Why Abortion is Moral

[FONT=arial,helv][SIZE=+2]All of the arguments against abortion boil down to six specific questions. The first five deal with the nature of the zygote-embryo-fetus growing inside a mother's womb. The last one looks at the morality of the practice. These questions are: [/SIZE][/FONT]

1. [FONT=arial,helv]Is it alive?
   Is it human?
   Is it a person?
   Is it physically independent?
   Does it have human rights?
   Is abortion murder?
   [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helv] Let's take a look at each of these questions. We'll show how anti-abortionists use seemingly logical answers to back up their cause, but then we'll show how their arguments actually support the fact that abortion is moral.

[/FONT] [FONT=arial,helv]1. Is it alive?
[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helv]Yes. Pro Choice supporters who claim it isn't do themselves and their cause a disservice. Of course it's alive. It's a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. "Life begins at conception" they claim. And they would be right. The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes. The single-cell zygote contains all the DNA necessary to grow into an independent, conscious human being. It is a potential person. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]But being alive does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]A single-cell ameba also coverts nutrients and oxygen into biological energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply and grow. It also contains a full set of its own DNA. It shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is not a potential person. Left to grow, it will always be an amoeba - never a human person. It is just as alive as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why we must answer the following questions as well.
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]2. Is it human?[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helv]Yes. Again, Pro Choice defenders stick their feet in their mouths when they defend abortion by claiming the zygote-embryo-fetus isn't human. It is human. Its DNA is that of a human. Left to grow, it will become a full human person. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]And again, anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. They are fond of saying, "an acorn is an oak tree in an early stage of development; likewise, the zygote is a human being in an early stage of development." And they would be right. But having a full set of human DNA does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Don't believe me? Here, try this: reach up to your head, grab one strand of hair, and yank it out. Look at the base of the hair. That little blob of tissue at the end is a hair follicle. It also contains a full set of human DNA. Granted it's the same DNA pattern found in every other cell in your body, but in reality the uniqueness of the DNA is not what makes it a different person. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, and yet we don't say that one is less human than the other, nor are two twins the exact same person. It's not the configuration of the DNA that makes a zygote human; it's simply that it has human DNA. Your hair follicle shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is a little bit bigger and it is not a potential person. (These days even that's not an absolute considering our new-found ability to clone humans from existing DNA, even the DNA from a hair follicle.) [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Your hair follicle is just as human as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why the following two questions become critically important to the abortion debate.
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]3. Is it a person?
[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helv]No. It's merely a potential person. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Webster's Dictionary lists a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." Anti-abortionists claim that each new fertilized zygote is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than anyone else's. In other words, if you're human, you must be a person. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Of course we've already seen that a simple hair follicle is just as human as a single-cell zygote, and, that unique DNA doesn't make the difference since two twins are not one person. It's quite obvious, then, that something else must occur to make one human being different from another. There must be something else that happens to change a DNA-patterned body into a distinct person. (Or in the case of twins, two identically DNA-patterned bodies into two distinct persons.) [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]There is, and most people inherently know it, but they have trouble verbalizing it for one very specific reason. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]The defining mark between something that is human and someone who is a person is 'consciousness.' It is the self-aware quality of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others. This self-awareness, this sentient consciousness is also what separates us from every other animal life form on the planet. We think about ourselves. We use language to describe ourselves. We are aware of ourselves as a part of the greater whole. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]The problem is that consciousness normally doesn't occur until months, even years, after a baby is born. This creates a moral dilemma for the defender of abortion rights. Indeed, they inherently know what makes a human into a person, but they are also aware such individual personhood doesn't occur until well after birth. To use personhood as an argument for abortion rights, therefore, also leads to the argument that it should be okay to kill a 3-month-old baby since it hasn't obtained consciousness either. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Anti-abortionists use this perceived problem in an attempt to prove their point. In a debate, a Pro Choice defender will rightly state that the difference between a fetus and a full-term human being is that the fetus isn't a person. The anti-abortion activist, being quite sly, will reply by asking his opponent to define what makes someone into a person. Suddenly the Pro Choice defender is at a loss for words to describe what he or she knows innately. We know it because we lived it. We know we have no memory of self-awareness before our first birthday, or even before our second. But we also quickly become aware of the "problem" we create if we say a human doesn't become a person until well after its birth. And we end up saying nothing. The anti-abortionist then takes this inability to verbalize the nature of personhood as proof of their claim that a human is a person at conception. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]But they are wrong. Their "logic" is greatly flawed. Just because someone is afraid to speak the truth doesn't make it any less true. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]And in reality, the Pro Choice defender's fear is unfounded. They are right, and they can state it without hesitation. A human indeed does not become a full person until consciousness. And consciousness doesn't occur until well after the birth of the child. But that does not automatically lend credence to the anti-abortionist's argument that it should, therefore, be acceptable to kill a three-month-old baby because it is not yet a person. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]It is still a potential person. And after birth it is an independent potential person whose existence no longer poses a threat to the physical well being of another. To understand this better, we need to look at the next question.
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]4. Is it physically independent?
[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helv]No. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence. Without the mother's life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. Throughout gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the mother's body are symbiotically linked, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. What the mother does affects the fetus. And when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child - such as in the anti-abortionist's argument above. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Physical dependence was cleverly illustrated back in 1971 by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. She created a scenario in which a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find she's been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist who, for nine months, needs her body to survive. After those nine months, the violinist can survive just fine on his own, but he must have this particular woman in order to survive until then. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Thompson then asks if the woman is morally obliged to stay connected to the violinist who is living off her body. It might be a very good thing if she did - the world could have the beauty that would come from such a violinist - but is she morally obliged to let another being use her body to survive? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]This very situation is already conceded by anti-abortionists. They claim RU-486 should be illegal for a mother to take because it causes her uterus to flush its nutrient-rich lining, thus removing a zygote from its necessary support system and, therefore, ending its short existence as a life form. Thus the anti-abortionist's own rhetoric only proves the point of absolute physical dependence. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]This question becomes even more profound when we consider a scenario where it's not an existing person who is living off the woman's body, but simply a potential person, or better yet, a single-cell zygote with human DNA that is no different than the DNA in a simple hair follicle. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]To complicate it even further, we need to realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Therefore, not only is pregnancy the prospect of having a potential person physically dependent on the body of one particular women, it also includes the women putting herself into a life-threatening situation for that potential person. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Unlike social dependence, where the mother can choose to put her child up for adoption or make it a ward of the state or hire someone else to take care of it, during pregnancy the fetus is absolutely physically dependent on the body of one woman. Unlike social dependence, where a woman's physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the path of bodily harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person - even exposing herself to the threat of death. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]This brings us to the next question: do the rights of a potential person supersede the rights of the mother to control her body and protect herself from potential life-threatening danger?
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]5. Does it have human rights?[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helv]Yes and No. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]A potential person must always be given full human rights unless its existence interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of an already existing conscious human being. Thus, a gestating fetus has no rights before birth and full rights after birth. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]If a fetus comes to term and is born, it is because the mother chooses to forgo her own rights and her own bodily security in order to allow that future person to gestate inside her body. If the mother chooses to exercise control over her own body and to protect herself from the potential dangers of childbearing, then she has the full right to terminate the pregnancy. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Anti-abortion activists are fond of saying "The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a trip down the birth canal." This flippant phrase may make for catchy rhetoric, but it doesn't belie the fact that indeed "location" makes all the difference in the world. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]It's actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other - and thus they don't have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a "right to life" to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]After birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another's right to control her body. Therefore, even though a full-term human baby may still not be a person, after birth it enjoys the full support of the law in protecting its rights. After birth its independence begs that it be protected as if it were equal to a fully-conscience human being. But before birth its lack of personhood and its threat to the women in which it resides makes abortion a completely logical and moral choice. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Which brings us to our last question, which is the real crux of the issue....
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]6. Is abortion murder?[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helv]No. Absolutely not. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Although a preemie is obviously still only a potential person, by virtue of its independence from the mother, we give it the full rights of a conscious person. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person. Older cultures used to set it at two years of age, or even older. Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we've clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]But that doesn't stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgments and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies. It's the ultimate irony that people who claim to represent a loving God resort to scare tactics and fear to support their mistaken beliefs. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]It's even worse when you consider that most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it. Even though it's not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It's hard enough as it is. Women certainly don't need others telling them it's a murder. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]It's not. On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body.
[/FONT]



