Mississippi voters have a chance to eliminate women's rights

[UCUMAY]

The CDC data presented quite explicitly refers to the mortality rate of childbirth. The ACLJ is conflating that with the mortality rate of pregnancy. The CDC quite clearly says that the latter uses different methodology than that which calculates the mortality rate of abortion. They do not say that the calculations of the mortality rate of childbirth use different methodology than the calculations of the mortality rate of abortion. They do not mention it at all.

Of course, this is assuming that all the information presented is accurate. Given how nonsensical and useless the calculations the ACLJ presents are, and how ridiculous it would be for any statistician to use them, I am guessing either mathematical illiteracy on the part of the ACLJ, or malice.

I'd normally go with the former, but I've learned that giving organizations created for the explicit reason of instituting a theocracy the benefit of the doubt is generally a waste of time.

So I'm getting a pat on the back?

[Wiztopia]

Well, I have never been a big fan of moral or ethical debate; however I beleive this issue uses emotion to cloud biological fact. For instance: Drawing any "moral line" immediatly after fertilization seems to veer away from the fact that untill implentation the mothers body does not even recognize pregnancy (since pregnancy has not yet occured). Calling a cluster of ES cells involved in an intricate dance of embryogenesis & morphogenesis "a human life" is a gross exaggeration. To quote Dr. Michael West "human life, not a human life." An important distinction.

Like I said, a pro-lifer doesn't need a strong emotional appeal to defend the case. They could defend the case simply on the basis of "I'm just not very certain." If you did not feel qualified to make an ethical exemption, then you could very well defend an unemotional case of "I'm just erring on the side of caution. I don't want to accidentally murder anyone simply because I misjudged the lines of who 'anyone' is allowed to be." (Remember that many pro-lifers are essentially ethical platonists: whether due to divine command moralities or something else, they believe that there is a 'true morality' which our ethics attempts to approximate.)

In this particular case, a pro-lifer can say without emotional appeals, "yes, the blastocyst has indeed been alive and growing for about a week before it implants in the mother's body, maybe having roughly 100 cells before it starts to flood her with the hormones that we'd use to test for pregnancy. But doesn't this just make things more uncertain? If we leave issues about contraceptives aside, at around four weeks the embryo will have a head, body, amniotic sac, heart, liver, and buds where its limbs are going to form. I cannot feel certain that this is truly 'human life' as opposed to 'a human life.' So you guys might feel very smug about how at fertilization it's just an egg with a sperm inside of it -- why should it be so different? -- but by the time abortion crops up I just don't see how you can be so certain that you're not killing another human being."

At any rate, 24 weeks would remain the accepted limit. So no, I do not understand what you are getting at(just the way we speak where I live, please dont patronize ). Since it seems you are just summerizing a commonly held beleif among pro-choicers...Could have missread though.
Again, kindle so im sorry if its hard to read.

There are a couple of different things that are going on here, and I suppose they do get a little confusing. (1) There are my own beliefs. Those aren't particularly relevant to this discussion, but I am broadly pro-choice for arguments which most pro-choicers would reject. These concern such things as neural development in fetuses, which is what you're talking about. (2) There is the argument that I am presenting to Wiztopia. This is meant to show that pro-lifers are not ipso facto irrational -- that is, they can certainly have reasons and an unemotional, logical basis for their beliefs. The one that I m defending says, basically, "a line has to be drawn somewhere, and the penalty for drawing the line too far on the mother's side is that we inadvertently commit murder, so let's err on the fetus's side instead." (3) There are the dogmatic assertions from Wiztopia that I am criticizing -- ideas like "emotions have no place in ethics" and "mothers would have a right to abort a viable, non-life-threatening fetus even when a C-section delivery is possible and/or preferable, because she has a right to choice which trumps any rights which a fetus might have."

