I don't want this thread to become a debate on whether or not abortion is morally right, my question is whether or not the government can decide this for us. I don't want this to become a religious/moral debate, simply a legal one... (probably won't work out that way though lol)

Question:
Should the government be able to pass a law against abortion?

Choices:
Yes, because the government is there to set the rules.
No, the government is there to protect us, not control us.
Yes, because I can't read and think abortion is morally wrong and goes against Jesus, and God, and my Grandma, and I want to debate that here despite the fact that Hoopdawg08 specifically asked me not to.

 

OK, this reply might be titanic, and I apologise for anyone who is less interested than I am (but I'm obviously not apologetic enough not to do it, so "go figure", as many TV shows have led me to believe they say in the US)

First of all I have to say that Nathan2142 is quite possibly the most rational and clear-headed anti-abortion spokesperson on YN at the moment, and possibly ever. This approach ('I do hope that you do at least see that there is some rationale behind the pro-life way of thinking that goes beyond "because God told me so".') has been much more effective, and I'd like to underline it as a good example to anyone else limbering up to take the anti-abortion side of this debate.

However, I do still have a few problems with your argument that leave me (reasonably) convinced that I remain on the right side of the line. And here they are:

quote:

My major reservation with this definition is that it is never used to define life in any other scenario. For example, a parasitic worm cannot survive without its host, yet we also consider these parasites to be alive and separate beings. So why then is a fetus not considered its own alive and separate being? (Note: I'm using parasites as an example but several more exist in nature.)
So what justifies taking the parasite's life but not an abortion? The parasite isn't human, based on it's DNA as well as other key features (There I go bringing DNA into it again.)

And this is where I would locate the major tripping point. People often compare this to leaving a toddler on a mountainside to fend for itself, and it is true that there is a certain similarity to these cases, but not one that is relevant. The key difference is that the foetus is physically incapable of surviving - if it is removed from the mother, it can't breathe or eat or pump its own blood. Regardless of whether or not it qualifies as a separate being on DNA grounds, it cannot be a different being in terms of physical life processes. I know this is a little bit of a specious over-extension of the basic argument but the scientific definition of life, famously used to exclude viruses, requires that anything alive perform seven phenomena: homoeostasis, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, reproduction and display some form of organisation. Foetuses are not capable of performing all these on their own, and they require the mother to perform them for it. To return to the moutainside, the child can perform these biological functions independently - it is obvious that the child doesn't possess the knowledge to hunt bison or whatever, but if it was provided with food it could digest it itself, it can breathe on its own, and it can pump its own blood. That is basically the 'severe medical definition' that I was dependent on.

quote:

My major reservation with this definition is that it is never used to define life in any other scenario.

But does this constitute a serious problem? We require various definitions of life in various circumstances because it is (probably) impossible to postulate one that is appropriate to all situations.

quote:

parasitic worm cannot survive without its host,

Which, given my argument above, leads me to conclude that a parasitic worm could survive outside its host, given various conditions (say in some sort of nutrient stream) whereas a foetus cannot - hence surrogate mothers in IVF etc.

quote:

The parasite isn't human, based on it's DNA as well as other key features (There I go bringing DNA into it again.)

I'm going to take a slightly different tack at this point, and consider this objection in a perspective that isn't my own (i.e. just for the sake of the argument). Why are we privileging the foetus in this argument - what is it about a two celled 'human being' that qualifies it as being more worthy of life than the parasitic worm? Most parasitic worms have virtually no ill effects on human beings, so why should we treat them with more contempt than foetuses, which can have massive detrimental effects on mothers? (Again, let me reiterate that this isn't actually an opinion I espouse, but merely represents a possible challenge).

quote:

The DNA they hold I find to be a key way of differentiating these cells from the mother.

This, to bring it up again, is where our opinions divide, I think. While DNA is one way of differentiating the foetus from the mother, I do not think that it is sufficient to delineate the mother from the foetus - when it grows to the point at which it also becomes a distinct 'being' (i.e. my definition of survivability again) then this DNA definition comes in useful, but up until that point I consider it that the DNA of the foetus is no different from the DNA in a DNA sample. It is simply that neither the sample nor the foetus are capable of being a whole human being. They could eventually become one (say through cloning or letting the child grow) but they do not, at this point in time at least, constitute human beings.

In order to embrace my 'severe medical definition' you also need to have a wider definition of human life than simply a biological one. In order to be recognised as a human being as opposed to a human foetus you have to meet a certain series of criteria - and this is what I meant by not recognising zygotes as human. There is a point at which something with the potential to become human becomes human, and I would put forward the point at which it can, even it requires medical intervention to ensure its continued life, survive truly independent of the mother.

quote:

This is probably the medicine, but I have no idea what you're asking about.

I'd just ignore this point, as, coming back to my post again, I can't understand what I meant either.

quote:

. If a justice does, there's nothing you can do but wait for him to die.