[FONT=arial,helv]
[/FONT]





[FONT=arial,helv]
[/FONT]

Padawanbater2 said:

[FONT=arial,helv][SIZE=+2]All of the arguments against abortion boil down to six specific questions. The first five deal with the nature of the zygote-embryo-fetus growing inside a mother's womb. The last one looks at the morality of the practice. These questions are: [/SIZE][/FONT]

1. [FONT=arial,helv]Is it alive?[/FONT]
   [FONT=arial,helv]Is it human?[/FONT]
   [FONT=arial,helv]Is it a person?[/FONT]
   [FONT=arial,helv]Is it physically independent?[/FONT]
   [FONT=arial,helv]Does it have human rights?[/FONT]
   [FONT=arial,helv]Is abortion murder?[/FONT]
   

[FONT=arial,helv]Let's take a look at each of these questions. We'll show how anti-abortionists use seemingly logical answers to back up their cause, but then we'll show how their arguments actually support the fact that abortion is moral.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helv]1. Is it alive? [/FONT]


[FONT=arial,helv]Yes. Pro Choice supporters who claim it isn't do themselves and their cause a disservice. Of course it's alive. It's a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. "Life begins at conception" they claim. And they would be right. The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes. The single-cell zygote contains all the DNA necessary to grow into an independent, conscious human being. It is a potential person. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]But being alive does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]A single-cell ameba also coverts nutrients and oxygen into biological energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply and grow. It also contains a full set of its own DNA. It shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is not a potential person. Left to grow, it will always be an amoeba - never a human person. It is just as alive as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why we must answer the following questions as well. [/FONT]



