Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Ashmoria]

you sound like someone who has no idea how hard it is to make a baby from scratch.

It is a lot of effort to get all of the ingredients at the grocey store.

*gives czechanada the look*

[Czechanada]

It is a lot of effort to get all of the ingredients at the grocey store.

*gives czechanada the look*

Yeah, sorry about the typo!

[Wallenburg]

Except adoption does not solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy, since it necessitates, well, letting the pregnancy take its course.

The US foster care system is also horribly overburdened, and does not need an additional influx of a million children every year.

You have a point for that. Then they I guess I support abortion all the way I guess? I'll need to think.

Well, it certainly is good to see people reflecting on their views like that.

[Lunalia]

Why should it matter to the law why women want an abortion?

Well, if the were raped, they'd feel like they wouldn't really take care of the baby because they'll see their rapist in the baby, so that's a reason I support. But I see what you're saying, I sometimes think why they could just put the baby up for adoption. That's not to say I don't support abortion, but that could be an alternative.

But so few children who are put up for adoption actually get adopted. Why should they be condemned to suffer in a statistically likely to be miserable foster system, when they could simply not be born, and not suffer?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

I'm pro-choice. I don't think that anyone should decide for a woman whether to not to have an abortion. It is only the woman's choice, not mine or anyone else's.

That is just sanctioning murder and a waste of life.

Why not have the woman to bear the child then leave it towards orphanages. That way, the ending of a child's life would not be in the woman's conscience?

There is absolutely no excuse to the termination of life, it is contradictory to the belief of secularists to the human right to life.

Orphanages are swamped, and growing up in an orphanage is bad for your mental health.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

there is no excuse to make women slaves to reproduction OR to force the production of unwanted children.

Don't you lack mercy and compassion? Don't you consider the pain you might even instill on the child?

With this kind of attitude, you are treating humans as if they were commodities from a factory, where the "defective" and the "unwanted" are to be removed.

It may be a shame to carry an unwanted child in one's womb but the greater shame is to refuse to carry the burden of one's mal action and go about refusing to accept the consequences of lack of abstinence at the except of the life of another.

Personally, I consider that some monentary pain is acceptable to save the future of a mother.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

There is no pain in the first place.

A fetus before 24 weeks doesn't have the biological capability to feel pain.



And you're treating women as if their rights and thoughts are worth less than the existence of a nonsapient fetus that might grow into a person.

You were all once babies like those unfortunate victims of abortion. We all see that life is beautiful, full of wonder, emotion, treasures and other things and you now want to sanction the deprivation of these things on entities that are no different from what you once were? To close the window of life is to ultimately destroy what could possibly an entire timeline of beautiful memories reduced to nothing but straight up an appointment with the creator.

Also, there is still the danger of the grave slippery slope.

Yesterday it was contraception. Today it's abortion and opposite-sex "marriage." Will it be widespread religion tomorrow? Then what...? Once abortion is universally accepted, what logical arguments will stop religion and other forms of ignorance and stupidity?

Er, your parade of horribles doesn't work because we think those are acceptable. But going on your argument, we should outlaw masturbation because it results in wasted sperm, which has the potential to grow.
The bold stuff shows exactly how weak your parade of horribles is.

Edit:I actually thought you were for real

[Galiantus VII]

Legally the abortion issue comes down to whether law enforcement can or even should be used. I am morally conservative and politically libertarian, so even though I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I think it is fair to allow women a choice. Government is rarely a good solution except where force is necessary. There is no reason for us as a society to threaten a woman who gets an abortion with the loss of her God-given rights life, liberty, or property.

Government was instituted to protect lives and property threatened from within and without a society. It was never intended to protect the rights of people still in the womb from maternal violence.

Morally the abortion issue rests on what the definition of a person is.

Because I am convinced that a fetus is a person, I think the choice to abort can be a rights-violation if the right conditions do not apply. In the U.S. Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson states that "all [people] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, [and] among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I believe our natural rights come from God, but you may believe they come from somewhere else. The fundamental effect, however, is that all people are on equal standing as far as rights are concerned - my right to my property ends where someone else's property begins.