Not quite. Well, I suppose legally, yes...

quote:

Once again, not 100% sure of the connection b/t my quote and what you said, but just to comment on what it seems like you are saying: I highly doubt inalienable rights would include abortion.

I think that I was making a wider point outside of the abortion area: you seemed to be suggesting that people who committed crimes couldn't expect the protection of the law, and I disagree. Then I tried to demonstrate that, although this argument is used to support the death penalty, that it doesn't stand up because the rights laid out in the constitution are considered inalienable, and this does not allow for the removal of rights for criminals. And, in the UK (where I live, sorry to repeat this all the time) abortion is considered a right under the law, given certain provisos.

quote:

In any case, justices are chosen for their deep knowledge of law, not top of the line molecular biology.

I'm not overly familiar with American judicial practise, nor with UK judicial practise for that matter, but I assumed they would have sought some sort of expert testimony on this?

quote:

there is some rationale behind the pro-life way of thinking

And this brings me round to my final point, which is that whilst I admire your arguments and style (even if I do disagree with your position) you are open to the debate. The vast majority of pro-lifers are simply not; they are those who simply do things because god told them so. You are in more of a unique position in rationally arguing an anti-abortion position than I am in rationally arguing a pro-abortion stance. If every anti-abortionist argued in such a way, and was open to the exchange of ideas, then I would have much greater respect for the movement and for the position, but as it is, the position is still too evocative of crowds and mobs of people standing outside abortion clinics haranguing young women who are making the often difficult choice to terminate
their pregnancies. Anti-abortionism is, and this a crude statement but one I find unavoidable, too close to the mob mentality for my liking. Call me snobbish, but I think that human beings tend to reason better individually, and when mobs start chanting out opinions, I tend to immediately veer in the other direction.

Dammit, I'm pissed I can't find the site that said it was 1.2 million a year before roe v wade. I think I typed in google "how many abortions happened before 1972" but that was days ago so now I don't remember the exact wording. bleh. irritating. You do know I'm not talking about deaths, I'm just talking about abortions. We'll probably never know the exact number because these were obviously secret things.

lol, you're comparing a baby with a parasite....

Was the parasite made of the mothers dna and in order to become alive has to be carried for 9 months until it's ready to be born. no.

A baby lives off its mother to survive. A parasite eats food from whatever random host it finds.

you know what though, none of this even matters, because people against abortion aren't going to change anything sorry, you all fail at life.

quote:

how many illegal abortions happened before 1972 each year? 1.2 million.

I have never found a statistic even close to that high reported. The highest I've seen, given by the pro-choice advocates during roe v wade was 7,500 and they admit that they knew these numbers were "totally false". That's why I pulled my numbers from the CDC, a nonbias government organization. Granted, it's only reporting official deaths from illegal abortions (making it likely to be a lil low) but 1.2 million? I'll go ahead and say it: Not a chance.

quote:

Just a language point; I'd never refer to this kind of debate a 'bantering' - isn't it a little insensitive to joke about this sort of thing?

I certainly didn't mean it as a joke and apologize if I offended anyone. My point is going on and on about rights is fruitless if the definition of life isn't established. Suppose it's my local language coming out.
On that note, I happen to be pretty ill today so if I say something that seems offensive or doesn't make sense, I'll apologize for that in advance and assure you that I don't mean it that way. It is simply the lack of restful sleep and the cough syrup talking.
Now before I get into some fine details, I figure it may be good to establish something I've thought of with this but have never been able to articulate completely. That is a couple of points need to be established before deciding that abortion is terminating human life. If the following facts are true, then we should assume that abortion would be taking away human life:
1) If the embryo/zygote/fetus (hereafter referred to as fetus for the sake of brevity, I know it's not technically accurate) is living. (Can't kill that which has no life, so to speak)
2) If the fetus is a distinct being from the mother. (That is to say, the cells in question are not the mother's.) (Thus differentiating it from say cancer, which is removal of the mother's own cells)
3) If the fetus is human. (differentiating this from invading parasites or bacterial infections.)
I put these up here for simplification, if each of these three things are true then abortion would seem to be terminating human life. (unless I forgot something) Hopefully anything I say or have said on abortion will aim to establish one of these three points as true. (Because it seems like everyone agrees that embryos are in fact made of living cells (and thus are alive), I won't spend too much time trying to establish the first point. Although if you would like me to explore deeper why I think this is suitable I'll be happy to)

quote:

At the age when a foetus becomes able to support itself, and here we're using quite a severe medical definition of what 'support itself' means, then I completely agree that the foetus is alive and should be granted the rights associated with such life.

Judging by this quote and the rest of your post, it would appear that you're saying when something can sustain itself (using medical definition), then it can be considered alive? Wolfie summed this up very concisely as

quote:

life begins when the blob of cells doesn't need its mother as a host any longer.