Now, if you're talking about (2) being agreeable, well, it's supposed to be. It is very important in considering and framing an argument that the argument has agreeable premises. When this doesn't happen we sometimes call it begging the question, with the most obvious example being a 'circular argument' which begs its own conclusion as the question. The issue is this: arguments are supposed to be potentially convincing. There may be some people who simply fail to see the world from anyone else's perspective or so, and fail to be swayed by arguments, but broadly, when you make an argument, it should start from some sort of "shared ground" which people might generally agree on.

It is also important in this particular context: I am trying to defend that one can hold a pro-life view reasonably, and to do this I am starting with a (putatively) reasonable pro-choice foundation, and showing how a reasonable argument might convince someone of another side. Wiztopia's response has apparently been that this starting pro-choice foundation is absolutely horrid and unreasonable and anti-scientific and whatever else have you. So my (3)-statements have been focused on trying to be as reasonable as possible while advocating these common pro-choice views.

But I think you're talking about (1) being agreeable. In this case, this is probably because we actually agree. As I have said several times, I am pro-choice. I am presenting a pro-life argument because it shows that there are indeed decent reasons to be pro-life, which shows that pro-lifers aren't unreasonable. This sort of agreement does not make me pro-life. In fact, I think that there are better reasons to be pro-choice, with perhaps limited support for constraints on third-trimester abortions, but little else. So, I am pro-choice, and thus, we agree.

Fucking hilarious. Claiming that is a rational argument in one sentence. then saying that it is like murder in the next.

Where is this god-given right to enforce your morality/ethics?

Or, more importantly, do you think by supporting what women should be able to choose, you're supporting murder?

Like you said, these are your beliefs. Not the woman's. I don't think you have any authority to change her decisions about her body.

I'm not sure why you believe that I believe in any god-given rights, nor did I say anything like "by supporting what women should be able to choose, you're suppoting murder," nor did I say that these were my beliefs, nor did I say that I had 'authority' to change her 'decisions' about her body. I don't know where you got any of that from.

I do, however, think that the law should reflect a shared ethics which is imposed impartially upon all people in order to promote things like civility and kindness and compassion and responsibility, with a minimum imposition of control or fear. I have the feeling that pro-lifers could agree to this sort of thing as well. It would then follow that yes, we can (and do) routinely illegalize certain actions one takes with one's body.F or example, it's pretty routine to outlaw suicide, and I would certainly defend a society's right to do so.

(Along the same lines, I should clarify that in this argument, when I say something like "I don't know where to draw the line" I think that the pro-lifer would say at a broader level that the society does not yet know where to draw the line. It is not a pithy statement about one's own ignorance but a broader statement about where the society itself stands in its present knowledge about this 'true morality'. It is not a statement about "I'm imposing my ignorance on everyone else"; it's a statement of "everyone is ignorant on this matter.")

[/quote]

What a disgusting view. OH HEY LETS CHARGE THAT GUY FOR KILLING HIMSELF. "Wait how do we charge a dead guy?" "Just rape his corpse."

Not really, sorry. Your argument is still based on that shaky and fundamentally wrong idea that "we should give the child a chance".
I have said this before, I will say it now, and I will say it again.
When a child is inside of the womb of a mother who wants to have it executed, do you really think that it is going to be a warm and nurturing environment?
What happens in this debate is a failure to distinguish between life and the state of being alive. Being alive is what these children will have, breathing and eating and other biological issues. Life comes when a person grows in an environment in which both their physical and emotional needs are met. They do the best of their abilities and always have a family support system. If a child is denied this, they are denied a life in ways much worse than killing the fetus.
And yet these self professed pro lifers never seem to care much for welfare for the kids they brought into a subpar existence...

Well now that's a new one.

I brought it up because it ties into the abortion laws of many countries in an interesting way. In the UK for example, they're based off when the foetus is viable - which, obviously, depends on the advance of technology. So if, as seems likely, we eventually develop full artificial wombs, so the baby is never fully "dependent", does this mean abortion would have to be illegal?

In any case I find the argument that foetuses are dependent in a special way while no-one else is to be specious and libertarian. A five year old can't survive on its own, and, in a very real way, neither can most adults, given we are a social species. What about the disabled who rely on carers, or people who are in intensive care in hospitals? They're totally dependent! Can we get rid of them?

