But that's probably an incomplete description of your thoughts, because I'm betting that you'd require a better reason than "I can't take care of him" to kill a toddler, no?

Cute, useless, and deserving of the law's protection.

It absolutely should be legal. I don't want the government forcing their ideals and morals on my body.

The fallacy of this anti-choice position is the attempt to impose the morality of "life begins at conception" as the only valid moral position.

As a liberal, I'm rather alone in that I believe that abortion shouldn't be regarded any different than infanticide, and the distinction drawn between 1 second before and after passing through the birth canal is truly arbitrary and carries with it a frightening reality about the perception of life by some people.

"Where life begins" isn't a philosophical question. It's a scientific question and then proceeding that a moral question. There are right and wrong answers for these questions. Sperm and ovum are not alive, but become a living organism upon fertilization and then incubation. In that period between fertilization and incubation is where the tissue and cells go from being not alive to being alive. As soon as it becomes human, it becomes a part of a species that can achieve homeostasis, can metabolize, can grow, can adapt, can respond to stimuli, and can reproduce.

Aside from that, abortions, except in cases of rape, are a supreme act of irresponsibility and cowardice. If you don't want or have the ability to raise a child, don't have sex without protection (I'd never use less than three: pill, condom, spermacide). Pretty simple, right? Apparently not.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/new...nancy-6239.htm

People need to learn to be responsible. That's the lesson to take away from most abortions.

I'm not saying it isn't difficult for the mother to abort, of course, but why do you think it's difficult? Aside from the physical pain, it stands to reason that it may be guilt. In my HS, there were several abortions, and each of them felt extreme guilt over aborting the child. I did a paper back in school where I remember speaking to several women who had abortions who explained that they wished they either hadn't aborted the child or wish they had been responsible in the first place.

Totally, but the point still remains.

I updated/edited my original post while you were posting this one.

Slow down, killer. My brain operates at like... 386 speed. ;)

will...its absolutely a personal philosophical and moral question. There is no scientific or medical consensus that a sentient human life begins at conception or fertilization or incubation.

I agree with DC. Absolutely. Life isn't a heartbeat. Life is a state of mind, something that only the individual can define.

I have a very... heartless... idea of the value of human life.

My idea of human life is different than many who perhaps don't really stop to think about it in a practical sense. I believe that middle-of-life adults are worth more than children. My thoughts are such that I believe people aren't people until they're walking around outside the womanhole.

I'm not wrong because there is no right. I'm not wrong because I'm alive.

I'd suggest that abortion is a part of freedom. The freedom to not bring a life into the world that one doesn't desire.

The only reason there is no consensus is the same reason that religion is listed as an exception to delusion in the DSM IV, it's science giving in to faith. The reality is really, really simple. Sperm and egg are not alive because they are not of a species that can:
The fetus is human. That's the only statement necessary in the whole debate. The fetus is human, and is therefore a member of a species that can
And I realize I just lumped in pro life with religion. That's how I roll.

From the online medical dictionary:

fetus -->
foetus

<biology, embryology, obstetrics> A developing unborn offspring of an animal that gives birth to its young (as opposed to laying eggs).

From approximately three months after conception the offspring take on a recognisable form (all parts in place, etc.). In human development, the period after the seventh or eighth week of pregnancy is the foetal period.

or:

Fetus
The unborn offspring of any viviparous mammals, in the postembryonic period, after the major structures have been outlined.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary...md.asp?q=fetus

or:

fe·tus (fts)
n. pl. fe·tus·es
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fetus

will...if you believe a living organism is a fetus at conception/fertilization, I would suggest that the medical consensus does not agree with you.

You'll have to go into some detail on why that's a fallacy. I don't think it is.

IMO its a fallacy to impose one moral standard as the only moral position that can or should be considered in the discussion.

In the discussion? Well, that's different. There's no sense in blocking an entire group of viewpoints from entering a discussion. I don't share this fallacy.