This definition is very popular and makes a lot of sense on several levels. It was persuasive enough to convince some of the most intelligent people in the US (referring to the justices) and in the world.
My major reservation with this definition is that it is never used to define life in any other scenario. For example, a parasitic worm cannot survive without its host, yet we also consider these parasites to be alive and separate beings. So why then is a fetus not considered its own alive and separate being? (Note: I'm using parasites as an example but several more exist in nature.)
So what justifies taking the parasite's life but not an abortion? The parasite isn't human, based on it's DNA as well as other key features (There I go bringing DNA into it again.)

quote:

I really like this argument - it's quite clever and appeals to common sensibility, is clear, definite and quite persuasive.

Thank you. I suppose that's why I find it charming.

quote:

But DNA can't be the whole story, as far as I can see. DNA on its own is not sufficient to make a human being - I'm not putting this across very well, but what I mean is that human life is not synonymous with DNA. Clearly DNA samples do not qualify as alive

Of course they do not count as alive and that is a good point. My DNA argument is used mainly to argue point number 2, that the living cells are separate from the mother. While DNA is of course not alive, the cells that contain them are. The DNA they hold I find to be a key way of differentiating these cells from the mother. You can think of the DNA as a marker that says "These cells will become the child and these cells are part of the mom's tissues." I didn't quote the rest of your paragraph, despite how well thought out it was, because I think what I have said may have satisfied your other points. If I'm wrong in this understanding let me know.

quote:

the zygote isn't recognisable as a human life; even your language here characterises it as a 'bacteria' or some other microscopic creature

Whoa, I may have been misleading. I didn't mean that the zygote would ever be classified as a bacteria by any reasonable person. Rather I was comparing the physiology of the zygote to another separate life form, like bacteria. The bottom line: I'm once again using this as evidence for #2, that what we are dealing with is not the mother's cells rising up to become a child, but rather the child's own cells developing. I hope I clarified what I said.

quote:

abortion is no more than a human induced form of miscarriage;

This statement seems to be trying to trivialize abortion. It is common for people to consider a miscarriage as a loss of life and even mourn the loss: if miscarriage is an unfortunate loss of life than abortion is an intentional loss of life.

quote:

We do not consider bacteria or other single/few celled organisms to be worth ethical consideration - why human foetuses?

The answer to your question is in the question: Because it is human. Whether we like the idea of it or not, going through this stage is part of human development.
It would seem that you would ask next: How would you consider this human? Keep in mind looks aren't what determine species (that is to say, just because it doesn't look human doesn't mean it's not human). The common way for taxonomists to determine and separate species is through the DNA. The genetics of a zygote would classify the cell(s) as human, with a unique genome separating it from the mother and the father. Most animals (or even life forms, it could be argued) start as a unicellular organism and develops into what we physically recognize as its species. Even in it's simplest form, we still refer to it as its species (a chicken egg, dog embryo and so forth). The developmental process technically never stops. An infant develops into a toddler, which develops into a child eventually into an adult etc.
I suppose, all of my rambling aside, the question I have is why shouldn't a fetus be considered human? Would you consider it bacterial?

quote:

This plays in to your next paragraph, where you accurately predicted I would quote you on 'Things aren't weighed by their potential, but rather as they are. So terminating life is always illegal, not the potential for life.' Sorry about that

No worries, it shows that we do in fact agree on the point that potential for life can't be punished.

quote:

was confronted by a zygote there is no way that I would be able to tell it apart from a cheek cell, or a sk

quote:

in cell or even some bacteria.

Probably not, but trained professionals can fairly easily (and with a lil research, I'm sure ya could). Keep in mind you also that you probably couldn't tell the difference between a cheek cell from say a muscle cell, or tell the difference from a harmless strain of E. coli from a deadly strain, but that doesn't mean the differences aren't there or that they aren't important.

quote:

his is very different than a teenage mom who has had reckless sex and is afraid of the consequences of her actions.



This might mark a difference between UK and US definitions, because I believe that you try children in adult courts. Is that right? Or something like that? In the UK, children are not considered capable of deciding to have sex until sixteen, which means that the law does not consider them able to have children until this age, and permits abortions in these cases.

This is probably the medicine, but I have no idea what you're asking about. Maybe I'll get it in a couple days, but just in case would you mind rephrasing it for me?

quote:

Aren't they appointed by the President, an elected official, and confirmed by Congress, lots of elected officials, making them pretty much chosen by the will of the people, or at least as close as one can get in a republic.

In a roundabout way, you could argue they are elected. One major difference from them to elected officials is that they are appointed for life. If a president or congressman acted against the will of the majority of voters, then they can re-elect someone else in there. If a justice does, there's nothing you can do but wait for him to die.

quote:

As far as I am aware, they are chosen for their incredibly detailed knowledge of constitutional law

True in theory. This is politics remember and your views do matter. You made a good point later with pointing out that the same justices did not go with separate but equal and your bringing that our illustrates what I was trying to get across, which I'm sure you'd agree with.
Just because the supreme court decided it should be legal, does not make it right. (While the same justices did not decide separate but equal is acceptable, it was passed by the same process (and in theory those justices were also suppose to be chosen based on their knowledge of law)).
Point is you can't just say the supreme court's ruling is final and unquestionable is all. I don't think it's too controversial to say they could be mistaken. (After all, they're smart people but still people.)

quote:

People who act outside the law can't expect its protection.