Suppose a fetus is a person. If this is the case, then it must have rights, and those rights are equivalent to the rights of every other person. It then follows that killing a fetus via an abortion would be a violation of its right to life.

On the other hand, if we suppose a fetus is not a person, we must accept the fetus has no rights. It would then follow that getting an abortion is not a rights violation.

The primary disagreement in every abortion discussion is whether or not a fetus is a human, because if one side can persuade the other on this point, the moral discussion ends. If I were to believe a fetus was just another bundle of cells inside the womb, it would be inconsistent of me to also believe abortion could ever be wrong. I believe a fetus is a person, so it would be inconstant of me to not believe a fetus has rights and that it is wrong to violate those rights. One belief causes the other.

I honestly can't see how this is so difficult. A fetus has unique human DNA and a human body of its own. It is a human fetus. As we move through the stages of development, at some point we can call it a human infant, a human child, a human adolescent, a human adult. We can certainly take a part of the body of a person and call it human bone, human blood and human tissue, but that is just part of the body. The reason you cannot logically call a human fetus just a constituent part of a human body is because it is itself a body.

A lot of people who think abortion is perfectly moral will pull up the argument that lack of development or a lack of an ability to think constitute reason enough to assume a fetus is not a human. If this was so, we would have to consider many people disabled by birth defects or serious mental problems to not be people. Under the same belief, we could also lead ourselves to believe that, since full development into an adult is not complete until after puberty, minors are not people - yet another absurdity.

Nearly all other arguments pointing out the absence of an organ a fetus doesn't have as a basis for arguing it is not a person can be reasonably argued against by finding a person with a medical condition where they do not have that organ: just because a fetus has not developed eyes yet cannot mean it is not a person because it would necessitate the belief that people without eyes really aren't people, and the same applies to hearts, livers, lungs, and nearly every other organ in the body.

I had actually not meant to convince myself there was the possibility that a fetus could be not be a person immediately after conception, but I discovered the following:

The only organ a fetus ever goes without that every living person has is a brain. Since the first part of the brain stem does not exist in a fetus until week 5 of gestation, I am inclined to believe that is when personhood starts. It is therefore likely, and I am willing to believe, that up until this point it is perfectly moral for a woman to abort for personal reasons. After this point, however, the fetus has a brain and therefore is a human, with all the rights that you or I have.

Given this, if you wish to challenge my beliefs about abortion, I advise that you try and show to me why a fetus with a tiny brain is not a human. I believe a woman should be allowed to choose an abortion - if that's what she wants to do - but I also recognize that there are factors and human rights which can make abortion the wrong choice.

[Galiantus VII]

*Yawn*

I've done my job.

You're ready.

This account is a parody account.
My 4 point mission.

1. To strengthen the argumentative power of the forces of the enlightenment.
2. To instill an introspective attitude towards all forces of reason, so we may not be contradictory to ourselves with the lack of skill or effort to do so. WE ARE THE FORCES OF REASON, THEREFORE, WE MUST MAKE IT A HABIT TO BE INTROSPECTIVE AND LEGITIMATE AT ALL TIMES TO PREVENT OUR SIDE FROM FALTERING IN THE FACE OF RISING CONSERVATISM AND IRRATIONALITY IN THIS WORLD.
3. To have fun debating.
4. To discredit the "other side".

Really? Poisoning the well, strawman, AND impersonation: all at once. That's inconsiderate and disrespectful.

[Kelinfort]

Legally the abortion issue comes down to whether law enforcement can or even should be used. I am morally conservative and politically libertarian, so even though I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I think it is fair to allow women a choice. Government is rarely a good solution except where force is necessary. There is no reason for us as a society to threaten a woman who gets an abortion with the loss of her God-given rights life, liberty, or property.

Government was instituted to protect lives and property threatened from within and without a society. It was never intended to protect the rights of people still in the womb from maternal violence.

Morally the abortion issue rests on what the definition of a person is.

Because I am convinced that a fetus is a person, I think the choice to abort can be a rights-violation if the right conditions do not apply. In the U.S. Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson states that "all [people] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, [and] among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I believe our natural rights come from God, but you may believe they come from somewhere else. The fundamental effect, however, is that all people are on equal standing as far as rights are concerned - my right to my property ends where someone else's property begins.

