> I disagree; that question is not relevant. Many people say it is relevant, but I disagree with that. Whether or not it is "human life" does not somehow mean i

> I disagree; that question is not relevant. Many people say it is relevant, but I disagree with that. Whether or not it is "human life" does not somehow mean it is better than everyone else. I do not think there is (necessarily) any claim that if it is a human life/person it is "better", but rather 'just' equal to any other human life (including the mother's). Generally the only two situations that most (Western?) societies have allowed the taking of life is self-defence and capital punishment (which can sometimes be treated as 'societal self-defence' if (e.g.) prison infrastructure cannot keep dangerous offenders locked up safely: the only way to prevent them from further harming people in society is to remove the threat). If a life (mother's) is in danger, than one can claim an action is self-defence in order to save it. But if there is no threat to a life, what right is there to take another's? What has the fetus done to 'deserve' death in the latter case? > (Making exceptions for rape, etc isn't the solution either, since then they would have to know if it is rape, which just adds delays and other legal issues.) Even if it is rape, if the Entity involved is a human person, what has it done to deserve to die?