Actually, in the UK we disagree with this, but then technically so does the US. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights....

Once again, not 100% sure of the connection b/t my quote and what you said, but just to comment on what it seems like you are saying: I highly doubt inalienable rights would include abortion.

quote:

at one thousand six hundred and seventy nine mothers are acceptable losses

Not saying it's acceptable, saying it's less than 1.37 million. I would think that police would do their best to ensure that these dangerous procedures do not occur. And you assume correctly that medical abortions would not be outlawed (it may be worth mentioning that medical abortions, even after 6 months, are still allowed over here, so this isn't a novel idea of mine.)

quote:

I imagine, however, that the supreme court justices would be aware of this - clearly this is something that they considered and dismissed, or at least didn't consider to be a strong enough argument to side with Wade over Roe.

Actually, probably not. The role DNA plays hasn't really been investigated until the later half of this century and what knowledge that was gained wasn't widespread. Using DNA as something as unique as a fingerprint was not admissible in court at the time (not even sure if techniques allowed for looking at DNA in that detail) At least, I've never read any notes of DNA used in that court.
In any case, justices are chosen for their deep knowledge of law, not top of the line molecular biology.

Anyways, the I realize I probably won't convert you to this way of thinking, but I do hope that you do at least see that there is some rationale behind the pro-life way of thinking that goes beyond "because God told me so". I also hope you can see why pro-lifers take this issue so seriously.

Hey, really 1.37 million a year in the US. Do you want to know how many illegal abortions happened before 1972 each year? 1.2 million. OOh wow what a huge difference. Oh yes, making abortion illegal will result in an astounding 170,000 new adoptions.

Oh really can I see where you got your number there about the deaths? Did you also find out how many women were sexually abused by these doctors and were forced to do sexual favors in turn for an abortion?

A fetus needs its mother as a life-support system. As in no one else (as you can do with a baby) can come along and take care of it. When a baby is in the 3rd trimester it can live without its mother (though it will be considered premature). This is why abortions are illegal after 6 months because that is when a baby is able to live independently of its mother. Lol, you act like if an infant doesn't have a mother it will die. Other people can take care of it when it is in the womb other people can't.

Life doesn't begin at conception, life begins when the blob of cells doesn't need its mother as a host any longer.

quote:

but quit bantering on about rights because that's not going to go anywhere with someone who thinks it's life you're ending.

Just a language point; I'd never refer to this kind of debate a 'bantering' - isn't it a little insensitive to joke about this sort of thing?

quote:

This doesn't make sense to me because it's difficult to define when a being is independent. For example, an infant left on its own would certainly die as it lacks the resources to find nutrients on its own, as would say a toddler (unless it was a particularly crafty toddler) Even more compelling is that 3rd trimester abortions are illegal and they certainly cannot live on their own either.

I see what you're getting at here, but again, I'm not sure that this provides a spectacular challenge. I didn't mean that if we left toddlers exposed on mountain sides that I'd expect them to be able to successfully gun down a deer or grow crops by itself. When I use 'independent' in the abortion context, I meant that a embryo/foetus doesn't have the necessary organs to survive without the mother; i.e it relies on the mother to pump its blood, to digest nutrients for it and so on. Even our incredibly advanced medical technology is just not sufficient to keep a foetus of this age alive. At the age when a foetus becomes able to support itself, and here we're using quite a severe medical definition of what 'support itself' means, then I completely agree that the foetus is alive and should be granted the rights associated with such life.

quote:

Why would DNA make an important determinant of life? We have used DNA as a defining feature of individuality.

I really like this argument - it's quite clever and appeals to common sensibility, is clear, definite and quite persuasive. But DNA can't be the whole story, as far as I can see. DNA on its own is not sufficient to make a human being - I'm not putting this across very well, but what I mean is that human life is not synonymous with DNA. Clearly DNA samples do not qualify as alive; though they may be protected by the law in other ways they are not given the full set of rights that we might consider giving a foetus. This is partly because I think that while examining this issue we should keep one eye fixed on the potential and upcoming developments in genetic technology that may save thousands if not millions of lives but which might require the DNA we get at conception by chance to be altered. An example of this might be cutting off the extra chromosomes that increases the likelihood of Down's syndrome. If DNA was our primary definition of what constituted human life, we might be unable to help these people in the future.

quote:

, the zygote is self signaling, that is to say it tells itself to replicate and implant and so forth just as bacteria or any other separate organism living inside another body would do.