Suppose a fetus is a person. If this is the case, then it must have rights, and those rights are equivalent to the rights of every other person. It then follows that killing a fetus via an abortion would be a violation of its right to life.

On the other hand, if we suppose a fetus is not a person, we must accept the fetus has no rights. It would then follow that getting an abortion is not a rights violation.

The primary disagreement in every abortion discussion is whether or not a fetus is a human, because if one side can persuade the other on this point, the moral discussion ends. If I were to believe a fetus was just another bundle of cells inside the womb, it would be inconsistent of me to also believe abortion could ever be wrong. I believe a fetus is a person, so it would be inconstant of me to not believe a fetus has rights and that it is wrong to violate those rights. One belief causes the other.

I honestly can't see how this is so difficult. A fetus has unique human DNA and a human body of its own. It is a human fetus. As we move through the stages of development, at some point we can call it a human infant, a human child, a human adolescent, a human adult. We can certainly take a part of the body of a person and call it human bone, human blood and human tissue, but that is just part of the body. The reason you cannot logically call a human fetus just a constituent part of a human body is because it is itself a body.

A lot of people who think abortion is perfectly moral will pull up the argument that lack of development or a lack of an ability to think constitute reason enough to assume a fetus is not a human. If this was so, we would have to consider many people disabled by birth defects or serious mental problems to not be people. Under the same belief, we could also lead ourselves to believe that, since full development into an adult is not complete until after puberty, minors are not people - yet another absurdity.

Nearly all other arguments pointing out the absence of an organ a fetus doesn't have as a basis for arguing it is not a person can be reasonably argued against by finding a person with a medical condition where they do not have that organ: just because a fetus has not developed eyes yet cannot mean it is not a person because it would necessitate the belief that people without eyes really aren't people, and the same applies to hearts, livers, lungs, and nearly every other organ in the body.

I had actually not meant to convince myself there was the possibility that a fetus could be not be a person immediately after conception, but I discovered the following:

The only organ a fetus ever goes without that every living person has is a brain. Since the first part of the brain stem does not exist in a fetus until week 5 of gestation, I am inclined to believe that is when personhood starts. It is therefore likely, and I am willing to believe, that up until this point it is perfectly moral for a woman to abort for personal reasons. After this point, however, the fetus has a brain and therefore is a human, with all the rights that you or I have.

Given this, if you wish to challenge my beliefs about abortion, I advise that you try and show to me why a fetus with a tiny brain is not a human. I believe a woman should be allowed to choose an abortion - if that's what she wants to do - but I also recognize that there are factors and human rights which can make abortion the wrong choice.

Why is having a brain either in development or fully developed the definition of personhood?

[The V O I D]

Galiantus, personhood is defined as having sapience, thought, self-awareness, sentience, and being born.

Being human does not a person make. Having unique DNA, etc. etc. does not make you a person. What I just listed does. That is the generally accepted definition, and I am decently sure that the law uses it as well.

A fetus meets none of these standards, and thus they are not persons. Therefor, they get no rights. Are we agreed?

As for the other things you said, you're mistaken as to what most pro-choicers believe persons are defined as. Fetuses/embryos are human, we are not arguing against that. They just don't have personhood, which is what gives you your rights. Sapience and sentience, etc. isn't developed until basically 8-9 months into the pregnancy, but even then the developing soon-to-be-infant is not awake and aware fully. But, at this point, if it's going to be born soon anyways, it could possibly be considered a person, and after birth it essentially is one.

[Kelinfort]

Galiantus, personhood is defined as having sapience, thought, self-awareness, sentience, and being born.

A fetus meets none of these standards, and thus they are not persons. Therefor, they get no rights. Are we agreed?

I would agree. The only humans that fail to meet the above criteria are the dead, foetuses, and people in a persistent vegetative state.

[The V O I D]

Galiantus, personhood is defined as having sapience, thought, self-awareness, sentience, and being born.

A fetus meets none of these standards, and thus they are not persons. Therefor, they get no rights. Are we agreed?

I would agree. The only humans that fail to meet the above criteria are the dead, foetuses, and people in a persistent vegetative state.

Exactly. That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't human- it only means they no longer have, or don't yet have, personhood status.

