Abortion

The key question to the debate on abortion is when one feels life begins. I think we can all agree on the premise that human life is sacred and every "civilized" nation has rules that punish and disallow the crime of murder. I personally feel that a human life begins at the moment of conception (ie sperm / egg) and therefore all life must be protected at and following this state of being. In order to be consistent and to not be intellectually dishonset one cannot say that rape, a genetic defect, etc. negates the aforementioned principle and therefore people can perform an abortion under those limitied scenarios. If you believe that life begins at a certain point in time, then that life must be protected regardless of the manner in which it came into existence (ie rape, consenual sex between a married couple, boyfriend / girlfriend, etc) because all human life (at least within the United States) is entitled to the basic rights and protections afforded by the Constitution and the laws of the States contained therein. Although it is a difficult point to determine for some, once one determines when "life begins" the other factors surrounding the "abortion debate" become trivial to me. Many renowed scientists and Doctors have given complete support to the principle that life begins at the moment of conception (and many are devout atheists) and they are ,therefore, strongly opposed to abortion in any form. Although I am "religious", one can certainly analyze this debate completely outside the realm of religious principles.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bretheweb:
[B]Howdy Lee,
//The key question to the debate on abortion is when one feels life begins.//
Not for me.
The key issue in this debate is about the governments attempted removal of a womans reproductive rights.
-----But one never gets to the issue of a woman's "reproductive rights" if you determine that life begins at the time of conception. Any rights a woman has are trumped by the "life" inside of her (the only time a woman should have a "choice" are in those very limited circumstances where a mother's life is at significant risk). If one determines that a "life" is truly inside her corpus at the moment of conception, than "reproductive rights" becomes a moot issue.From a philosphical perspective almost any valid argument could be made from any point whatsoever.
Life is a contiuum over 2 billion years old of which we humans are but one aspect of.
All Life, ie., every sperm and every ova, is sacred.
Life begins at conception.
Life begins at implantation.
Life begins at first heartbeat.
Life begins at viability.
Life begins at birth.
Life begins at 40.
Take your pick.
----Please make an attempt to be intellectually honest as the beggining of a human life form is not a matter of "philosophy". Certainly we can differ as to when we feel life begins but "life begins at 40", I hope, was done purely for humerous effect.//I think we can all agree on the premise that human life is sacred...//
I think that in a hypothetically perfect world we would like to believe that all human life is sacred, certainly.//...and every "civilized" nation has rules that punish and disallow the crime of murder.//
Ah, but who defines "civilized"?
It seems to me that cultures who value justice and fairness tend to have such laws, yes.
But here in the US we allow state sanctioned homicide.
So where does that put us on the "civilized" scale?
------I'll concede that the allowance of the death penalty (although distinguishable from abortion) is contrary to the maxim that all life is sacred. I am personally against the death penalty but the allowance of the death penalty within the United States does not negate the fact that abortion is murder if one deems that life begins at the moment of conception (it's the old addage of "two wrongs don't make a right" to be overly simplistic)//I personally feel that a human life begins at the moment of conception (ie sperm / egg) and therefore all life must be protected at and following this state of being.//
Ok.
"Protected" how exactly?
As I pointed out to Mr. Pamboli, less than 20% of all *fertilized* eggs, ie., "human life" as you define it, never make it to birth.
Who do we hold responsible?
If the US experienced an 80% mortality rate of newborns the outcry to find out "who is responsible" would be tremendous so please dont tell me it would just be "natures fault".
If we are to endow a fertilized egg with the same rights as a neonate, then what mechanism do you propose to ensure a greater than 20% survival rate?
------Although your point is well taken it deviates from the issue at hand, namely when life begins? The fact that a fertilized egg, or human in my humble opinion, has a low level of "survival", does not negate the fact that it is a human life. Science is not my specialty so I do not know the fundamental reason(s) as to why fertilized eggs only have a 20% survival rate (assuming your information is correct) but it is a problem that should be researched.//In order to be consistent and to not be intellectually dishonset one cannot say that rape, a genetic defect, etc. negates the aforementioned principle and therefore people can perform an abortion under those limitied scenarios.//
I quite agree.
The only issue with that position is that you'll have a difficult time convincing half the population that for the duration of their pregnancies their rights are reduced to zero.
People tend not to like having their rights taken away from them so I cant imagine any politician actively espousing this position in an attempt to pass such a law.-----Although you bring up a valid point regarding the "political aspect" of my position, the difficulty of Congress and / or society accepting my position does not enhance or detract from its validity.//If you believe that life begins at a certain point in time, then that life must be protected regardless of the manner in which it came into existence (ie rape, consenual sex between a married couple, boyfriend / girlfriend, etc) because all human life (at least within the United States) is entitled to the basic rights and protections afforded by the Constitution and the laws of the States contained therein.//
Except, of course, that according to current US Constitutional law, that protection begins at birth.
Unfortunately for the stance as the one you are presenting, the burden of justifying the removal of rights of pregnant women to "protect" these new citizens is far to heavy to be compelling.------It is more than compelling if you determine that a human life is within that mother. You allude here to the standard of strict scrutiny (compelling), and the governemnt certainly has a compelling governemntal interest in protecting the lives of its citizens (again assuming you accept my position that at conception life begins) even against the interests of their own mother. The Constitution does not mention the concept of "birth" in any way whatsoever, rather that is the Constitution as interpreted through the Supreme Court which, as we all know, is subject to change. Certainly you cannot make the valid arguement that the Framers of our Constitution envisioned a society where a woman would be able to terminate her own pregnancy at her own discretion for any reason and were in support of same. Any constitutional scholar who is intellectually honest will concede that Roe v. Wade is an extremely weak decision and the Court refused to answer the very question that began my post "when does life begin?", (read the case) the critical issue to this debate.//Although it is a difficult point to determine for some, once one determines when "life begins" the other factors surrounding the "abortion debate" become trivial to me.//
It is unfortunate that you dont want to recognize the importance of the individual liberties of women intrinsic to this issue.
----Again this not a debate about "woman's rights" and I am not trying to negate them. But, once one determines that an individual human life exists at the time a fertilized egg is within that mother, her rights become subjected to that other human life.//Many renowed scientists and Doctors have given complete support to the principle that life begins at the moment of conception (and many are devout atheists) and they are ,therefore, strongly opposed to abortion in any form.//
The logical fallacy "appeal to authority" isnt terribly compelling, because I can simply this around and say the exact opposite.
------Your point is well taken.//Although I am "religious", one can certainly analyze this debate completely outside the realm of religious principles.//
One could, but unfortunately the primary movers and shakers behind the Pro Life movement are unabashedly religious in their primary motivation for their cause.
------Of course Pro-Lifers are the moving force but that has no bearing upon the points I raise and the issues at hand. I have not once brought up religious principles in my discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bretheweb:
//But one never gets to the issue of a woman's "reproductive rights" if you determine that life begins at the time of conception.//
Thats a hoot.
Where exaclty does a fertilized egg reside, Newark? ----My residency, or lack thereof, does not determine my ability to be human life. Are all "homeless" people non-humans? Although I have a great sense of humor, lets keep our responses on the serious side. The fertilized egg "resides" within the mother as you very well know.

