different cultures consider it a baby at different points. Viability is one way to view it, Jewish folks describe it as the first breath...if it never is born and breathes on it's own, it's not a person. Your sister is playing the right wing description game. Question, does she support total care and bill paying for the child, mother to ensure it grows up?

I believe the Greeks believed that a child did not become human until it was 2 years old, The Hebrews did not believe that a child became a person until they had drawn a breath outside the womb and had extensive rabbinical texts with instructions on performing abortions, abortion was not addressed by the catholic church until the 1960s, (against) the Methodist Church did not address it until 1968 (in favor).

Given that between 20 and 50% of all pregnancies end in the first trimester spontaneously, and that people that don't want to be parents normally don't make good parents, a few more, for any reason, is unimportant.

First, as an atheist, I don't consider any life sacred. Nor do I consider any life dispensable.

I consider your sister's argument as a straw man position. She is attempting to equate abortion in early trimesters with the killing of a full-grown infant, but it's not pertinent. Societies base their decisions on some form of viability (the first year of life after birth still has the highest risk of death than any age until at least middle age), and since science has developed ways to (sometimes) assist third trimester fetuses physically, it's moved the line of "viability" to in utero. But the only reason women have abortions in the third trimester is because of the threat to the health of the mother or fetus or both, oftentimes when the actual death of the fetus is involved.

NO ONE wants to undergo the physical changes to their body of being pregnant for six months, not to mention the attention it will attract from friends, family and employers, and then undergo the trauma of abortion. Most women who have an abortion prefer it be kept quiet, be personal, and happen as quickly as possible. I see no inconsistency in my position on this as a pro-choicer.

I think its more about body autonomy. Everyone should have the right to make medical decisions about their own bodies regardless of whether another person's life is dependent or not.

If some child in the state where I live needs a new kidney in order to live and I'm the ONLY person who has a compatible kidney, I still have zero obligation to donate my kidney, even if the child will absolutely die within the next few days without my donated kidney. No one can force me to donate my kidney even if doing so is at very little risk to me.

So, why is it different for a mother and a fetus? And do we want to create a situation where a mother is at legal odds with a fetus? If a pregnant woman does something risky should she be charged with child endangerment? In some countries a woman can be charged with murder for having an abortion or even having a miscarriage. Is this what we want for the U.S.?

In this culture, it actually is a mystery to me as the Babble specifically state life begins with the first breath, and in another area gives the money amount one must pay for [inadvertently] causing a miscarriage or abortion.
It seems like a horrific way to control women, period.

The ancient Greeks and Romans were not just subjective in their choice, they actually set the age at which killing an infant became murder, at two years. Because that was they age at which they thought you first became aware of your self as a person, and with that your own mortality. Which while I would not advocate for it, it is in many ways a much more logical and realistic choice, than the common modern. "When they are able to live outside of the womb. "

It is not universally considered legit to kill a fetus, or universally considered taboo to kill a newborn. Clearly in the U.S. there are strong differences of opinion. That’s the reason the topic is so thorny.

Personally, though I’m strongly pro-choice, I don’t base my stance on any difference between fetus and newborn other than the fact that one is inside the mother where it can impact her health.

To my thinking, the inconsistency is on the “pro-life” side. They claim life is somehow sacred, but are happy to make exceptions for capital punishment and war.

One reason you cannot answer the question is that it is not a legitimate bible question. Politics took over the issue and in the bible the fetus only became a person at birth. This is why there is no discussion on the issue by Jesus. Just mumbo jumbo that others make up or propose.