That's why braindead humans can have their organs taken from them as long as they are a voluntary organ donor - because, as a person when they consented to be such in the event they died or some other horrible thing. Braindeath is essentially death, and therefor you aren't a person and they can do with your body whatever you consented for them to do legally to it after death.

[Ashmoria]

Legally the abortion issue comes down to whether law enforcement can or even should be used. I am morally conservative and politically libertarian, so even though I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I think it is fair to allow women a choice. Government is rarely a good solution except where force is necessary. There is no reason for us as a society to threaten a woman who gets an abortion with the loss of her God-given rights life, liberty, or property.

Government was instituted to protect lives and property threatened from within and without a society. It was never intended to protect the rights of people still in the womb from maternal violence.

Morally the abortion issue rests on what the definition of a person is.

Because I am convinced that a fetus is a person, I think the choice to abort can be a rights-violation if the right conditions do not apply. In the U.S. Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson states that "all [people] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, [and] among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I believe our natural rights come from God, but you may believe they come from somewhere else. The fundamental effect, however, is that all people are on equal standing as far as rights are concerned - my right to my property ends where someone else's property begins.

Suppose a fetus is a person. If this is the case, then it must have rights, and those rights are equivalent to the rights of every other person. It then follows that killing a fetus via an abortion would be a violation of its right to life.

On the other hand, if we suppose a fetus is not a person, we must accept the fetus has no rights. It would then follow that getting an abortion is not a rights violation.

The primary disagreement in every abortion discussion is whether or not a fetus is a human, because if one side can persuade the other on this point, the moral discussion ends. If I were to believe a fetus was just another bundle of cells inside the womb, it would be inconsistent of me to also believe abortion could ever be wrong. I believe a fetus is a person, so it would be inconstant of me to not believe a fetus has rights and that it is wrong to violate those rights. One belief causes the other.

I honestly can't see how this is so difficult. A fetus has unique human DNA and a human body of its own. It is a human fetus. As we move through the stages of development, at some point we can call it a human infant, a human child, a human adolescent, a human adult. We can certainly take a part of the body of a person and call it human bone, human blood and human tissue, but that is just part of the body. The reason you cannot logically call a human fetus just a constituent part of a human body is because it is itself a body.

A lot of people who think abortion is perfectly moral will pull up the argument that lack of development or a lack of an ability to think constitute reason enough to assume a fetus is not a human. If this was so, we would have to consider many people disabled by birth defects or serious mental problems to not be people. Under the same belief, we could also lead ourselves to believe that, since full development into an adult is not complete until after puberty, minors are not people - yet another absurdity.

Nearly all other arguments pointing out the absence of an organ a fetus doesn't have as a basis for arguing it is not a person can be reasonably argued against by finding a person with a medical condition where they do not have that organ: just because a fetus has not developed eyes yet cannot mean it is not a person because it would necessitate the belief that people without eyes really aren't people, and the same applies to hearts, livers, lungs, and nearly every other organ in the body.

I had actually not meant to convince myself there was the possibility that a fetus could be not be a person immediately after conception, but I discovered the following:

The only organ a fetus ever goes without that every living person has is a brain. Since the first part of the brain stem does not exist in a fetus until week 5 of gestation, I am inclined to believe that is when personhood starts. It is therefore likely, and I am willing to believe, that up until this point it is perfectly moral for a woman to abort for personal reasons. After this point, however, the fetus has a brain and therefore is a human, with all the rights that you or I have.

Given this, if you wish to challenge my beliefs about abortion, I advise that you try and show to me why a fetus with a tiny brain is not a human. I believe a woman should be allowed to choose an abortion - if that's what she wants to do - but I also recognize that there are factors and human rights which can make abortion the wrong choice.

until somewhere in the mid 3 trimester fetuses have incomplete and inadequate versions of most organs such that it cannot survive at all or without strong medical intervention. its not just the brain that isn't developed.

but the unborn have NEVER been considered to be people. why do we want to start that now?

[Ifreann]

Legally the abortion issue comes down to whether law enforcement can or even should be used. I am morally conservative and politically libertarian, so even though I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I think it is fair to allow women a choice. Government is rarely a good solution except where force is necessary. There is no reason for us as a society to threaten a woman who gets an abortion with the loss of her God-given rights life, liberty, or property.