I'm not really against abortion I just don't like lots of arguments pro-choicers use. I'd never describe myself as pro-choice come to that.

So you like the terrible arguments that pro-lifers use?

All I can say is: GO MISSISSIPPI!

What pro-abortion people don't realize is that they went through the fetal stage themselves, and could have just as easily been killed like millions of people around the world are killed each year.

To quote pro-life activist, and saline abortion survivor, Gianna Jessen: "If abortion is about women's rights, then were were mine?"

Yet another person who doesn't know the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice. Also nice quote. Stupid quote but nice one. Its not as bad as the Reagan one.

Abortion is murder. If women have a "right" to do whatever they want with their bodies then why not make suicide legal ? It's my body afterall, why can't I do whatever I want with it ? What makes women so special that they have their own set of "rights" ?

Abortion is never murder. Thank you, come again.

All I can say is: GO MISSISSIPPI!

What pro-abortion people don't realize is that they went through the fetal stage themselves, and could have just as easily been killed like millions of people around the world are killed each year.

To quote pro-life activist, and saline abortion survivor, Gianna Jessen: "If abortion is about women's rights, then were were mine?"

That's the saddest reality of all; that girls are more likely to be aborted.

What a load of shit.

We need a poll to see how many pro-choice and pro-life people would've been okay with never having existed... I myself am okay with the thought.

Make the thread. I can't really put a poll like that in this thread.

No, dependency is not universally similar. Social dependency is social dependency; dependent on people. A biomolecular/biochemical dependency is a dependence on a cellular(and in regards to genetic coding a molecular) level to just one other organism/cell/biochemical enviorment. Not the same.

I hate to speak for EVERYONE in this thread... but I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't understand what you're saying.

His question was, I think, not how is it different in form but how it is different when making moral considerations. A 9-year-old is arguably a bigger drain on a woman's (and, should be, a man's) autonomy and wallet than a fetus ever could be (a note to all in the thread; please don't write "foetus"; it's a hypercorrection with no real etymological basis in Latin.)

Your pro-abortion rhetoric falls apart if you can't apply it consistently. If you allow a woman to terminate the life of her child in utero on the basis of dependency, then you must be consistent and allow her to terminate her child after it has been born. The reasoning behind and form of the dependency might be different, but it is felt more acutely at this stage.

You don't know where that word comes from it seems. Might as well eliminate British English entirely by this logic.

Why do people think "strawman" is a catch-all term for whatever argument they don't like? It's like they walked in on the first day of a rhetoric course, listened to the first 10 minutes of lecture, and then walked out, never to return.

You mischaracterized the post to which you were responding such as to make it appear weaker than it actually is and then "refuted" the caricature that you produced. Such is the very definition of a strawman.

No this is the definition of a strawman

They are not even similar so I wont lump them together, because doing so clouds the line between biological facts and moral bias. The reason not to combine the two is so that we can actually discuss this in a manner that is true and factual.
Hospital incubaters don't mimic the 'function' of the womb(unless you mean that in the crudest most undereducated idea of the enviroment a womb provides), its a life support system with a heat source and smaller tubes.
For the same reason we don't kill a premature birth, at around 26 weeks. Thy are able to survive, individually as a seperate organism, with the aid of life support.
Its called the limit or point of viability, btw, and there is more to that standard than just medical technology.

Your sentiment is incorrect. Medical technology is the biggest decider of point of viability.

In the case of abortion though, you should be arguing from both medical and biological arguments.

[Wiztopia]

Yes you can. Child birth is more life threatening than abortion.

Who told you that? The Guttmacher Institute?