I don't understand why you associate it with the pro-life viewpoint, though. There's plenty of "la-la-la, I can't hear you" on both sides.

But not so much for scientific/medical reasons as for arbitrary definitional reasons. It's not science that's in opposition to will here. How does one use the scientific process to determine that a thing must have attributes X, Y, and Z in order to be considered a living organism?

Or, to cut right to the chase, why do these attributes need to exist before the organism becomes worthy of legal protection?

When it comes right down to it, science can only clarify facts. We get the values elsewhere.

I used the term "incubation".

It's only a moral case after you've established a consensus about when life is life. It's not fallacious in the least either way. I'd say the only real fallacies in this thread are the various appeals to emotion and false choices made by both sides.

So, what is a person?
 

A person has rights, a parasite does not.

What's the difference?

Do you mean why do humans have rights that animals don't?

I mean what is the difference between when a human fetus is considered a parasite (as some have said) and when it is considered a person such that it is endowed with legal rights?

On what basis is this distinction made?

For example, if location with respect to the birth canal is the determining factor, i.e. being "born", then consider the so called "partial birth abortion" in which most of the fetus is actually outside the mother's body, and the brains are sucked out while the head is still inside. From this, one might infer that it is the location of the head with respect to the birth canal that is the determining factor, not the rest of the body.

Is this how we determine personhood or is there something less dependent on circumstances involved?

Grow men and women are parasites on other people (remember Kato Kaelin?). That doesn't stop them from being human. It just describes their current method of deriving something while harming the host, be it food or fame. In actuality, I would suggest that the relationship between mother an unborn child is commensalistic (sp?), meaning that both host and guest eat together without harming one another, and aegistic, meaning that the guest is protected by the host without the host being harmed. They live in a relationship where one isn't really harmed. There are processes of change in both organisms, of course, but calling them harmful is tricky.
Because one can be a parasite and human, a distinction cannot be certain.
? What?

you said "...men and women are parasites on other people...That doesn't stop them from being human."

No one is asserting that fetuses are not living or not human. The question is about them being persons with legal rights.

In this age of genetic engineering, a chimera might contain mostly human DNA, blended with some other species, but will it be a person? Is the DNA complement the issue? Is so, how is the humanness of that DNA determined so the person-ness can be ascribed?

As for the issue of having "birth" be the issue, as the law seems to dictate, what exactly does it mean to be "born" and is this really the issue that should determine if a fetus changes into a person at that point?

That's rather surprising. Normally in a conversation about whether a fetus should or shouldn't be aborted comes down to whether the fetus is alive. The question of whether an alive person does or doesn't have rights is so obvious that it's not even brought up. It's naturally assumed.
There are two classifications for living human being as far as levels of rights: adult (usually 18+) or child (usually less than 18). Assuming you believe a fetus is alive, it is a living human being under the age of 18, therefore it seems reasonable to be that a fetus gets the same rights as any other child. They can't vote, but you can't kill them.

IMHO. (btw, to DC, all the above is IMHO. I hope that you know the above is what makes perfect sense, to me).
Monkeys share most DNA with humans, but that doesn't make them human in any way. They have animal right because they aren't of the species homo sapiens. Scientists at the University of Rochester recently discovered a copy of the genome of a bacterial parasite residing inside the genome of its host species. That doesn't mean they're the same species, though.
Birth is the passing of the fetus through the vaginal cavity or through an incision, alive. The fetus turns into an infant. They are a living member of our species before and after that process (unless something goes wrong).

I would recommend reading this article , to anyone seriously interested in figuring out what this debate boils down to. Though I admit a Bias because of the author, I find the arguments compelling and fair.

A small Excerpt:
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

And my favorite part:

That's a good read, Tec. Also, the author is a genius!