Government was instituted to protect lives and property threatened from within and without a society. It was never intended to protect the rights of people still in the womb from maternal violence.

Morally the abortion issue rests on what the definition of a person is.

I stopped here, because the personhood of the unborn is irrelevant. Either they are a person, in which case they do not have the right to use and reside within another's body without permission, or they are not a person, in which case they do not have the right to use and reside within another's body without permission.

[Zoice]

Legally the abortion issue comes down to whether law enforcement can or even should be used. I am morally conservative and politically libertarian, so even though I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I think it is fair to allow women a choice. Government is rarely a good solution except where force is necessary. There is no reason for us as a society to threaten a woman who gets an abortion with the loss of her God-given rights life, liberty, or property.

Government was instituted to protect lives and property threatened from within and without a society. It was never intended to protect the rights of people still in the womb from maternal violence.

Morally the abortion issue rests on what the definition of a person is.

I stopped here, because the personhood of the unborn is irrelevant. Either they are a person, in which case they do not have the right to use and reside within another's body without permission, or they are not a person, in which case they do not have the right to use and reside within another's body without permission.

You can also view the rights of privacy as irrelevant, given that it isn't a person in the first place.

[Galiantus VII]

Galiantus, personhood is defined as having sapience, thought, self-awareness, sentience, and being born.

But how can you possibly know if a fetus with a brain doesn't have some of those things, obviously excluding the last one? There is no way you can possibly know. And you must again consider the brain-dead, who are most definitely people, but don't necessarily have all those things you listed. Thus, using "and" as a qualifier is not good enough, and if a fetus has anything that can be considered thought (i.e. brain activity) it would be unfair to treat it like it may not be a human.

Being human does not a person make. Having unique DNA, etc. etc. does not make you a person. What I just listed does. That is the generally accepted definition, and I am decently sure that the law uses it as well.

Laws and true morals often differ: at one point, a black person in the United States was considered less than a person - by law, even. Yet they were, in fact, people. Besides, what you listed cannot be medically tested, and is therefore unverifiable.

A fetus meets none of these standards, and thus they are not persons. Therefor, they get no rights. Are we agreed?

No. Until you can prove a fetus does not meet any of these standards (which will require some pretty insane tests) we are not agreed. A fetus surely develops thought before it is born, but it won't become self-aware until it is an 18-month old infant. By your definition, an infant less than 18 months old could not be considered a person, and I am not willing to accept that.

As for the other things you said, you're mistaken as to what most pro-choicers believe persons are defined as. Fetuses/embryos are human, we are not arguing against that. They just don't have personhood, which is what gives you your rights. Sapience and sentience, etc. isn't developed until basically 8-9 months into the pregnancy, but even then the developing soon-to-be-infant is not awake and aware fully. But, at this point, if it's going to be born soon anyways, it could possibly be considered a person, and after birth it essentially is one.

Slave owners never questioned whether their slaves were humans - that was obvious. But they didn't grant them personhood either. The only reason you treat a human as something other than a person is because you have to justify to yourself that they don't have rights.

So you would be morally against late term abortions (but we both agree they should be legal)? The difference between the point where you accept personhood and the point where I accept personhood is about 7 months but still decidedly in the womb.

If birth makes you a person, wouldn't the act of taking a fetus outside the womb via abortion constitute birth and therefore endow a fetus with personhood and a right to available medical care?

[Galiantus VII]

Legally the abortion issue comes down to whether law enforcement can or even should be used. I am morally conservative and politically libertarian, so even though I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I think it is fair to allow women a choice. Government is rarely a good solution except where force is necessary. There is no reason for us as a society to threaten a woman who gets an abortion with the loss of her God-given rights life, liberty, or property.

Government was instituted to protect lives and property threatened from within and without a society. It was never intended to protect the rights of people still in the womb from maternal violence.

Morally the abortion issue rests on what the definition of a person is.

Because I am convinced that a fetus is a person, I think the choice to abort can be a rights-violation if the right conditions do not apply. In the U.S. Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson states that "all [people] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, [and] among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I believe our natural rights come from God, but you may believe they come from somewhere else. The fundamental effect, however, is that all people are on equal standing as far as rights are concerned - my right to my property ends where someone else's property begins.