[FONT=arial,helv]2. Is it human?[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helv]Yes. Again, Pro Choice defenders stick their feet in their mouths when they defend abortion by claiming the zygote-embryo-fetus isn't human. It is human. Its DNA is that of a human. Left to grow, it will become a full human person. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]And again, anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. They are fond of saying, "an acorn is an oak tree in an early stage of development; likewise, the zygote is a human being in an early stage of development." And they would be right. But having a full set of human DNA does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Don't believe me? Here, try this: reach up to your head, grab one strand of hair, and yank it out. Look at the base of the hair. That little blob of tissue at the end is a hair follicle. It also contains a full set of human DNA. Granted it's the same DNA pattern found in every other cell in your body, but in reality the uniqueness of the DNA is not what makes it a different person. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, and yet we don't say that one is less human than the other, nor are two twins the exact same person. It's not the configuration of the DNA that makes a zygote human; it's simply that it has human DNA. Your hair follicle shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is a little bit bigger and it is not a potential person. (These days even that's not an absolute considering our new-found ability to clone humans from existing DNA, even the DNA from a hair follicle.) [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Your hair follicle is just as human as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why the following two questions become critically important to the abortion debate. [/FONT]



[FONT=arial,helv]3. Is it a person? [/FONT]


[FONT=arial,helv]No. It's merely a potential person. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Webster's Dictionary lists a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." Anti-abortionists claim that each new fertilized zygote is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than anyone else's. In other words, if you're human, you must be a person. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Of course we've already seen that a simple hair follicle is just as human as a single-cell zygote, and, that unique DNA doesn't make the difference since two twins are not one person. It's quite obvious, then, that something else must occur to make one human being different from another. There must be something else that happens to change a DNA-patterned body into a distinct person. (Or in the case of twins, two identically DNA-patterned bodies into two distinct persons.) [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]There is, and most people inherently know it, but they have trouble verbalizing it for one very specific reason. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]The defining mark between something that is human and someone who is a person is 'consciousness.' It is the self-aware quality of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others. This self-awareness, this sentient consciousness is also what separates us from every other animal life form on the planet. We think about ourselves. We use language to describe ourselves. We are aware of ourselves as a part of the greater whole. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]The problem is that consciousness normally doesn't occur until months, even years, after a baby is born. This creates a moral dilemma for the defender of abortion rights. Indeed, they inherently know what makes a human into a person, but they are also aware such individual personhood doesn't occur until well after birth. To use personhood as an argument for abortion rights, therefore, also leads to the argument that it should be okay to kill a 3-month-old baby since it hasn't obtained consciousness either. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Anti-abortionists use this perceived problem in an attempt to prove their point. In a debate, a Pro Choice defender will rightly state that the difference between a fetus and a full-term human being is that the fetus isn't a person. The anti-abortion activist, being quite sly, will reply by asking his opponent to define what makes someone into a person. Suddenly the Pro Choice defender is at a loss for words to describe what he or she knows innately. We know it because we lived it. We know we have no memory of self-awareness before our first birthday, or even before our second. But we also quickly become aware of the "problem" we create if we say a human doesn't become a person until well after its birth. And we end up saying nothing. The anti-abortionist then takes this inability to verbalize the nature of personhood as proof of their claim that a human is a person at conception. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]But they are wrong. Their "logic" is greatly flawed. Just because someone is afraid to speak the truth doesn't make it any less true. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]And in reality, the Pro Choice defender's fear is unfounded. They are right, and they can state it without hesitation. A human indeed does not become a full person until consciousness. And consciousness doesn't occur until well after the birth of the child. But that does not automatically lend credence to the anti-abortionist's argument that it should, therefore, be acceptable to kill a three-month-old baby because it is not yet a person. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]It is still a potential person. And after birth it is an independent potential person whose existence no longer poses a threat to the physical well being of another. To understand this better, we need to look at the next question. [/FONT]



[FONT=arial,helv]4. Is it physically independent? [/FONT]


[FONT=arial,helv]No. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence. Without the mother's life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. Throughout gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the mother's body are symbiotically linked, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. What the mother does affects the fetus. And when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child - such as in the anti-abortionist's argument above. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Physical dependence was cleverly illustrated back in 1971 by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. She created a scenario in which a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find she's been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist who, for nine months, needs her body to survive. After those nine months, the violinist can survive just fine on his own, but he must have this particular woman in order to survive until then. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Thompson then asks if the woman is morally obliged to stay connected to the violinist who is living off her body. It might be a very good thing if she did - the world could have the beauty that would come from such a violinist - but is she morally obliged to let another being use her body to survive? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]This very situation is already conceded by anti-abortionists. They claim RU-486 should be illegal for a mother to take because it causes her uterus to flush its nutrient-rich lining, thus removing a zygote from its necessary support system and, therefore, ending its short existence as a life form. Thus the anti-abortionist's own rhetoric only proves the point of absolute physical dependence. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]This question becomes even more profound when we consider a scenario where it's not an existing person who is living off the woman's body, but simply a potential person, or better yet, a single-cell zygote with human DNA that is no different than the DNA in a simple hair follicle. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]To complicate it even further, we need to realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Therefore, not only is pregnancy the prospect of having a potential person physically dependent on the body of one particular women, it also includes the women putting herself into a life-threatening situation for that potential person. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Unlike social dependence, where the mother can choose to put her child up for adoption or make it a ward of the state or hire someone else to take care of it, during pregnancy the fetus is absolutely physically dependent on the body of one woman. Unlike social dependence, where a woman's physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the path of bodily harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person - even exposing herself to the threat of death. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]This brings us to the next question: do the rights of a potential person supersede the rights of the mother to control her body and protect herself from potential life-threatening danger? [/FONT]



