different things. Killing a cow and killing a person are different things. Just cause you say something is irrelevant doesn't mean it is. Show me that a fetus is sentient and I'll buy your argument.

Also look up the word bigot.

[Mavorpen]

Developemental status is irrelevant. Basing a person's right to live on it is ageism, which is a bigotry just as bad as any other ism. Denying a human being their right to live based on age is no different then denying it based on race, or sex, or financial status.

(Wow, called a bigotry by the person that's justified slut shaming and punishing rape victims. Ok.)

A fetus and a person are different things. Killing a cow and killing a person are different things. Just cause you say something is irrelevant doesn't mean it is. Show me that a fetus is sentient and I'll buy your argument.

Also look up the word bigot.

SPECIESISM! YOU'RE A SPECIESIST! BIGOT!!111oneoneene!!!

[The Flood]

An acorn is a tree, it just has not grown yet.

Option C, she gives the baby up for adoption, finishes high school and college, gets a good job, and has a child later on that she can afford to raise herself.

If there is one thing in the abortion debate I will not stand for, it is the accusation of being against women's rights. You will not call me a sexist again.

A: An acorn most definitely isn't a tree. A caterpillar isn't a butterfly, and a house is not your home. They all have the potential to become those things....But they aren't. If you can prove that an acorn and an acorn tree are the same thing then I encourage you to prove it

A caterpillar and a butterfly are the same species. The reason a caterpillar is not a butterfly is because each word specifically describes a phase of the organism's life. It is the same as saying a baby is not an adult. The same thing goes with a seed and a tree. They are still the same species of organism, just at different developmental stages.

B. Firstly that girl could still be kicked out of the house for simply being pregnant and having to keep the baby. And she'd still have to deal with the public backlash.

Then the parents are negligent and should be imprisoned for criminal negligence.

Societies attitutdes are bad and need to be changed via educational programs, but that doesn't justify killing innocent children because society is bigoted.

Secondly, you're essentially justifying clogging an already dysfunctional adoption system and you assume that the child won't have to deal with the emotional toll of knowing his mother didn't want him. You also assume that kids in adoption systems have a high quality of life.

Then fix the adoption system, if it does not do its job adequately, it needs to be reformed. This is also not justification for killing innocent human beings.

C. I actually will. You see, by forcing that girl to carry a baby for 9 months despite what it could do to her psychologically and socially, you've just justified slut shaming. Also, you fail to recognize that in some cultures, women are blamed when they are raped and are ultimately excommunicated from their people and own family. They become trash. Hell, some families in America victim-bash. By forcing her to have a baby when she didn't even consent ruins her life and her future. People can tell when you're pregnant, you can't hide for 9 months and just give it up....You don't understand what pro-life fully entails.
(If this is unreadable, I used a phone for this)

Again, more cultural crap, and it's a culture that needs to be changed through education, but it again does not justify ending human lives.

[The Rhomaion]

A: An acorn most definitely isn't a tree. A caterpillar isn't a butterfly, and a house is not your home. They all have the potential to become those things....But they aren't. If you can prove that an acorn and an acorn tree are the same thing then I encourage you to prove it

A caterpillar and a butterfly are the same species. The reason a caterpillar is not a butterfly is because each word specifically describes a phase of the organism's life. It is the same as saying a baby is not an adult. The same thing goes with a seed and a tree. They are still the same species of organism, just at different developmental stages.

They're both of one species, but they're mutually exclusive phases of development within that species, such that an acorn can never being a tree whilst still being an acorn, and a foetus can never be a child, an adult or (at the very least prior to viability) a person whilst still being a foetus.

B. Firstly that girl could still be kicked out of the house for simply being pregnant and having to keep the baby. And she'd still have to deal with the public backlash.

Then the parents are negligent and should be imprisoned for criminal negligence.

Societies attitutdes are bad and need to be changed via educational programs, but that doesn't justify killing innocent children because society is bigoted.

Concern for foetuses also doesn't justify forcing women to give birth and/or have major surgery to remove a foetus that they were forced to carry to near-term, and to suggest otherwise is odd at best.

Secondly, you're essentially justifying clogging an already dysfunctional adoption system and you assume that the child won't have to deal with the emotional toll of knowing his mother didn't want him. You also assume that kids in adoption systems have a high quality of life.

Then fix the adoption system, if it does not do its job adequately, it needs to be reformed. This is also not justification for killing innocent human beings.

Suggesting that abortion be banned without a functioning adoption system is incredibly cruel to the children in question. I'd advise that you look at Ceaucescu's Romania to see the likely consequences of such a course of action.

C. I actually will. You see, by forcing that girl to carry a baby for 9 months despite what it could do to her psychologically and socially, you've just justified slut shaming. Also, you fail to recognize that in some cultures, women are blamed when they are raped and are ultimately excommunicated from their people and own family. They become trash. Hell, some families in America victim-bash. By forcing her to have a baby when she didn't even consent ruins her life and her future. People can tell when you're pregnant, you can't hide for 9 months and just give it up....You don't understand what pro-life fully entails.
(If this is unreadable, I used a phone for this)

Again, more cultural crap, and it's a culture that needs to be changed through education, but it again does not justify ending human lives.

It's not ending a human life. It's ending the existence of a thing which stands a chance, under a specific set of circumstances, of obtaining a human life and which would not (prior to viability) otherwise attain that life even with the best of medical care as an independent organism.