The assertion is dubious at best. In Finland, (where there is socialized medicine and better records) they've found the opposite. I generally hesitate to post links, simply because research can be done independently whereas dialogue cannot, and all too often online discussions can degenerate to quoting huge portions of text and link after link. But I think the American Center for Law and Justice has done a good job on debunking the myth by going into more depth on the sources of that data in an Amicus Brief filed to the US Supreme Court. Pay special attention to the addenda, where the CDC responds the the ACLJ's criticisms. If I may quote briefly: "These measures [of maternal mortality rate and abortion death rate] are conceptually different and are used by CDC for different public health purposes." To sum it up, the ACLJ says that the two stats cannot be compared; the CDC responds and says, essentially: "they aren't meant to be."

http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/pba-brief-aclj.pdf

Both Finland and Chile (the latter does not have legal abortion) have found evidences to the contrary against the myth that abortion is safer than childbirth.

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/2004 ... hSafer.htm
http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/02/28/if-a ... ain-chile/

Obviously a country that has no legal abortion is completely unbiased about abortion.

This is not a bill about women's rights good sir. This is a bill about human rights... the right for every human to be born.

Nope. This is a bill about women's rights.

I'm talking about the states, and I'm right. Educate yourself.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/ns ... hildbirth/

The following link has an article from the CDC in it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact.htm

You're not right. You're wrong, and what's worse, you're probably not even an honest, genuine thinker who has sought the truth earnestly and failed. You're just wrong because you let the pro-abortion MSM think for you. MSNBC? Really?

Anyway, included in maternal mortality, are all deaths from induced abortions and ectopic pregnancies. Included also in maternal mortality are all women who die while pregnant from almost any cause that is in any way related to pregnancy. Different states require longer or shorter lengths of post-partum time, but, typically, maternal mortality also includes any related death within one year after delivery. Now there isn't inherently wrong with this methodology; so long as it is applied consistently. In the case of CDC data, it isn't. In the case of Finland, it was, which is why the Finnish stats are just plain better and more authoritative.

Regarding your second link (from Religious Tolerance.) Did you even read the Amicus brief that I provided? The CDC specifically states that their maternal mortality stats aren't supposed to be compared to abortion death stats, because the methodologies for collecting data are too different. If the very organization responsible for collecting the data says the two sets aren't meant to be compared, you've got a problem when you begin comparing them, no?

Even if your assertion were true, (and it isn't) it's the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes, only applied to children in the womb than nations. Which is a pretty disgusting state of affairs.

How's that Fox News treating you?


Fucking smiley limit including quotes.

[Maji Matamu]

Fucking hilarious. Claiming that is a rational argument in one sentence. then saying that it is like murder in the next.

I did not make the latter claim. You may wish to read the sentence you bolded less emotionally. Seriously, the reason that you think everyone else's arguments are too emotional seems to be that you are very quick to jump to emotional conclusions yourself. The fact is, it is indeed true that if a line has to be drawn somewhere, drawing the line too far on the one side would legitimize the killing of persons (hence murder) rather than the killing of cells (hence, not). It is not an emotional argument about "all abortion is murder." Far from it; it's a rational argument about precaution.

Again, I welcome you to engage with the argument. I'm not sure why you consistently fail to do so.

What a disgusting view. OH HEY LETS CHARGE THAT GUY FOR KILLING HIMSELF. "Wait how do we charge a dead guy?" "Just rape his corpse."

Well, no, one would charge the many people who fail to get away with it, and one would empower police to intercede to prevent it. Why is it "disgusting" to outlaw a selfish act which hurts the ones you love most, one that in most cases is premature and sad, a waste of something special which might have been?

I don't necessarily oppose "dignified death"/euthanasia, but I do oppose suicide. I say this as someone who was suicidal as a teen and who knows people who are suicidal today.

It only lacks justification on a particularly narrow "eye-for-an-eye" view of legal punishment. It is wholly justified on either a deterrence or rehabilitation view. And I would support the legal enforcement of rehabilitation for people who have threatened suicide or attempted suicide and failed. There is nothing more disgusting than insisting that we turn a blind eye to such people.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

Wouldent 'drawing a line' out of fear of the possibility of killing a 'person' be an emotional response.

I think we both know that I would never consider an early stage embryo a person, and I feel like I have gone over those reasons. Pretty sure you feel the same way, Maj - Just had to state it again incase anyone wanted to use what I said out of context.