[FONT=arial,helv]5. Does it have human rights?[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helv]Yes and No. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]A potential person must always be given full human rights unless its existence interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of an already existing conscious human being. Thus, a gestating fetus has no rights before birth and full rights after birth. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]If a fetus comes to term and is born, it is because the mother chooses to forgo her own rights and her own bodily security in order to allow that future person to gestate inside her body. If the mother chooses to exercise control over her own body and to protect herself from the potential dangers of childbearing, then she has the full right to terminate the pregnancy. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Anti-abortion activists are fond of saying "The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a trip down the birth canal." This flippant phrase may make for catchy rhetoric, but it doesn't belie the fact that indeed "location" makes all the difference in the world. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]It's actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other - and thus they don't have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a "right to life" to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]After birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another's right to control her body. Therefore, even though a full-term human baby may still not be a person, after birth it enjoys the full support of the law in protecting its rights. After birth its independence begs that it be protected as if it were equal to a fully-conscience human being. But before birth its lack of personhood and its threat to the women in which it resides makes abortion a completely logical and moral choice. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Which brings us to our last question, which is the real crux of the issue.... [/FONT]



[FONT=arial,helv]6. Is abortion murder?[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helv]No. Absolutely not. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Although a preemie is obviously still only a potential person, by virtue of its independence from the mother, we give it the full rights of a conscious person. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person. Older cultures used to set it at two years of age, or even older. Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we've clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]But that doesn't stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgments and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies. It's the ultimate irony that people who claim to represent a loving God resort to scare tactics and fear to support their mistaken beliefs. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]It's even worse when you consider that most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it. Even though it's not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It's hard enough as it is. Women certainly don't need others telling them it's a murder. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helv]It's not. On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body. [/FONT]

Click to expand...

A lot of contradictions there Pad. I specifically take issue with #4. What does physical independence have to do with killing being wrong or not? There are a lot of folks who aren't physically independent that we don't kill.

do sperms have souls?

spliffendz said:

do sperms have souls?

Click to expand...

You tell me.

do we judge the morality of an action on the merits of those upon whom it is perpetrated? of course not, we first judge the action independent of circumstances. those circumstances may mitigate the crime, but they do not erase it altogether. the majority of abortions in this country are performed simply because the pregnancy is inconvenient and that is certainly no excuse for causing the death of another. it would seem a simple matter, considering that the embryo is indeed a human, to understand that causing its death merely for the sake of convenience is immoral. "can it live independently", "can it feel pain", "does it have a personality", these are all immaterial to the central dilemma. you are choosing to cause the death of another, abrogating the social responsibility we all share to not interfere with the basic rights of others. we may wish to complicate the issue through the use of legal trickery, but there is simply no excuse left when we strip the matter down to its most fundamental terms.

undertheice said:

do we judge the morality of an action on the merits of those upon whom it is perpetrated? of course not, we first judge the action independent of circumstances. those circumstances may mitigate the crime, but they do not erase it altogether. the majority of abortions in this country are performed simply because the pregnancy is inconvenient and that is certainly no excuse for causing the death of another. it would seem a simple matter, considering that the embryo is indeed a human, to understand that causing its death merely for the sake of convenience is immoral. "can it live independently", "can it feel pain", "does it have a personality", these are all immaterial to the central dilemma. you are choosing to cause the death of another, abrogating the social responsibility we all share to not interfere with the basic rights of others. we may wish to complicate the issue through the use of legal trickery, but there is simply no excuse left when we strip the matter down to its most fundamental terms.