Suppose a fetus is a person. If this is the case, then it must have rights, and those rights are equivalent to the rights of every other person. It then follows that killing a fetus via an abortion would be a violation of its right to life.

On the other hand, if we suppose a fetus is not a person, we must accept the fetus has no rights. It would then follow that getting an abortion is not a rights violation.

The primary disagreement in every abortion discussion is whether or not a fetus is a human, because if one side can persuade the other on this point, the moral discussion ends. If I were to believe a fetus was just another bundle of cells inside the womb, it would be inconsistent of me to also believe abortion could ever be wrong. I believe a fetus is a person, so it would be inconstant of me to not believe a fetus has rights and that it is wrong to violate those rights. One belief causes the other.

I honestly can't see how this is so difficult. A fetus has unique human DNA and a human body of its own. It is a human fetus. As we move through the stages of development, at some point we can call it a human infant, a human child, a human adolescent, a human adult. We can certainly take a part of the body of a person and call it human bone, human blood and human tissue, but that is just part of the body. The reason you cannot logically call a human fetus just a constituent part of a human body is because it is itself a body.

A lot of people who think abortion is perfectly moral will pull up the argument that lack of development or a lack of an ability to think constitute reason enough to assume a fetus is not a human. If this was so, we would have to consider many people disabled by birth defects or serious mental problems to not be people. Under the same belief, we could also lead ourselves to believe that, since full development into an adult is not complete until after puberty, minors are not people - yet another absurdity.

Nearly all other arguments pointing out the absence of an organ a fetus doesn't have as a basis for arguing it is not a person can be reasonably argued against by finding a person with a medical condition where they do not have that organ: just because a fetus has not developed eyes yet cannot mean it is not a person because it would necessitate the belief that people without eyes really aren't people, and the same applies to hearts, livers, lungs, and nearly every other organ in the body.

I had actually not meant to convince myself there was the possibility that a fetus could be not be a person immediately after conception, but I discovered the following:

The only organ a fetus ever goes without that every living person has is a brain. Since the first part of the brain stem does not exist in a fetus until week 5 of gestation, I am inclined to believe that is when personhood starts. It is therefore likely, and I am willing to believe, that up until this point it is perfectly moral for a woman to abort for personal reasons. After this point, however, the fetus has a brain and therefore is a human, with all the rights that you or I have.

Given this, if you wish to challenge my beliefs about abortion, I advise that you try and show to me why a fetus with a tiny brain is not a human. I believe a woman should be allowed to choose an abortion - if that's what she wants to do - but I also recognize that there are factors and human rights which can make abortion the wrong choice.

Why is having a brain either in development or fully developed the definition of personhood?

A person can lose almost any part of his or her body and remain a person, correct? The only exception is the brain. A human body without a brain is not a person, it is a corpse. This is one reason I am so convinced a fetus obtains personhood while it is in the womb (around 5 weeks, in fact).

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why is having a brain either in development or fully developed the definition of personhood?

A person can lose almost any part of his or her body and remain a person, correct? The only exception is the brain. A human body without a brain is not a person, it is a corpse. This is one reason I am so convinced a fetus obtains personhood while it is in the womb (around 5 weeks, in fact).

This is not necessarily true.

Going by the cerebral cortex argument for personhood, a person, meaning, a human with the same capacities we have of higher reasoning and complex thought processes, is not even close to that at 5 weeks. You still need a cerebral cortex, which isn't fully developed until way later into the pregnancy.

[Sanctissima]

A person can lose almost any part of his or her body and remain a person, correct? The only exception is the brain. A human body without a brain is not a person, it is a corpse. This is one reason I am so convinced a fetus obtains personhood while it is in the womb (around 5 weeks, in fact).

This is not necessarily true.

Going by the cerebral cortex argument for personhood, a person, meaning, a human with the same capacities we have of higher reasoning and complex thought processes, is not even close to that at 5 weeks. You still need a cerebral cortex, which isn't fully developed until way later into the pregnancy.

Depends. Do we draw the line at a functioning cerebral cortex or do we go back as early as the telencephalon? Because realistically, the brain is present from very early on, it's just not particularly well developed until much later in the pregnancy.