I must say that I didn't know this, and it is certainly something to be born in mind. But at this stage, the zygote isn't recognisable as a human life; even your language here characterises it as a 'bacteria' or some other microscopic creature, which even vegetarians do not consider in their ethical decisions. And there is a significant chance of miscarriage at this point, (indeed right up until the 22 week mark this remains a chance) and oftentimes implantation is unsuccessful - here abortion is no more than a human induced form of miscarriage; the life of a single cell cannot be weighed against the volition of a mother. We do not consider bacteria or other single/few celled organisms to be worth ethical consideration - why human foetuses? This plays in to your next paragraph, where you accurately predicted I would quote you on 'Things aren't weighed by their potential, but rather as they are. So terminating life is always illegal, not the potential for life.' Sorry about that. I can see the force of your argument, and if I was already disposed to see foetuses as human life, I would probably be convinced; but as it is, if I was confronted by a zygote there is no way that I would be able to tell it apart from a cheek cell, or a skin cell or even some bacteria. Not to mention that I'd probably accidental inhale it, squash it or kill it by breathing on it.

quote:

his is very different than a teenage mom who has had reckless sex and is afraid of the consequences of her actions.

This might mark a difference between UK and US definitions, because I believe that you try children in adult courts. Is that right? Or something like that? In the UK, children are not considered capable of deciding to have sex until sixteen, which means that the law does not consider them able to have children until this age, and permits abortions in these cases. If the teenager isn't considered adult enough to have sex, one cannot expect her to be adult enough to raise a child and thus abortion is fairer than mauling her emotional life with giving birth to a child she wasn't ready for and then having to give it up for adoption.

quote:

The supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution, not add to it. This is an example of them overstepping their boundaries (which history is full of). Point is, no one can claim it as a right just because 7 people decided it was at one point in time.

Doesn't this slightly understate what a supreme court justice is? Aren't they appointed by the President, an elected official, and confirmed by Congress, lots of elected officials, making them pretty much chosen by the will of the people, or at least as close as one can get in a republic, which America technically is (not a democracy as popularly believed). As far as I am aware, they are chosen for their incredibly detailed knowledge of constitutional law, and are therefore presumably one of set of experts that one should listen to on subjects such as what constitutes constitutional law.

quote:

This is the same court that decided separate but equal is fine, so just because they decided it doesn't make it right or wrong.

This also isn't quite true, is it? It's like saying that Obama is the same president that fought off the British or forced the native Americans onto reservations.

quote:

People who act outside the law can't expect its protection.

Actually, in the UK we disagree with this, but then technically so does the US. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights....

quote:

Also consider that according to the CDC, 1,679 mothers died from illegal abortions in 1940 (which is the highest toll I can find.) So sure, some would get illegal abortions, but I don't believe the deaths from that would go as high as 1.37 million, or even into the hundred thousands. That's unrealistic.

I must confess that I am quite surprised, given your rigorous (if, in my opinion, inaccurate) definition of life, that one thousand six hundred and seventy nine mothers are acceptable losses. I am assuming, perhaps generously, that your earlier statement that 'If the pregnancy risks the life of the mother (and obviously the child), then abortion may be considered' is still in force here, and that lifesaving abortions are exempt from this fictionally proposed legislation.

quote:

his was also in the early 70s, when most people were not aware of DNA and it's uniqueness to a person.

I imagine, however, that the supreme court justices would be aware of this - clearly this is something that they considered and dismissed, or at least didn't consider to be a strong enough argument to side with Wade over Roe.

Brehon, I appreciate that you say my argument was eloquently expressed and enjoy how, even though you disagree, you maintain respect and reason as you respond. It's a trait I'm trying desperately to work on (if you knew my family, you'd understand my struggle )
However, I feel like there are some things you mentioned I should bring to your attention as to what I think of them. I'm sorry for the long post, but I'll be sure to answer everything you stated fully to the best of my ability. (Sometimes short thoughtful questions require long answers, especially when most people on this site take the liberal side.)
First and foremost, even if you are pro-choice you must understand this one point: This issue isn't about rights. Pro-lifers aren't actively seeking to take away rights. Their agenda isn't "let's make sure people have less rights... bwa ha ha ha." It's about the definition of life. If pro-choice movement convinces pro-lifers that life begins after conception, then the whole pro-life movement would go away Now you may say "There's no way we'll make them budge" that's fine (and in fact, is often the nature of any debate), but quit bantering on about rights because that's not going to go anywhere with someone who thinks it's life you're ending. I cannot overemphasize this point.

quote:

here is a sizeable difference in excluding fully grown human beings from ones definition of human because they are a different skin colour and excluding small bundles of cells and foetuses that cannot survive independently of the mother's body