Click to expand...

i highlighted your dishonest debate tactics for easy identification.

if you bothered to read the damn thing, you would see the impossibility of granting the same rights to a fetus.

simply saying 'the embryo is indeed a human' is obtuse as well....thus dishonest.

and 'causing death' is a loaded term, again dishonest.

while i may agree with you that the majority of abortions are performed due to 'convenience', each and every one of those pregnancies could cause death or harm to the mother carrying the fetus. even if we did the impossible as you attempt to do and grant equal rights to the fetus, its existence may, in any and all cases, interfere with the rights of the mother carrying that fetus. thus, the rights of the mother trump all.

i find it infinitely comical that all you small government folk out there still want a government just large enough to be inside my wife's uterus. i just wonder if any of you small government guys will ever see the irony and hypocrisy as well.

besides, as johnnyo points out in other threads, it is none of your business why an abortion is being sought, it is a matter of privacy, and a matter of equal protection for all under the law. so your red herring of convenience abortions is a moot point anyway,

UncleBuck said:

i highlighted your dishonest debate tactics for easy identification.

if you bothered to read the damn thing, you would see the impossibility of granting the same rights to a fetus.

simply saying 'the embryo is indeed a human' is obtuse as well....thus dishonest.

and 'causing death' is a loaded term, again dishonest.

while i may agree with you that the majority of abortions are performed due to 'convenience', each and every one of those pregnancies could cause death or harm to the mother carrying the child. even if we did the impossible as you attempt to do and grant equal rights to the fetus, its existence may, in any and all cases, interfere with the rights of the mother carrying that fetus. thus, the rights of the mother trump all.

i find it infinitely comical that all you small government folk out there still want a government just large enough to be inside my wife's uterus. i just wonder if any of you small government guys will ever see the irony and hypocrisy as well.

Click to expand...

I don't see anybody saying abortion shouldn't be legal Buck (not yet anyways). I think it should remain legal but I abhor the act. Having an extensive medical backgroud, I have seen many instances where the fetus should be aborted to save the mother. I see nothing wrong with that. I do see something wrong with trying to use flimsy justification to make it seem "OK". What's wrong with that?

doc111 said:

I don't see anybody saying abortion shouldn't be legal Buck (not yet anyways). I think it should remain legal but I abhor the act. Having an extensive medical backgroud, I have seen many instances where the fetus should be aborted to save the mother. I see nothing wrong with that. I do see something wrong with trying to use flimsy justification to make it seem "OK". What's wrong with that?

Click to expand...

i am with you...i do not want to make it seem "OK" and for many reasons would like to see the number of abortions sharply reduced.

but it is not too long of a road from 'granting equal rights to a fetus' to get to 'abortion should be illegal'.

i will be watching what colorado voters do this year closely...i believe they have an initiative on their ballot that grants equal rights to a fetus. it is the backdoor way in to prohibiting abortion.

EDIT- i do not see my 'life of the mother' argument as flimsy. as someone with a medical background, would you ever definitively preclude the possibility that a pregnancy may harm or cause death to the mother?

UncleBuck said:

simply saying 'the embryo is indeed a human' is obtuse as well....thus dishonest.

Click to expand...

that embryo you so quickly dismiss has all of the components to be every bit the person you are (probably a bit more so), all arranged as they should be and buzzing merrily along. all that is required is that the mother fulfill the responsibility inherent in allowing herself to become pregnant.

and 'causing death' is a loaded term, again dishonest.

Click to expand...

loaded? can you deny that it is a living creature and you are choosing to destroy it? this is no simple parasite to be excised from the body. this is the creation of another human being, the direct result of choice made by its parents and, therefore, their responsibility.

while i may agree with you that the majority of abortions are performed due to 'convenience', each and every one of those pregnancies could cause death or harm to the mother carrying the fetus. even if we did the impossible as you attempt to do and grant equal rights to the fetus, its existence may, in any and all cases, interfere with the rights of the mother carrying that fetus. thus, the rights of the mother trump all.

Click to expand...

now who's being dishonest? that fool driving next to you in the fast lane might lose control and kill us all, so we should kill him to protect ourselves. i could drop this cigarette i'm smoking and start a fire that would destroy the neighborhood, so i should be killed to protect my neighbors. i think we all know that living strictly by worst case scenarios is an untenable situation that leads only to tyranny from those who would protect us from danger.

as for the rights of the mother, those rights carry with them equal responsibilities. our every action demands that we be responsible for its repercussions, paying the penalties as well as reaping the rewards. the comfort of one can hardly be seen justification for the death of another.

i find it infinitely comical that all you small government folk out there still want a government just large enough to be inside my wife's uterus. i just wonder if any of you small government guys will ever see the irony and hypocrisy as well.

Click to expand...

and i find it rather disturbing that the mindless liberal drones who would extend our rights to include every convenience are unwilling to bestow the least of those rights on the most defenseless. government's primary duty is the protection of the lives of its citizens, to keep others from infringing on the very reason we are able to have any rights at all. your wife's innards are of no concern to anyone else until they become an integral part of the life of another. then both lives should be taken into consideration.

doc111 said:

I don't see anybody saying abortion shouldn't be legal Buck (not yet anyways). I think it should remain legal but I abhor the act. Having an extensive medical backgroud, I have seen many instances where the fetus should be aborted to save the mother. I see nothing wrong with that. I do see something wrong with trying to use flimsy justification to make it seem "OK". What's wrong with that?