[Bottle]

This is not a bill about women's rights good sir. This is a bill about human rights... the right for every human to be born.

That's the crux of it, yes.

The only question that matters is: "Is the fetus a human being?"
If no, then no justification for abortion is necessary.
If yes, then no justification for abortion is possible.

You're missing the obvious third option: no human being has a "right to be born", because no human being has any right to another human being's body, and pregnancy/birth require the participation of another person's body.

Therefore, it doesn't matter whether the fetus is a human being or not, because even if it is there is no "right" to force an unwilling woman to donate her body for your use.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Throwing a temper tantrum and attacking people for your inability to debate is hilarious. Please continue it humors me.

Treko - I have a fantastic idea. Stop spamming, pics and all. If you have nothing of substance to offer the discussion, go do something else with your time.

That goes for any of you engaging in similar, such as Wiztopia and your excessive smilies, etc, etc, etc.

Now if all you folks could please stay on topic here (as some have been doing) rather than dickfence ... it would be much appreciated. Thanks!

[Dyakovo]

Abortion is murder. If women have a "right" to do whatever they want with their bodies then why not make suicide legal ? It's my body afterall, why can't I do whatever I want with it ? What makes women so special that they have their own set of "rights" ?

No, abortion is not murder, for a variety of reasons... One of which being that it isn't illegal.
Suicide isn't illegal...
Women don't have their special set of rights. Everyone has the right to bodily integrity.

[The Pink Followers]

Abortion is murder. If women have a "right" to do whatever they want with their bodies then why not make suicide legal ? It's my body afterall, why can't I do whatever I want with it ? What makes women so special that they have their own set of "rights" ?

Who said abortion is a special right? If you, assuming you are a man, were pregnant by some odd twist of fate, I would bet by life that pro-choice advocates would speak for your right to abort if you so wished.

[New Asgariath]

*sigh*

killing an unborn child isn't a right, you aren't cool for hating conservatives, and no, you don't have to flame me for saying it.

Telling a woman what to do with her own body means a person is against women's rights.

By that logic, telling a woman she can't have meth, attempt suicide, or do prostitution is also against her rights too.

If you do meth, you will be sent to rehab.

If you try to kill yourself, you will be considered a danger to self and locked up somewhere you cant kill yourself

If you do prostitution, you will be locked up.

There should be an age restriction of abortion. In two or three months, the child begins having mental activity. If women have to get abortions, they are retarded. There are things such as birth control, condoms, whatever those things that block the fallopian tubes are called all designed to keep people from getting pregnant. Women should have to live with their bad decisions.

[The Pink Followers]

Telling a woman what to do with her own body means a person is against women's rights.

By that logic, telling a woman she can't have meth, attempt suicide, or do prostitution is also against her rights too.

According to quite a few political factions, yes, it is.

[UCUMAY]

Telling a woman what to do with her own body means a person is against women's rights.

By that logic, telling a woman she can't have meth, attempt suicide, or do prostitution is also against her rights too.

It is...

Meth I don't agree with but it's a health care issue, not a criminal justice. If someone doesn't want to be alive... You shouldn't force them to stay alive. Sexually trades between consenting adults is none of your business unless you're one of the parties in the trade.

[Maurepas]

I wonder how that went? I didn't vote. Probably terrible knowing this state.

[Wiztopia]

Telling a woman what to do with her own body means a person is against women's rights.

By that logic, telling a woman she can't have meth, attempt suicide, or do prostitution is also against her rights too.

It is actually. They all tell a woman what to not do with her own body.

[Inky Noodles]

So, simply because they are voting to make fetuses a person, means that they are eliminating women's rights altogether?

Also, I need a source that says a fetus is not a person. At what point does it start being one? By simply moving through a vagina (yes, I know its more complicated than that, but essentially, that is what happens)? Because that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Also, shame on you for starting an Abortion thread under the guise of a state taking away the rights of a group of people. [/thread]

I would suggest reading the thread, a basic science book and spending less time in Catholic School or on Fox News whichever is applicable.

a fetus has a genetic human code correct

[Maurepas]

By that logic, telling a woman she can't have meth, attempt suicide, or do prostitution is also against her rights too.