If you'll excuse my rephrasing of what you are saying in my terms, you are in essence defining life as being independent from the mother (something Jane Roe argued as well). This doesn't make sense to me because it's difficult to define when a being is independent. For example, an infant left on its own would certainly die as it lacks the resources to find nutrients on its own, as would say a toddler (unless it was a particularly crafty toddler) Even more compelling is that 3rd trimester abortions are illegal and they certainly cannot live on their own either. That definition seems more flimsy than conception, which isn't that debatable of a definition. It's commonly used as a medical term synonymous with fertilization. It's moment is fairly precise when compared to independent.
My reason for defining this as life is fairly straightforward and simple (I wrote an article on this website about it a couple years ago... when they had that sort of thing going on.). It is at that moment that this life form has it's own unique DNA Suppose you spilled blood at a location, I would (presuming I had the resources) identify that it was yours because of the uniqueness of your DNA. Now if somehow the cells from the embryo were left somewhere, that DNA would not show to be the mothers (it would have half the alleles in common, but would not match the mother's DNA). When the baby is born, it has the same DNA it had at conception.
Why would DNA make an important determinant of life? We have used DNA as a defining feature of individuality. This is true in court as I stated above and in other examples. DNA in our society is considered private property, no one is allowed to see it without your consent or a warrant. It makes us who we are. It's a simple way to differentiate our cells from foreign cells (bacteria and grafts and so forth). It's also how taxonomists are defining evolutionary relationships (using it to figure out what makes a separate species and what makes species relatives.)

I believe this discussion should satisfy some questions you posed.

Also at conception, the zygote is self signaling, that is to say it tells itself to replicate and implant and so forth just as bacteria or any other separate organism living inside another body would do. The primary roles of the mother is to supply nutrients, remove waste and protection, which one could argue is still done after it is born (admittedly though another mechanism.). However, it's developmental signals all come from itself, suggesting strongly of a separate life form. It's hard to describe the significance of this to an audience without a strong scientific background, but the bottom line is the embryo has all the signs of being a separate entity and not just another piece of the mother.

As far as "shouldn't eggs and sperm be similarly protected, simply because they are capable of generating such a cell? " is concerned, keep in mind that these gametes contain only the DNA of the owner (father/mother.) meaning if there were looked at, they would only lead to the owner, not the partner or the child. The DNA is exclusively the donor's (for lack of a better word). As far as the potential goes, keep in mind if this was true, than a man prosecuted for murder could very well be accused of killing limitless future children. This is why the unique DNA model for defining life would separate this extreme illogical scenario from the outlawing of abortion from conception. Things aren't weighed by their potential, but rather as they are. So terminating life is always illegal, not the potential for life. Let's make that clear. Also keep in mind (figuring the above will probably be quoted against me) that my, what I consider, reasonable definition of human life is when a being contains it's unique human DNA (i.e. at conception.) It's a little convoluted typed out in detail like that, but I hope it makes sense. If not let me know and I'll try to clean it up a bit more. I may edit it later to make it more concise.

About capital punishment I'll go ahead and say that I don't get all my views from one political party, so don't assume just because I'm for one thing that I'm for another. I'll leave it alone for now, because otherwise I'll have a post about two opinions rather than one... really long one.

quote:

there are more holes in your 'definition of life beginning at conception as the most reasonable belief' than you seem to be allowing.

I acknowledge the difficulty in asserting a flawless definition everyone can agree on (in slave times, many thought there were holes in including Africans as humans.). However, it is the one I find that makes to most sense, and, no offense intended, is far more clear and reasonable than defining by when a being is able to survive independent of the mother, for reasons I stated above (an infant, toddler, 3rd trimester fetus and apparently some college students all cannot live without their mother, yet terminating their life is considered murder).

quote:

you haven't really distinguished between abortion as birth control and abortion as a life saving medical procedure

Didn't realize that needed defining, but I guess if I acknowledge this is a debate of definitions, ok I can go with that. If the pregnancy risks the life of the mother (and obviously the child), then abortion may be considered Keep in mind with this it is very rare to have the mother's life endangered, but not the child, and even in such a case, it is still common for the mom to continue. It's a heart wrenching and sad situation, which I hope I never have to go through, and in such a case, it is admissible for the parents to decide what is best in their situation. This is very different than a teenage mom who has had reckless sex and is afraid of the consequences of her actions. I hope this clears it up. Any more strict questions and consult an abortion stats website. There are a ton of them (many seem impartial) which have different reasons categorized and the % attached to each reason (over the last few years that I've seen it, it's always been ~95% are for birth control, but I haven't check 2008 yet.)

quote:

Though expecting the Framers to anticipate the abortion debate is a little like expecting the Bible to have specific teaching on global warming or genetic modification.