​

//Any rights a woman has are trumped by the "life" inside of her (the only time a woman should have a "choice" are in those very limited circumstances where a mother's life is at significant risk).//
Sorry, Lee, but rights dont work like that.
This is why even Death Row inmates still have rights.
At best what you have is a complicated dance of who's rights take precedence during any given time.
Not unlike what exists now.
-----Right most certainly work in that fashion. I never said woman loose their rights (as you are implying that even "death row inmates have rights" which indeed they do but they unquestionably forfeit most of them upon entering prison) rather I stated that the woman's reproductive rights are trumped by the rights of the human life within her. Rights, even reproductive rights, are never ABSOLUTE and are always subject to the governments (ie societies) reasonable interest (rational basis scrutiny), substantial interest(middle level scrutiny) or compelling interest (strict scrutiny in the case of reproductive rights) in a particular fact pattern or case in which "rights" are being held in check. Thus, governemnt can pass a law which inhibits the reproductive rights of a woman as long as they have a compelling governemental interest to do so (in my example the compelling governmental interest is the life of the child, a human life, which should always trump ones reproductive rights). A classic example is free speech. Although free speech is an unquestionable right in our Constitution, it is not absolute as one cannot falsely scream "fire" in a crowded theater without suffering the punishment of law because the interest of maintaining safety (ie not having everyone trample one another in an attempt to escape) outweighs the individuals free speech right.

​

//If one determines that a "life" is truly inside her corpus at the moment of conception, than "reproductive rights" becomes a moot issue.//
Sorry, but you're wrong.
Even assuming that the US government altered the Constitution in such a way, the rights of the woman are not suddenly rendered moot.
------See my discussion above...by moot I am implying that a court of law (as you cite the Constitution as your "authority" for this issue), if it determined that life began at conception, would weigh the interests of the human life within the mother and determine that it's right to survive outweighs the reproductive rights of the woman in question.