[Galiantus VII]

Legally the abortion issue comes down to whether law enforcement can or even should be used. I am morally conservative and politically libertarian, so even though I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I think it is fair to allow women a choice. Government is rarely a good solution except where force is necessary. There is no reason for us as a society to threaten a woman who gets an abortion with the loss of her God-given rights life, liberty, or property.

Government was instituted to protect lives and property threatened from within and without a society. It was never intended to protect the rights of people still in the womb from maternal violence.

Morally the abortion issue rests on what the definition of a person is.

I stopped here, because the personhood of the unborn is irrelevant. Either they are a person, in which case they do not have the right to use and reside within another's body without permission,

The right to life is more valuable than the right to not be temporarily inconvenienced. Also, it is generally accepted that a person has rights to medical care, so (on the assumption it is a person) unless you intend to remove the fetus in a way that will not harm it and give it available medical attention afterwards, you would be violating its right to life and its right to health care. If abortions were carried out in this way, the abortion issue would disappear and no longer be a debate.

I know that at this point lots of people will want to point out how this will cause problems for the foster care system:

So what? Ending slavery caused all sorts of economic problems for the south. Just because recognizing human rights will cause problems in our current system does not mean we should not try to support the rights of our fellow humans. Our systems can take big shocks, then they adapt and become better than they were before. If this happens to the foster care system, it is for the better.

or they are not a person, in which case they do not have the right to use and reside within another's body without permission.

I agree with this half of your logic.

[The Alma Mater]

I stopped here, because the personhood of the unborn is irrelevant. Either they are a person, in which case they do not have the right to use and reside within another's body without permission,

The right to life is more valuable than the right to not be temporarily inconvenienced.

Really ? So when are you donating a kidney ?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This is not necessarily true.

Going by the cerebral cortex argument for personhood, a person, meaning, a human with the same capacities we have of higher reasoning and complex thought processes, is not even close to that at 5 weeks. You still need a cerebral cortex, which isn't fully developed until way later into the pregnancy.

Depends. Do we draw the line at a functioning cerebral cortex or do we go back as early as the telencephalon? Because realistically, the brain is present from very early on, it's just not particularly well developed until much later in the pregnancy.

I'd go with a functioning cerebral cortex, which is where blurry lines start to appear in regards of ethics.

Which is why pro-choice advocates, in higher-level debates, have an issue defending the position when the child can be reasonably extracted from a womb and still live. To which I would suggest that at that point, if the child is viable, better to induce a pregnancy, rather than to do some of the more invasive forms of surgery to get rid of the fetus unless said surgery is absolutely necessary (a dead or even dead on arrival fetus, for instance).

Honestly, that's what it's done nowadays, and it is "technically" an abortion, even if we call it induced labor.

[Galiantus VII]

A person can lose almost any part of his or her body and remain a person, correct? The only exception is the brain. A human body without a brain is not a person, it is a corpse. This is one reason I am so convinced a fetus obtains personhood while it is in the womb (around 5 weeks, in fact).

This is not necessarily true.

Going by the cerebral cortex argument for personhood, a person, meaning, a human with the same capacities we have of higher reasoning and complex thought processes, is not even close to that at 5 weeks. You still need a cerebral cortex, which isn't fully developed until way later into the pregnancy.

Careful. The higher reasoning argument was used to justify why black slaves were less than people.

The presence of a brain is pretty sudden and not gradual like the changes within the brain that lead to reasoning and thought process, and again, there are plenty of people with fully developed brains with no capacity for higher reasoning - yet they are still people. The development of the brain takes over 21 years for most people. At what age do you say that someone has enough reasoning to be a person? Do we use an IQ litmus test for personhood?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

This is not necessarily true.

Going by the cerebral cortex argument for personhood, a person, meaning, a human with the same capacities we have of higher reasoning and complex thought processes, is not even close to that at 5 weeks. You still need a cerebral cortex, which isn't fully developed until way later into the pregnancy.

Careful. The higher reasoning argument was used to justify why black slaves were less than people.

Okay, well Hitler was pro-life (for Aryan women).

See, we can make stupid comparisons too.