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

i am with you...i do not want to make it seem "OK" and for many reasons would like to see the number of abortions sharply reduced.

but it is not too long of a road from 'granting equal rights to a fetus' to get to 'abortion should be illegal'.

i will be watching what colorado voters do this year closely...i believe they have an initiative on their ballot that grants equal rights to a fetus. it is the backdoor way in to prohibiting abortion.

EDIT- i do not see my 'life of the mother' argument as flimsy. as someone with a medical background, would you ever definitively preclude the possibility that a pregnancy may harm or cause death to the mother?

Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to "harming or causing death to the mother" being a flimsy excuse, see, I quoted and highlighted the part where I say I'm ok with that. I was referring to a couple of the justifications in the OP. I've seen aborted fetuses, both spontaneous and medically aborted. They sure as fuck look like babies to me, albeit small ones. I have wept, and I'm not ashamed to say it, for every child, unborn or living, which I have had the misfortune of seeing pass. It's one of the hardest things to deal with that there is Buck.

you may seldom engage in these debates because your points are weak, but thanks for keeping it civil. i promise i will try to do the same.

undertheice said:

that embryo you so quickly dismiss has all of the components to be every bit the person you are (probably a bit more so), all arranged as they should be and buzzing merrily along. all that is required is that the mother fulfill the responsibility inherent in allowing herself to become pregnant.

Click to expand...

i take issue with you asserting that for every pregnancy, the mother ALLOWED herself to become pregnant. it is possible to become pregnant even using birth control adamantly. and then, there are cases of rape...

and if you bothered to read the op, you would not be so quick to use the talking point the embryo has all the components to be the same person as you and i, because i could make the same argument about a hair on my head. it has all the components to be a doppleganger me as well. should we make haircuts illegal? if i get into a car accident and bleed, should my blood be given a proper funeral? my blood contains the dna sequence needed to make a human being, too.

undertheice said:

loaded? can you deny that it is a living creature and you are choosing to destroy it? this is no simple parasite to be excised from the body. this is the creation of another human being, the direct result of choice made by its parents and, therefore, their responsibility.

Click to expand...

again, it is not always a choice. sometimes, pregnancy happens by accident, despite use of birth control, or by rape. unless, of course, you want to argue against all sexual relations except in the name of procreation. good luck enforcing that one!

and yes, a fetus is, by definition, a parasite.

undertheice said:

now who's being dishonest? that fool driving next to you in the fast lane might lose control and kill us all, so we should kill him to protect ourselves. i could drop this cigarette i'm smoking and start a fire that would destroy the neighborhood, so i should be killed to protect my neighbors. i think we all know that living strictly by worst case scenarios is an untenable situation that leads only to tyranny from those who would protect us from danger.

Click to expand...

if the guy is driving in a way to endanger, he can be cited or his license revoked. if you practice irresponsible cigarette extinguishing techniques, you may be made to pay for your damage, or i could give you a sandy ashtray. but you can not make a pregnancy not endanger the life of the mother. the fetus has no control over that, the smoker and the speeder do.

ha, tyranny. most overused buzz word of tea partiers and ultra righties alike this year.

undertheice said:

and i find it rather disturbing that the mindless liberal drones who would extend our rights to include every convenience are unwilling to bestow the least of those rights on the most defenseless. government's primary duty is the protection of the lives of its citizens, to keep others from infringing on the very reason we are able to have any rights at all. your wife's innards are of no concern to anyone else until they become an integral part of the life of another. then both lives should be taken into consideration.

Click to expand...

you said it all right there. the mother is a citizen, the fetus is not. the fetus does not get a social security number or become a citizen with equal rights until it is born.

thus, the rights of the mother TRUMP.

furthermore, forcing all women to carry to term is a misogynistic stance. not only is complications from pregnancy one of the top killers of women, it is a patriarchal method of keeping them at home with a baby while men, undisturbed by the prospect of a pregnancy, get to go out and do their business in the world. i could go on and on with my anti-patriarchal assaults, but that is all for now.

doc111 said:

I wasn't referring to "harming or causing death to the mother" being a flimsy excuse, see, I quoted and highlighted the part where I say I'm ok with that. I was referring to a couple of the justifications in the OP. I've seen aborted fetuses, both spontaneous and medically aborted. They sure as fuck look like babies to me, albeit small ones. I have wept, and I'm not ashamed to say it, for every child, unborn or living, which I have had the misfortune of seeing pass. It's one of the hardest things to deal with that there is Buck.

Click to expand...

i don't doubt that i would do the same.

despite my vehement arguing for reproductive rights, i shutter to think how i would feel if my wife told me tomorrow that she was pregnant.

UncleBuck said:

i don't doubt that i would do the same.

despite my vehement arguing for reproductive rights, i shutter to think how i would feel if my wife told me tomorrow that she was pregnant.

Click to expand...