Using brain capability as a marker as to what is or isn't human, I would wonder how certain individuals who are mentally disabled would measure up to a child at around 30 weeks. I would suggest that it is moral not to kill people who are mentally disabled, but I wonder how they might relate to this discussion.

Thats one of the finer points the debate brings out...Lets Call it " the Terry Shivo argument". It seems to me there are two differing pieces involved here, One focused on the Fetus, and another on the ability to think. Both aspects are best dealt with by allowing a guardian to make decisions. But must of course be tempered by societal laws placed to forbid going to extremes. Once an agreed upon baseline for thought has been established, I would hope we could clarify the vast majority of cases and allow for uniform implementation of a standard for care. There will however, always be exceptions to any law created by man...it should be expected.

We must also consider the actual wiring required in the first place, as I would think a mentally challenged individual has at least managed to form the connections to the brain, and has some measurable activity within the organ. Damage to the brain may however, make these connections pointless in the context of thought.

Willtravel,

You said "Normally in a conversation about whether a fetus should or shouldn't be aborted comes down to whether the fetus is alive. The question of whether an alive person does or doesn't have rights is so obvious that it's not even brought up. It's naturally assumed."

You are using the terms "fetus" and "person" interchangeably, and this is precisely the point of under consideration. "Fetus" is a medical term, "person" is a legal term. A fetus is not a person until it is legally recognized as such.

You said "There are two classifications for living human being as far as levels of rights: adult (usually 18+) or child (usually less than 18). Assuming you believe a fetus is alive, it is a living human being under the age of 18, therefore it seems reasonable to be that a fetus gets the same rights as any other child. They can't vote, but you can't kill them."

This brings up the other term that comes up, "child". Legally, a "child" has already been born. Some like to use the term "unborn child", but in the legal context of the word "child", "unborn child" is an oxymoron. That's like saying "un-mature adult".

As for DNA, from your comment I infer that you would agree that DNA is not the basis on which to determine "personhood", is that correct?

Lets say 30 weeks is when your brain 'kicks in'.

So what.

My son was born at 26 weeks. I suppose I had the right to kill him for the next four?

Ustwo,

You said "Lets say 30 weeks is when your brain 'kicks in'. So what."

Exactly. Why should brain development be a factor in determining the legal status of personhood? I infer from your remark that you would not endorse any arbitrary stage in fetal development as the criteria for establishing "personhood" under the law. Is that correct?

If so, what criteria do you suggest?

Of course. I think that the same rules applied to poor Terry should be applied to the fetus. If it's in pain and it's going to die, then it can be aborted. I don't think anyone would argue that point.
Yeah. I'm not a medical expert of any kind, so I can't compare developmental points of a fetus' brain to that of any level of individual who was born with a mental disability.

I don't see intellect as a qualifier for the right to live. And I do believe that humans have a right to live.
Willravel. :D
I thought you were using person in a philosophical or moral sense. My mistake.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1516&bold=||||

The American legal term is either homo sapiens (derived from definition 1) or a corporation. As a fetus is homo sapiens, it is a person, legally.
Actually, I made another mistake. It's adult and minor, so far as the law goes. A minor is quite literally anyone under the age of 18. A fetus is under the age of 18. That is not incorrect. "Fetus" does not have a legal meaning.
Apples and oranges.

BTW, if you're interested in using the quote feature, one only needs to end with [/QUOTE] and begin with [QUOTE]

I might be me misinterpreting your position, but the only way one could consider a fetus a 'parasite' would be in the cases of rape and, last I checked, less than .03% of all abortions done were due to rape. The overwhelming majority are done because of "Unreadiness to be a parent", to which I say they shouldn't be having sex if they can't handle the consequences.

...But that's just too hard of a concept for people to understand :orly:.

I enjoy agreeing with those I don't usually agree with. I couldn't agree more.

Yeah...it does seem we humans have a genetic perpensity to try to reproduce....as do all creatures. Unfortunately (Or fortunately) we also like to practice quite a bit.