According to quite a few political factions, yes, it is.

I would agree, those would be against her rights, or anyone else's rights, tbqh. Until you're harming someone else, noone has the right to stop you, imo.

[Greed and Death]

I wonder how that went? I didn't vote. Probably terrible knowing this state.

The vote is on November 8th.

[New Asgariath]

Ok. Henceforth, I declare myself a member of one of those political parties.

I am now for
gay marriage,
bestiality,
prostitution,
gambling,
drug abuse,
suicide,
religion,
abortion,
social reform,
national healthcare
robbing those who actually got their lazy asses off of the couch to make money
giving rights to murderers,
destroying the economy,
getting rid of our culture,
dubbing anyone who opposes us a whackjob who is endangering the rights not granted to us by the constitution, while also taking the rights given to them by the constitution away.

Right.

[UCUMAY]

Ok. Henceforth, I declare myself a member of one of those political parties.

I am now for
gay marriage,
bestiality,
prostitution,
gambling,
drug abuse,
suicide,
religion,
abortion,
social reform,
national healthcare
robbing those who actually got their lazy asses off of the couch to make money
giving rights to murderers,
destroying the economy,
getting rid of our culture,
dubbing anyone who opposes us a whackjob who is endangering the rights not granted to us by the constitution, while also taking the rights given to them by the constitution away.

Right.

That's a thread jack... And not a very funny one at that.

[The Pink Followers]

gay marriage,

Mmkay, good.

bestiality,

Defiles "informed consent", a prerequisite for sexual relations to be legal.

prostitution,

Great.

gambling,

Cool, I'll put sixty of black, please.

drug abuse,

Amazing.

suicide,

Eh, why not.

religion,

Eh, could do without, but sure, lets toss it in.

abortion,

Generic word of approval.

social reform,

Cosmic.

national healthcare

Stellar.

robbing those who actually got their lazy asses off of the couch to make money

Woah, buddy, that violates the right of that guy to own stuff and not get it stolen, otherwise known as "private property".

giving rights to murderers,

Murderers have rights.

destroying the economy,

To each his own, I suppose, but I don't understand how this relates.

getting rid of our culture,

Hurray!

dubbing anyone who opposes us a whackjob who is endangering the rights not granted to us by the
constitution, while also taking the rights given to them by the constitution away.

Why? That violates political freedom rights.

[Maurepas]

I wonder how that went? I didn't vote. Probably terrible knowing this state.

The vote is on November 8th.

Ah, lol. I haven't had internet or Cable for three months so I'm a bit out of a loop, I just know they've started putting up signs, heh heh.

I'm posting at a Barnes and Noble though, if you're wondering how I'm doing so lacking the internet.

[Geniasis]

Wow. I come back after like three weeks and there's an abortion thread in full swing.

Crazy, huh?

Since I'm not patient enough to read all 30+ pages, have we reached the point where we realize that the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant to the fact that it's imposing on someone else's bodily sovereignty in a way that we would consider to be horrendous under any other circumstances?

[Gauthier]

Ok. Henceforth, I declare myself a member of one of those political parties.

I am now for
gay marriage,
bestiality,
prostitution,
gambling,
drug abuse,
suicide,
religion,
abortion,
social reform,
national healthcare
robbing those who actually got their lazy asses off of the couch to make money
giving rights to murderers,
destroying the economy,
getting rid of our culture,
dubbing anyone who opposes us a whackjob who is endangering the rights not granted to us by the constitution, while also taking the rights given to them by the constitution away.

Right.

That's a thread jack... And not a very funny one at that.

Anyone who wants to give human rights to embryos and fetii ought to give those same rights to cancer cells and thus not get treatment.

[Dinka Dinka Doo]

Wow. I come back after like three weeks and there's an abortion thread in full swing.