I copy and pasted this article for ya Buck.

http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

Why a fetus or embryo is not a parasite

1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
   b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
2. a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source. b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite. b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.). b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
5. a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human). b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.) b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
7. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce. b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
8. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives). b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

[This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology. This is reprinted, with the author's permission, from the National Right to Life News, April-May, 1974. It also appears in "The Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life," by Scientists for Life. $1.75 plus postage for two ounces for each copy to: Sun Life, 2399 Cool Springs Road, Thaxton, VA 24174, 540/586-4898.]
Note: When some people claim preborn children are parasites, they mean "parasite" in its pejorative, that is, in its social-ethical sense. Prof. Johnson's article addresses only the biological meaning of "parasite." Libertarians for Life responds to the pejorative sense in other articles. Briefly, as libertarians, we strongly agree that women as well as men have the right to control their own bodies. Nonetheless, we hold that under principles of individual liberty, parents have the obligation to support their dependent children. Our children have a right to our support, whether they are in the crib or in the womb.
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]

UncleBuck said:

you may seldom engage in these debates because your points are weak

Click to expand...

you may consider the stance that the killing of others is morally wrong to be weak, but many folks hold their morality to be above even the laws of the land. the will of the selfish mob can hold sway over legislation. the scientific community may allow agenda to lead it astray. religion may falter and even our daily decisions may be in error. all that matters is whether you can sit back at the end of the day, satisfied that your beliefs have led you to no actions detrimental to others and that maybe you have done a bit of good. abortion satisfies neither of these requirements.

i take issue with you asserting that for every pregnancy, the mother ALLOWED herself to become pregnant.

Click to expand...

so we are taking the road of exception once again. every discussion on abortion always leads us to rape, incest and that 1% of the time when properly used contraceptives fail (i could be wrong, but i believe the failure rate is right around there). those exceptions become a matter of personal decision and must be looked at outside of the general question of whether abortion is moral or not. the simple fact is that sex leads inevitably to pregnancy. if the choice is made to engage in that most pleasurable experience, those involved must realize the possibility of that outcome and take responsibility for it. if no choice is made then there can be no responsibility, but we must understand that even inaction may be seen as choice.

and if you bothered to read the op, you would not be so quick to use the talking point the embryo has all the components to be the same person as you and i, because i could make the same argument about a hair on my head.

Click to expand...

without extreme measures that hair on your head or even an entire arm could never be anything more than a hunk of dead cells. they are mere pieces of a person that must die when shed. an embryo is something quite different. it is neither a part of one parent nor the other, but a bit of both that is a separate entity unto itself.

a fetus is, by definition, a parasite.

Click to expand...

i suppose the argument could be made that both you and i are nothing but parasites. i noticed that doc has already gone into this in detail, so i won't add anything other than that it is a sorry state of affairs when we begin to consider our children as parasites.

you said it all right there. the mother is a citizen, the fetus is not. the fetus does not get a social security number or become a citizen with equal rights until it is born.
thus, the rights of the mother TRUMP.

Click to expand...

i'm certain that my neighbor is in this country illegally. he isn't a citizen, can i go over and shoot him because his barking dog keeps me awake all night? the rights of anyone end once we enter into the realm of ending another's life.

furthermore, forcing all women to carry to term is a misogynistic stance.

Click to expand...

the great battle cry of radical feminism is that anyone who dares to limit the functions of a woman in society is a misogynist. no man is allowed to pass judgment on those realms which are distinctly a matter of womanhood. as with most other downtrodden minorities, the mantle of victimhood is donned proudly and questioning its validity is considered a mark of bigotry. the simple fact is that we all have our limitations and we have even more limitations imposed on us by agreeing to live within a society.

while the ethos of our society may affect the regulations we are forced to live under, our personal moralities often differ greatly from the compromises we must make for the sake of community. the premise of this thread, that abortion is a moral alternative, is a direct result of those compromises. we hem and haw over the definitions of "life", we weigh the rights and desires of one group against another, we allow the demands of the mob to overbalance the scale and come to the conclusion that no woman should be held accountable for the results of this particular action. in a society that would scream if i were to crush a puppy underfoot, we glorify the right of women to deny the duty inherent in this action and betray their unborn children. i'm certainly no adherent to the concept of the sanctity of life, but neither am i so callous as to find any good in its wanton destruction. call me misogynist if you like and i'm certain that there are those who will consider it hypocrisy because of the impossibility, but these are the same standards i would hold myself to in a similar situation.

in the end, it doesn't matter what i think. we all just attempt to interpret societal mores as best we can and adapt our own viewpoints to get along.

undertheice said:

you may consider the stance that the killing of others is morally wrong to be weak, but many folks hold their morality to be above even the laws of the land. the will of the selfish mob can hold sway over legislation. the scientific community may allow agenda to lead it astray. religion may falter and even our daily decisions may be in error. all that matters is whether you can sit back at the end of the day, satisfied that your beliefs have led you to no actions detrimental to others and that maybe you have done a bit of good. abortion satisfies neither of these requirements.