​

//Please make an attempt to be intellectually honest as the beggining of a human life form is not a matter of "philosophy".//
Ah, but most certainly it is, Lee.
For several reasons.
There is not "point" of conception.
It is a process that takes many, many hours.
And the only thing "created" at conception that doesnt exist prior is a unique set of DNA.
DNA does not equal "life".
If it did, a removed kidney would suddenly become "a human being".
-----A kidney does not have the critical "unique set of DNA" (as you put it) that comprises the components of a human life and therefore your arguement is flawed. You, not I, implied DNA = life.

​

//Certainly we can differ as to when we feel life begins but "life begins at 40", I hope, was done purely for humerous effect.//
Yes and no.
As I pointed out, any valid philosophical argument can be made for any point in time.
And from a philosophical perspective '40' is perfectly acceptable.
----But lets temper our philosophy within the realm of reality. You like to emphasize the practical reality of my position by bringing up "politics" so please subject your positions to reality. If life begins at 40 then I cannot be having this debate with you right now as I am not yet born (by more than 10 years). All intellectually honest philosophy must be subjected to reason.

​

//I'll concede that the allowance of the death penalty (although distinguishable from abortion) is contrary to the maxim that all life is sacred.//
You'd be amazed at those who dont see the contradiction.
------That's fine but it's not relevant to our discussion.

​

//I am personally against the death penalty but the allowance of the death penalty within the United States does not negate the fact that abortion is murder if one deems that life begins at the moment of conception (it's the old addage of "two wrongs don't make a right" to be overly simplistic)//
Absolutely correct... *if* ones deems it so.
However, let me point out, that to expand the definition of legal personhood back to conception will require a requsite expansion of juridisprudence.
Making such a change would, IMO, unduly burden out current legal system to no real benefit to anyone except lawyers.
----And the Roe v. Wade decision was "an expansion of jurisprudence" (as abortion was illegal prior to Roe) and there was no legal case law or pesedence which allowed abortion. Of course that is your opinion as your opinion is tainted by your view that abortion should be legal, as my "opinion" is tainted by my subjective belief that abortion should be illegal.

​

//Although your point is well taken it deviates from the issue at hand, namely when life begins?//
No, Lee, it deviated from your attempt to frame the issue as such.
I dont agree with that particular characterization and whenever I hear someone espouse this perspective what I inevitably encounter is a lack of forethought relevent to responsibility for the reality of the situation.
Namely, 80% of fertilized eggs do not reach birth.
Now who is responsible, how will that responsibility be determined and what punishment shall they receive?
-----I understand the legal complexity of the situation but that does not negate the validity of my premise (that life does indeed begin at conception despite the high "mortality" rate).

​

//The fact that a fertilized egg, or human in my humble opinion, has a low level of "survival", does not negate the fact that it is a human life.//
And I quite agree since that wasnt my point.
What I want to know, is who is responsible for all those deaths?
Again, if an 80% mortality rate for newborns existed, there would be little doubt that extreme action would be taken to determine the reason. It isnt unreasonable to ask that they same action be taken for those newly endowed fertilized eggs.
-----I am sure that the vast majority of deaths occur due to no improper action or inaction on the part of the mother in question. I would also like you to cite, specifically, the authority (ie a scientific journal, etc) you utilize to support your position that 80% of fertilized eggs terminate?

​

//Although you bring up a valid point regarding the "political aspect" of my position, the difficulty of Congress and / or society accepting my position does not enhance or detract from its validity.//
From a philosophical perspective, I quite agree.
However, since to be "effective" this would have to be implemented by law, I see no way to get around it.
Short of some form of dictatorship, that is.
----Societies "views" are fickle, fleeting and easily subject to change. How do you think that the vast majority of Americans (roughly 70% +) were against abortion, say just 40 years ago, and yet today most say that it is a matter of choice? Did Americans suddenly become enlightened or more intelligent over the last couple of decades? NO. The media has pounded them with the premise of "choice" and a "women's right to choose". The sad reality is that the vast majority of America simply sit at their tv's and most of their opinions are derived from the popular culture or television. If the more "conservative" media (ie Fox news) continues to grow dramatically in popularity and viewership as it has (thus gradually moving popular opinion towards an anti-abortion position) and the Bush administration is able to appoint 1 or 2 conservative judges to change the "balance" in the Supreme Court, the legality of abortion is seriously placed in jeopardy. "The left" is well aware of this fact and that is why they have and will continue to try to oppose any conservative Justices for appointment to the Supreme Court. Although I never raised the issue of "politics", you seem want to discuss politics, so quite frankly that is the "political" reality of the issue.