Quite true, I meant what I said to be more against the term people use that they have a RIGHT to an abortion, which hasn't been amended to any constitution in the US. The whole point of the amendment process is to modify the document for the times. This amendment hasn't been pushed through because it would require a vote, which probably wouldn't succeed (seeing as Roe v Wade overturned laws in 46 states which were legally voted on. This was a way for an issue to circumvent the will of the people.) The only thing keeping it legal now is the supreme court decision of Roe v Wade. The supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution, not add to it. This is an example of them overstepping their boundaries (which history is full of). Point is, no one can claim it as a right just because 7 people decided it was at one point in time. Slave owners had more reason to claim slavery was a right seeing as that actually was in the constitution. (and it took an amendment to the constitution to undo that.). This is the same court that decided separate but equal is fine, so just because they decided it doesn't make it right or wrong.

Also, anticipating that the framers would in fact outlaw abortion if they could conceive of the practice is not far fetched at all. I won't get into it now though. I suspect someone will probably ask me to.

quote:

So what's better? Making it illegal and having women AND uborn babies dying or keeping it legal and just having the unborn babies killed?



Nice utilitarianism there. Like it. Appeal to reason....

The fact you accept this logic is very strange to me. I'll go ahead and itemize what's wrong with this ideology. To reiterate, these arguments are just a distraction from what really matters; whether or not life begins at conception. If we all believed life began when the sperm fertilizes the egg, then these appeals to reason are illogical. To prove my point, I'll go ahead and assume we all agree with me here that life does in fact begin at conception, and then show how these arguments hold up to that idea.
1) Just because people do it, does not mean it should be legal. It's just like saying "we should legalize murder because people will do it anyways." If it's hurting life (remember, we're pretending to agree that this is life for the sake of showing where the argument really lies), then it should be illegal no matter how often it is done anyways. People who act outside the law can't expect its protection.
2) You are assuming outlawing abortion would cause an increase in deaths. In order for this to work, keep in mind how many abortions are being performed a year... it's 1.37 million in America and 42 million worldwide. You would be assuming that a) everyone (or around half even) who would get an abortion would go to the back alley to get an abortion. This is unrealistic. What would be reasonable is to have girls will look into alternatives, like adoption or having it themselves, and even better, practice safer sex. If we assume that life begins at conception, then these alternatives would most definitely be a step up. Once again, if life does not begin at conception then these arguments hold water, but first you'll need to provide some solid evidence or reasoning as to why a different definition would make more sense. Also consider that according to the CDC, 1,679 mothers died from illegal abortions in 1940 (which is the highest toll I can find.) So sure, some would get illegal abortions, but I don't believe the deaths from that would go as high as 1.37 million, or even into the hundred thousands. That's unrealistic.
And to my good friend Wolfie:

quote:

You talk of freedoms and yet you completely neglect the freedom of the mother

If we assume that life begins at conception, then this freedom for a mom to terminate her pregnancy doesn't make sense. Now if you want to debate the definition of life, you may have me convinced. But this talk of a mother's inalienable right to an abortion without providing a proper definition of life simply doesn't mean a thing.

quote:

That's why roe v wade passed in the first place; so many women were getting botched abortions and dying from them that the government had to do something.

I'm gunna guess you misspoke about roe v wade getting "passed". It was never passed. You see, it's not technically a law, it was a supreme court decision. The only vote was made by 9 people in the entire US. None of these people were even voted for directly. There is no amendment or anything like that. This was also in the early 70s, when most people were not aware of DNA and it's uniqueness to a person.

Also, back ally abortions had no influence on the decision (as I pointed out earlier, the numbers of these were always pretty low)

Anyways, sorry it's so long but anything less would not adequately address some legitimate concerns you brought up. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or if I failed to clarify. I hope I make my point clear: The only way you'll convince me or any pro-life that abortions are a right is if you provide a more stable for definition of life than conception or a valid reason why life doesn't matter. Otherwise, I just don't see how using it for birth control would be justifiable.

they already have said it's six months.

you can't get an abortion in the third trimester. seriously isn't that enough for those anti-choice freakazoids?

I dont think this issue should be determined until science proves or decides when a fetus is life. And i believe it has to be consistant like as awful as this sounds, if a someone were to kill a pregnant woman and was charged with 2 murders but yet the law doesnt recognize the fetus as living person then thats not really okay even tho the person would deserve punishment,.. until they decide when a fetus is truely alive or not for sure i think abortion should be available to rape and incest cases or when the mother is in danger.

quote:

Though expecting the Framers to anticipate the abortion debate is a little like expecting the Bible to have specific teaching on global warming or genetic modification.

lol.

quote:

In the early 1800s, people justified slavery b/c their definition of human did not include blacks. Did the government have the right to stomp out their beliefs and outlaw slavery? Of course! Because their definition of human made no sense.

I think I've already identified the weak point in your argument, eloquently expressed as it was. There is a sizeable difference in excluding fully grown human beings from ones definition of human because they are a different skin colour and excluding small bundles of cells and foetuses that cannot survive independently of the mother's body.

This is not the only problem with your focus on conception. What constitutes conception exactly? The sexual act that generates it, the actual fertilisation of an egg etc? Why are the two gametes meaningless until they join together into a single cell - shouldn't eggs and sperm be similarly protected, simply because they are capable of generating such a cell?