so we are taking the road of exception once again. every discussion on abortion always leads us to rape, incest and that 1% of the time when properly used contraceptives fail (i could be wrong, but i believe the failure rate is right around there). those exceptions become a matter of personal decision and must be looked at outside of the general question of whether abortion is moral or not. the simple fact is that sex leads inevitably to pregnancy. if the choice is made to engage in that most pleasurable experience, those involved must realize the possibility of that outcome and take responsibility for it. if no choice is made then there can be no responsibility, but we must understand that even inaction may be seen as choice.

without extreme measures that hair on your head or even an entire arm could never be anything more than a hunk of dead cells. they are mere pieces of a person that must die when shed. an embryo is something quite different. it is neither a part of one parent nor the other, but a bit of both that is a separate entity unto itself.

i suppose the argument could be made that both you and i are nothing but parasites. i noticed that doc has already gone into this in detail, so i won't add anything other than that it is a sorry state of affairs when we begin to consider our children as parasites.

i'm certain that my neighbor is in this country illegally. he isn't a citizen, can i go over and shoot him because his barking dog keeps me awake all night? the rights of anyone end once we enter into the realm of ending another's life.

the great battle cry of radical feminism is that anyone who dares to limit the functions of a woman in society is a misogynist. no man is allowed to pass judgment on those realms which are distinctly a matter of womanhood. as with most other downtrodden minorities, the mantle of victimhood is donned proudly and questioning its validity is considered a mark of bigotry. the simple fact is that we all have our limitations and we have even more limitations imposed on us by agreeing to live within a society.

while the ethos of our society may affect the regulations we are forced to live under, our personal moralities often differ greatly from the compromises we must make for the sake of community. the premise of this thread, that abortion is a moral alternative, is a direct result of those compromises. we hem and haw over the definitions of "life", we weigh the rights and desires of one group against another, we allow the demands of the mob to overbalance the scale and come to the conclusion that no woman should be held accountable for the results of this particular action. in a society that would scream if i were to crush a puppy underfoot, we glorify the right of women to deny the duty inherent in this action and betray their unborn children. i'm certainly no adherent to the concept of the sanctity of life, but neither am i so callous as to find any good in its wanton destruction. call me misogynist if you like and i'm certain that there are those who will consider it hypocrisy because of the impossibility, but these are the same standards i would hold myself to in a similar situation.

in the end, it doesn't matter what i think. we all just attempt to interpret societal mores as best we can and adapt our own viewpoints to get along.

Click to expand...

Once again, brilliant post!

I want to go on the record saying I am deeply offended that anyone would liken a human embryo or fetus to a parasite! So please stop with the parasite shit Buck! It's incredibly flimsy justification, and what's more, it's plain wrong!

medicineman said:

So, is sperm considered a 1/2 a person? If so, I'm pretty sure most of us men have committed mass murder on millions if not billions of 1/2 people. Could they give us 1/2 the death penalty. The arguement that the zygote is a person is pretty lame. There are many conflicting thoughts about when the fetus becomes a person, from conception to birth. I usually don't argue abortion, it is a messy subject and everyone has their own specific Ideas, and it seems that they will argue it to the end. Myself, not being a woman really precludes me from making the call. I see it as a womans rights issue. The procedure may be horrible, I've seen the results, but ruining a womans life over a bad decision or circumstance beyond her control, (Rape/incest etc.) seems more destructive.

Click to expand...

A sperm is a single cell, which is no more a person than Buck's weak examples of fingernail clippings and hair cuttings or whatever it was. What about the ovum? Is letting it not become fertilized each month child neglect? Don't be absurd med (although I know it's your stock in trade). Life would seemingly begin once the sperm successfully fertilizes the ovum. It's a very simple scientific concept and I don't understand why some people want to complicate it. When we as a society place a value on that life is what the debate is really about anyways, IMO of course.

doc111 said:

It's a very simple scientific concept and I don't understand why some people want to complicate it.

Click to expand...

just as with every other issue we find transformed into a gigantic legal mess, we complicate it to avoid our responsibilities. if we can convince ourselves that we have no duties, we can live without fear of having failed in them.

doc111 said:

I appreciate what you're doing but would you please take that photo down. We had a guy banned on here for posting abortion pics and it's pretty disturbing. I'll delete this post afterwards. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I deleted the post. You can google images of abortions. It is highly disturbing and I probably shouldn't have posted one. Just hits a nerve when these babies get dismissed as being a nothing. Just look at them and how can you argue they are not human and deserve life.

doc111 said:

A sperm is a single cell, which is no more a person than Buck's weak examples of fingernail clippings and hair cuttings or whatever it was. What about the ovum? Is letting it not become fertilized each month child neglect? Don't be absurd med (although I know it's your stock in trade). Life would seemingly begin once the sperm successfully fertilizes the ovum. It's a very simple scientific concept and I don't understand why some people want to complicate it. When we as a society place a value on that life is what the debate is really about anyways, IMO or course.

Click to expand...

So that's your view. I'm not going to call you absured, as you so blatantly refer to me as, some others have different views, are they absured also or are you just singling me out. As for the 1/2 person malarky, it was an attempt at levity in a hot subject. Your inability to recognize this, speaks volumns about you.