​

//It is more than compelling if you determine that a human life is within that mother.//
No, actually, not really.
Because in the end you are simply refusing to address the issue of the womans rights.
A pregnancy does not take place in a moral/ethical/physical vacuum.
------See above. The woman's rights are still totally intact but they are outweighed by the competing and more compelling interest of the human life within her to not be harmed / terminated.

​

//You allude here to the standard of strict scrutiny (compelling), and the governemnt certainly has a compelling governemntal interest in protecting the lives of its citizens (again assuming you accept my position that at conception life begins) even against the interests of their own mother.//
The key phrase there is *citizens*, of course.
And I adamantly agree with that concept.

​

As the Roe V Wade decision pointed out, the Justices were unwilling to set up a conflict between the intersts of the woman and that of her fetus... except after a point, late into a pregnancy, when it was moot.
------Correct, but the Justices that currently comprise the Supreme Court are certainly a different mix than at the time of Roe. Current and/or future Justices may be more than willing to address that "conflict" prior to late pregnancy (ie at the time of conception as I propose). Although I don't agree with the "viability" concept, the viability of a "fetus" (or life I would contend) is incresingly getting earlier and earlier as scientific advances move forward.

​

//The Constitution does not mention the concept of "birth" in any way whatsoever, rather that is the Constitution as interpreted through the Supreme Court which, as we all know, is subject to change.//
Au contraire.
Amendment XIV: 1. All persons *born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

​

And as a side note, the construction of our government, with three branches, was such that changes to the Constitution and its interpretation are an intrinsic to it.
-----You allude to the the 14th Ammendmant or the "Equal Protection Clause". Although it does say "born", the equal protection clause was instituted in response to the stigma of slavery and equal protection of laws within the United States being afforded to people of all races, colors, creeds, etc. The 14th A has absolutely no relevance to our conversation.

​

//Any constitutional scholar who is intellectually honest will concede that Roe v. Wade is an extremely weak decision and the Court refused to answer the very question that began my post "when does life begin?", (read the case) the critical issue to this debate.//
I quite agree.
The Roe decision is a compromise at best.
It should have simply determined that the state had no business in a womans reproductive decisions, at all, and left it at that.
It isnt within the SCOTUS's pervue to decide when life begins.
This is explained the the Roe decision.
That falls squarely into the lap of Congress... which is why it will never happen.
Congress is unwilling to actually tackle an issue until it becomes monsterously obvious that it is something the US people want.
Example: Congress finally addresses election funding reform after polls determine 75% of the US wants changes to occur.
----As indicated previously, the Court could certainly tackle the question if they choose to do so. Whether they ultimately will or not remians to be seen. I agree that it would be a difficult task to accomplish on the Congressional level at this point in time.

​

//Again this not a debate about "woman's rights" and I am not trying to negate them.//
Lee, this issue can *ONLY* be about womens rights.
Until inexpensive artificial wombs are the norm, a woman will always be needed as a recepticle for a zef.
-----It's ONLY about woman's rights if you don't agree with my postion that life begins at conception. If my position is "correct" than you not only have a woman's rights, you also have those rights of the human being within her. As a side note, I have read scietific literature that scientists seem to be fairly confident that they are working on and may perfect an artificial womb within the next 20 years (are you aware of this)?

​

//But, once one determines that an individual human life exists at the time a fertilized egg is within that mother, her rights become subjected to that other human life.//
No.
As I explained above.
And since there is no precedence for this you'll absolutely have to do a better job of making your argument more compelling.
----All I need for "presedence" is a case decided by the Supreme Court whereby they accept my position as to life's beggining. My position is not so far fetched if a few more Scalia's get on the Court.

​

Lee

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
I disagree that the key question is when life begins. I think the key question is what rights does the state have to control a woman's body.
-----But if you accept my premise that life begins at the moment of conception then you must always counter-balance the woman's rights over "her body" against those of the "body" developing within her. The "state" is not attepting to control that woman's body for the sole purpose of negating her rights. Rather, it is asserting that there are rights inherent in the human developing within her (again assuming my premise that life begins at conception). No right is absolute and the government, or "state as you prefer", can always limit a "right" (in this case a woman's reproductive rights) if it has a compelling interest to do so (in my example the "compelling" interest is that of the life within her).