Its hardwired into our brains dude....can't really change that.

So is killing to eat. We manage to avoid that for the most part. I mean I've only killed a few fish, and it bored me stupid.

Also, you can have sex with protection and greatly reduce the probability of pregnancy. The reality is that some people simple aren't responsible.

The majority of abortions (over 90%) are done in the first trimester and most of those in the first 8 week before fetal development.

It still gets down to when life begins and that is a moral issue and since there is no medical consensus, IMO, should be left to the woman.

To anti-choice folks, I would still ask why your belief on when life begins should be imposed on those who believe otherwise.

Sure you can. I like to call it 'self-control'. What really irks me the most, though, is this: In 2005, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15 – 44 had an abortion (5%) and 48% of those women had at least one previous abortion. That means that approximately 1 women out of 100 aged 15 - 44 who had an abortion in 2005 also had a previous one. Put another way, nearly half of all women who had an abortion done in 2005 had at least one previous abortion.

(Taken from the previous page, because I don't think anyone read it.)

Link to abortion statistics for 2005.

Run through that link. You'll find that the two most popular responses given for having abortions are "Can't afford a baby right now", "Having a baby would change my life", "I'm mentally unready for a baby" and/or "I have too many children already". Since when did it become okay to be irresponsible?

Furthermore, if a man would try to use any of the above responses, he would be laughed at and be told that he should have kept his pants on. So why not hold women to the same standards?

Maybe the standards would rightfully be the same when men can get pregnant :)
'
And you still havent answered why your moral belief on when life begins should be imposed on women who have a different belief.

If you think abortion is wrong, then don't have one.

Also, if you are willing to force a woman to have a child, you should be first in line to adopt that baby once it is born.

No, the imposition really is a matter of perspective. It's an imposition when a police officer pulls me over for going 120 on hwy 101. I'm not likely to crash. I don't do it when there's other traffic, and it's my car (my car, my choice). Still, they pull me over and no one questions it. No one calls it an imposition, which really is the reality. The majority of those who speed don't get in accidents, too.

The thing is: it's my perspective. When I start driving fast, it's actually me who's imposing my perspective on others who might be around me or who love me (if I do crash, they get sad... hopefully).

Relating that to abortion, the mother is forcing her perspective on the fetus who can't defend him or herself, by killing it. I recognize this is a catch-22. I do have to say the "my body my choice thing" is rather weak, though. Just because something is living inside you doesn't mean it's your property. That's a completely unreasonable statement. If it were reasonable, I'd walk into a very nice jewelry shop, ask to see the finest platinum, 4 karat rings, turn around, put them in a condom, and eat them. It's in my body, after all.

Done.

will....you are ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions are pre-fetal.

It still comes down to when the collection of cells becomes a living sentient being with rights and that is a moral choice.

Here's a better question which no one answered: Why are they having sex if they can't deal with the consequences? Didn't we all learn that life is full of choices, and there are always consequences-- Good or bad-- For those choices?

Whereas it comes to children, men are held far more accountable than their female counterparts. Can you imagine what would happen if a man showed up in court and said "I shouldn't have to take care of that baby, as I'm just not ready to be a father!"?

I'll support abortion the day men can willingly decide to NOT pay child support without being hounded by the government.

Sorry, but I dont see how that is a better question, but rather an attempt to ignore the question of why your moral belief on when life begins should be imposed on society as a whole.

Which is why we're still at zero on this one.

And I misused the word fetus. Apologies. I intended to say unborn child, meaning the human life form that exists between fertilization (zygote) and birth. That's including but not limited to fetus.

As IL pointed out, though the irresponsible behavior is the cause of the whole issue (except in .03% of the cases).

How about it's immoral to have intercourse someone without adequate protection when you aren't willing or able to raise a child? Wouldn't you call that immoral behavior?

So....back to the male perspective of domination over every situation. Ever think about what this means to the women that must carry a child?