Crazy, huh?

Since I'm not patient enough to read all 30+ pages, have we reached the point where we realize that the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant to the fact that it's imposing on someone else's bodily sovereignty in a way that we would consider to be horrendous under any other circumstances?

Bolded the part I disagree with. If I understand Constitutional law properly, one of the roles of the government is to protect life, which is considered one of the 'natural' rights that riddles American philosophy (I speak from an American perspective, mind you). Because of this, if a fetus is a person at any given time, they are legally entitled to the right to life, as is anyone who is considered 'alive' and is not convicted of a crime where the death penalty is considered a reasonable punishment. This is a common argument that comes from pro-lifers, but if a fetus is in fact a person by legal definition, then abortion is, in fact, murder. However, I have no real knowledge of where life starts from a scientific perspective, so I cannot safely determine when a person start to 'live'. The definition of when a person starts 'living' is the core of the abortion debate, IMO. Does a person start 'living' at birth, or does it start earlier? If it starts earlier, when does a person begin 'living'? Because I both believe that this is the center of the issue and I can't determine by myself where 'life' starts (without doing more research on the subject), I'm ultimately neutral on the debate on a personal level. If the scientific community has ruled on when 'life' begins, I'd like to know, and from there I can further shape my perspective.

Theoretically, if life DID start at conception, then the right of a woman to abort a fetus wouldn't supersede the right of the fetus to live. Of course, there's the argument that aborting fetuses that will come out with severe genetic defects will save agony in the long run. But then again, couldn't the same be said about the already-born with genetic defects (meaning that in the name of 'saving people from suffering' we could put an end to their lives)? Once again, this goes back to the question of when 'life' starts. This entire subject is really a mine-field, and one I don't often like to tread upon.

[Geniasis]

Wow. I come back after like three weeks and there's an abortion thread in full swing.

Crazy, huh?

Since I'm not patient enough to read all 30+ pages, have we reached the point where we realize that the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant to the fact that it's imposing on someone else's bodily sovereignty in a way that we would consider to be horrendous under any other circumstances?

Bolded the part I disagree with. If I understand Constitutional law properly, one of the roles of the government is to protect life, which is considered one of the 'natural' rights that riddles American philosophy (I speak from an American perspective, mind you). Because of this, if a fetus is a person at any given time, they are legally entitled to the right to life, as is anyone who is considered 'alive' and is not convicted of a crime where the death penalty is considered a reasonable punishment. This is a common argument that comes from pro-lifers, but if a fetus is in fact a person by legal definition, then abortion is, in fact, murder. However, I have no real knowledge of where life starts from a scientific perspective, so I cannot safely determine when a person start to 'live'. The definition of when a person starts 'living' is the core of the abortion debate, IMO. Does a person start 'living' at birth, or does it start earlier? If it starts earlier, when does a person begin 'living'? Because I both believe that this is the center of the issue and I can't determine by myself where 'life' starts (without doing more research on the subject), I'm ultimately neutral on the debate on a personal level. If the scientific community has ruled on when 'life' begins, I'd like to know, and from there I can further shape my perspective.

Theoretically, if life DID start at conception, then the right of a woman to abort a fetus wouldn't supersede the right of the fetus to live. Of course, there's the argument that aborting fetuses that will come out with severe genetic defects will save agony in the long run. But then again, couldn't the same be said about the already-born with genetic defects (meaning that in the name of 'saving people from suffering' we could put an end to their lives)? Once again, this goes back to the question of when 'life' starts. This entire subject is really a mine-field, and one I don't often like to tread upon.

Nope.

Because see, the fetus' right to life does not supersede the woman's right to bodily integrity. See, say you woke one morning and you were attached by an elaborate medical device to someone else. This other person depends on your body to continue living. You have every right to detach yourself from the machine. Just because someone requires your resources to live, does not mean that they are entitled to take them from you.

EDIT: What this comes back to, is that the purpose of abortion is not to destroy the fetus. The purpose is to remove it from the woman's body. That the former happens is merely a side-effect.