​

Did you know that most fertilized eggs do not result in pregancies because they never implant, and are therefore expelled during menstruation?
---Fine, but a high mortality rate for fertilized eggs does not negate my premise that life begins at conception.

​

To be consistent with your idea that life begins at conception and it all needs to be protected, we would need to protect this "life", no?
---Absolutely, to any extent that one can. Most of this occurs due to natural processes whereby the child fails to "implant".

​

Also, do you reccomend that we make IUD's illegal, because they prevent pregnancy by not allowing the fertilized egg to implant into the uterine wall?
----Taking my premise that life begins at conception, my answer is quite obvious. Condomns would avoid the dilema. Reduced sensitivity at the cost of not negating life.

​

Should we protect ectopic pregnancies which will kill the mother if allowed to continue?
----No, this is the one situation (ie where a mother's life is at reasonable risk...I say reasonable only to avoid abuse by Doctor's and /or patients) that a woman can make the decision to continue and /or terminate her pregnancy.

​

What about a woman who's life is threatened by carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth?
----See above.

​

Would you be willing to send doctors, nurses, and women to jail to serve life sentences for murder because they either performed, assisted in, or underwent, an abortion?
----At this point in time that is an illegal impossibility as abortion is quite legal. If abortion were deemed illegal (either through law or a Supreme Court decision), than there would obviously be laws to punish those that do as you describe above.

​

Do you feel that the state has a right to force women to carry all pregnancies to term? Do you feel comfortable with the knowledge that, if the state were to regain this power, that many women would die, bleeding to death or dying from infections from back-alley, coathanger abortions?
----Although you bring up a sad reality and are trying to play upon emotion, that in no way negates my premise that life begins at the moment of conception. Drugs are illegal, yet many overdose and kill themselves and others every day within our country contrary to the law. The same could be said that if abortion were made illegal, some would decide to take actions contrary to the law and terminate their pregnancy and in the process harm or kill themselves.

​

On a different note, there is no shortage of unwanted children who are already alive. If we increase their numbers singnificantly, who is going to raise them and pay for their educations, etc?
----How do you define "unwanted" children (those who are orphans, or simply un-loved, etc?), that is an extremely vague term. Give me a reliable source (ie newspaper, journal, etc) which sites the % of unwanted children in relation to our overall population to give me an idea of the gravity of the situation. The principle of my premise is that life begins at conception, the practical / societal impact of my premise does not negate its "viability" (no pun intended).

​

Lastly, you seem to be saying that at the moment a sperm combines with egg, the rights of that "sperm + egg" supercedes that of the woman to control her own body. If you are a man (sorry, it's a safe assumption), what medical procedures and descisions that you make about yourself do you think the government should supercede your or your doctor's judgement? Would you allow the state to have control over any aspect of your fertility?
Although it is a bit off point, I must make one simple "societal" observation if I may. You, as well as I, know that the vast, vast majority of abortions are not done out of medical neccesity but rather out of convenience (whether it be financial, age related, etc). Yet, you seem to focus upon the vast minority of abortion situations (ie when a doctors judgment is involved, the woman's life is at stake, etc). Although I have vaild responses for your "minority" situations, I just thought I needed to clarify that point. As I indicated earlier, the only situation in which the mother should be able to terminate a pregnancy and therefore negate the life within her, is when the mothers life is at reasonable risk. Although the state can limit your "reproductive rights", they cannot come up with a compelling governmental interest whereby they would negate a woman's life over that of her child. In that limited circumstance, the facts are so compelling that it is the mothers decision. See, so although I am a cold hearted, sick and demented male bastard, even I have my limitations...