Another contention would presumably arise from death penalty arguments. As a UK citizen, I'm not a great fan of capital punishment, which seems to be a bit of barbaric history that somehow got left tacked onto the law, rather like chewing gum on a trainer. But, given your premise that abortion 'would count as lawless waste of life', doesn't this weaken the case for the death penalty quite a bit too? I mean, while serial murderers may be evil, they are probably quite strong, and it does seem awfully wasteful to let all that flesh go to waste.

This is a bit facetious, but there are more holes in your 'definition of life beginning at conception as the most reasonable belief' than you seem to be allowing. Also, to build on a challenge raised by Wolfie, you haven't really distinguished between abortion as birth control and abortion as a life saving medical procedure etc.

And just to clear up my position: pro-choice, anti-death penalty. Washy welfare liberal through and through.

quote:

The 'right' to have an abortion was never given... okay so I guess roe v wade never happened...

I suspect that the intended sentiment is that it isn't entrenched in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and so on. Though expecting the Framers to anticipate the abortion debate is a little like expecting the Bible to have specific teaching on global warming or genetic modification.

quote:

So what's better? Making it illegal and having women AND uborn babies dying or keeping it legal and just having the unborn babies killed?

Nice utilitarianism there. Like it. Appeal to reason....

quote:

Originally posted by nathan2142:

So now, does the government have the right to define human existence? Yes! They've done it before and it was to the betterment of our society and even though some may argue it took away a "right to slaves" (which was of course never given, but neither is the right to have an abortion.) it actually increased the freedoms of Americans. In fact, I would argue one of the government's roles is to protect human beings from injustice and as such, will need to know what qualifies as a human and what doesn't.

You talk of freedoms and yet you completely neglect the freedom of the mother.

The 'right' to have an abortion was never given... okay so I guess roe v wade never happened...

Regardless of what you think there are still going to be thousands of women each year getting abortions whether or not it is legalized.

That's why roe v wade passed in the first place; so many women were getting botched abortions and dying from them that the government had to do something.

So what's better? Making it illegal and having women AND uborn babies dying or keeping it legal and just having the unborn babies killed?

Here's how I see it:
Forget the bible. It doesn't even say anything about abortion so I don't know why people quote it in this instance anyways, so the fact people are against it just for the Bible is stupid.

It's not a matter of choice either. This isn't "Pro-life wants you to be unhappy and have no choices.. oooOOOOOOoooo". That's the propaganda talking.

It's about the definition of life. If life begins at conception, then abortion for birth control would count as lawless waste of life.
With this definition in mind, can you see why government would have the right to stop abortion, despite opinions?

Lemme try to clarify: In the early 1800s, people justified slavery b/c their definition of human did not include blacks. Did the government have the right to stomp out their beliefs and outlaw slavery? Of course! Because their definition of human made no sense. They believed that to justify what they were doing. (Can you see where I'm going with this?) There was no reason to believe that and thus blacks were official accepted as humans in America (nice of us eh?)

So now, does the government have the right to define human existence? Yes! They've done it before and it was to the betterment of our society and even though some may argue it took away a "right to slaves" (which was of course never given, but neither is the right to have an abortion.) it actually increased the freedoms of Americans. In fact, I would argue one of the government's roles is to protect human beings from injustice and as such, will need to know what qualifies as a human and what doesn't.

So the real question is what is a sensible definition of life? Giving birth makes no sense, because many things are considered alive without being born. Being born doesn't give something an elevated status in any aspect of life (would you consider a rat to be more important than say a bald eagle just because the rat is born and the eagle is hatched?).
Some say when something can feel pain it should be considered alive. This also is never included in any scientist's definition of life, aside from abortion. Is it possible to kill something that cannot feel pain? Of course it is! So why then do people argue it's not a crime just because it can't feel pain? If a man cannot feel his legs due to paralysis, and I shot him in the leg, is it considered ok because he can't feel it? Of course not!

Once again, to reiterate (b/c I'm sure some of you will deliberately miss my first and most important point) what you believe doesn't enter into the equation, just like what the southern plantation owners believed did not affect the outlawing of slavery. You may personally believe what you like (like people can still believe that blacks are lower than humans... I heard this ignorant blather often growing up) however, that doesn't mean abortion as a birth control is outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. In fact, if definition of life beginning at conception is the most reasonable belief, then it is their duty to do so.

I could go on and on but I think this is enough for you to ignore.

/flame on.

lol.

i almost want to get prenant just so i can have an abortion and laugh in their faces.

lol thanks. its b/c I'm so tired of all these threads focusing on whether or not abortions are against the bible and the stubborn people refusing to change their train of thought to anything but
"jesus- this, moses-that, abraham hit me with a wiffle ball bat!"
I just want to know whether or not the government has the right to tell us whether abortions should be legal or not.
Not what hey-soos thinks.

that was the funniest thrid option ever.