​

---

Originally posted by leekim:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by bretheweb:
[B]Howdy Lee,
//The key question to the debate on abortion is when one feels life begins.//
Not for me.
The key issue in this debate is about the governments attempted removal of a womans reproductive rights.
-----But one never gets to the issue of a woman's "reproductive rights" if you determine that life begins at the time of conception. Any rights a woman has are trumped by the "life" inside of her (the only time a woman should have a "choice" are in those very limited circumstances where a mother's life is at significant risk). If one determines that a "life" is truly inside her corpus at the moment of conception, than "reproductive rights" becomes a moot issue.You are a man, aren't you?
Since when is any human in the US EVER required to set aside their rights in favor of another's rights??----My gender is irrelevant (ad hominum attack). People, yourself included, seem to have some notion (incorrectly) that rights, as endowed by the Constitution / Ammendments and as interpreted through the Supreme Court, are absolute. That is simply not the case as the law requires everyone to "set aside their rights" if they could have a detrimental effect on another individuals more compelling rights. The classic example is your right to free speech. Although free speech is a right given by the Constitution, one cannot exercise their right to falsely yell "Fire" in a crowded theatere. Why? Because the right to free speech, in that circumstance, is not as compelling as the rights of fellow citizens not to trample one another in an effort to escape from the theater. Defemation / slander is another classic example whereby we limit the right of speech. In the same vein, a woman's reproductive rights are not absolute and can be limited, and are currnetly limited, under the proper set of circumstances.
_____________________________________________________________________I understand that this is a relatively new concept when applied to women. After all, the term "marital rape" hasn't been in existence for very long. That doesn't mean that women weren't being raped by their husbands for thousands of years before this affront to their rights was recognized as such.
----Your obsession and /or feelings of rape are not germane to the topic. Please stay focused and avoid tangents.
_____________________________________________________________________It is more than compelling if you determine that a human life is within that mother. You allude here to the standard of strict scrutiny (compelling), and the governemnt certainly has a compelling governemntal interest in protecting the lives of its citizens (again assuming you accept my position that at conception life begins) even against the interests of their own mother.
The constitution also mentions "liberty" as well as "life". How is the state promoting "liberty" if it forces all women to carry all pregnancies to term?
-----Again, (and not to be redundant), no right is absolute and when rights conflcit the Court does a balancing whereby they weigh the issues involved. If you accept my premise that life begins at conception, than the interest of the life (in my scenario) would outweigh the woman's reproductive rights.
_____________________________________________________________________Any constitutional scholar who is intellectually honest will concede that Roe v. Wade is an extremely weak decision and the Court refused to answer the very question that began my post "when does life begin?", (read the case) the critical issue to this debate.We will not go back to coathanger abortions. Making abortion illegal will not end abortion. It will only increase the number of unwanted children, abused and uneducated and underfed children (at risk for engaging in criminal behavior). It wall also increase the number of women who suffer and die from backalley procedures. It will also increase the number of infanticides.
I wonder if you have considered coming at this problem from another direction. Have you ever considered working to make it less necessary? Educating children about sex and reproduction, and the many kinds of birth control which exist and responsibility, teaching boys to respect girls and girls to respect themselves, etc.?
Safe, legal abortion is a sign of a society which treats women as full and equal citizens.
I have to tell you that reading your posts makes me want to go write checks to NARAL and NOW.
We will not go back.
-----I think the education of children is critical and I don't have time to delve into the details (I do have to actually do some "work" at my job) but suffice it to say that I agree. I think it is sad and unfortunate that you interpret a woman's ability to terminate a life within her as a "sign of a society which treats women as full and equal citizens" but that is a topic for another post / issue. What form of support you decide to foolishly send to NARAL and /or NOW is your own matter. "We will not go back"...I hope you don't presume to speak for ALL women when you make the comment "we" because, unfortunately, the aforementioned organizations you cited (NOW, NARAL) have a tendency to do so. "I" would probably work better in that situation.
_____________________________________________________________________//Although it is a difficult point to determine for some, once one determines when "life begins" the other factors surrounding the "abortion debate" become trivial to me.//
It is unfortunate that you dont want to recognize the importance of the individual liberties of women intrinsic to this issue.
----Again this not a debate about "woman's rights" and I am not trying to negate them.Um, yes it is, and you just said that a women's rights are automatically negated at the moment a fertilized egg exists inside her.
----As I have indicated numerous times, the women's rights are not negated. Rather, the rights of the life within her to survive supercedes or "trumps" the mother's "reproductive rights" as a more compelling interest (see my discussion earlier whereby I indicate that no rights are absolute and where rights conflict, there must be a balancing of the rights involved).
____________________________________________________________________But, once one determines that an individual human life exists at the time a fertilized egg is within that mother, her rights become subjected to that other human life.Why? Why are the rights of the sperm + egg so much more valuable than a woman's rights that her rights are negated? You have not justified this statement; you have simply asserted it.
This sounds like fetus worship to me.
-----This is a good end point because it brings me back to me original premise. What you see as a "sperm + egg", I see as a human life. I have most certainly "justified" my statement because if one deems that life begins at the moment of conception, than there are rights inherent in said life. I am not familiar with the term "fetus worship" nor have I ever worshipped a fetus. A lame attempt at humor I guess.It has been an enjoyable debate but this will be my last post on this topic. I thank all of "you" for your input and /or responses.