A question about abortion.?

Question

Abortion is one of the overriding issues in this upcoming election (presidential election in America). The next president may have the ability to tip the scales in the Supreme Court to more firmly establish Roe v. Wade; or to completely overturn it.

Therefore I believe it is necessary to examine more thoroughly.

Personally I am against abortion. I consider it murder. But I must admit that the reason I consider it as such is because of the Bible. As best as I can tell nearly everyone who is against abortion is against it because of whichever religious book they use (like the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Amida Buddha, etc.). Unfortunately the lawyers fighting against abortion cannot use religious books to fight against abortion, it would be forcing the beliefs of one group onto another.

Therefore it must be argued on constitution and law only. It is possible to do so, but the pro-life side must show scientifically that the fetus is human. Note that we don't have to prove that

the fetus is alive. It is, and no one can argue against that. But that doesn't really mean that much, as we kill living things all the time. That burger you eat or that pork chop both used to be alive. That mosquito you smash after it bites you was alive. No one considers it murder to kill any of those, so it is possible to kill a living thing and not commit murder.

What the pro-choice side is arguing is that the fetus isn't human. That it is part of the mother's body and therefore her choice on the matter. As the fetus draws nutrients from the mother, it is arguable that it would be similar to a parasite and therefore within the rights of the mother to remove it for her own safety and health.

I may not like it said that way, but legally speaking it is a viable argument. If I had been a Supreme Court Justice and that argument came up I would have to go with it based on the constitution.

But I believe that if the pro-life side can prove the fetus is a human

(and only using scientific means, not the religious books), it would be possible to reverse Roe v. Wade. Does anyone have an idea on how pro-life individuals could prove the fetus to be human?

I want mainly answers from pro-life individuals, as they are the ones who would most want this question answered. However, I would not be against learning from those on the other side. If you want to provide arguments for abortion, who knows but maybe you could change my mind (I wouldn't depend on it, but I'm willing to listen).

I submit this question with honest intellectualism combined with my honest beliefs, and I don't mean to attack anyone else. I formally say that I do not consider supporters of abortion to be murderers; I consider them wrong but only from my point-of-view. Who knows but maybe one of you could change my point-of-view.

Answer 1

Is this a soapbox I see before me?
What actually is your question or was this a party political broadcast?

Answer 2

1) The fetus is human I have yet to see a human woman give birth to a dog.

2) The fetus is alive.

The question we have to ask does that life have value.

What is the difference between a fetus that is 9 months along and what magic happens when it goes into the outside world?

Where do we draw that line.
When the fetus is viable.

You will find out that there is no vast majority that believe that abortion should be outlawed or have no restriction to it whatsoever.

Both sides are going to have to come to a comprise.

Since that is not going to happen it will still be reduce to the same arguments and same name calling done by both sides.

How does one figure that a minor who can't get her ears pierce is mature enough to make a life and death decision without adult supervision.

It is not her body that is being terminated.
A fetus has it's own DNA making it unique human.

We are not learning that it isn't just a blob of cells and magic at birth it becomes human.

As far as the Bible goes it was use to end slavery in this country.

As far as the government telling you want you can do to your own body it does all the time.

From seat belt laws, smoking laws, drinking laws, etc. You just have to look.

Roe was bad decision by the court.

It should have been left to the states to decide.

In fact Roe woke up people to abortion and all it meant. There is strong case to be made it set back abortion by years.

There is going to be no simple answers to this until we all come to the table and willing to talk.

Tell than the rants will go on and on.

Answer 3

I must be in a minority, because I'm agnostic and I oppose abortion. I do so because logically it is murdering a living thing. I don't need a holy book or a priest to tell me this either. Consider that murdering a pregnant woman counts as two murders. Why? The woman, and her yet-to-be-born baby. But how can that baby be considered a murder, when abortion is not? Many say it's a clump of cells and it doesn't count, a fetus is not a baby. Well, a caterpillar is not a butterfly -- it becomes one, but the living thing that was the caterpillar and became the butterfly is the same thing. It is not a different living thing that emerges from the cocoon, and so since every human must go through a transformation phase from a zygote to a fetus to a person, I can't see why that argument discredits the fetus as a person.

Answer 4

good to see you realize you need a rational, scientific, as opopsed to irrational religious argument here, but you have things upside down.

> but the pro-life side must show scientifically that the fetus is human.

No one has ever claimed a fetus is not human, It has human dna of course. What else could it be?

> Note that we don't have to prove that the fetus is alive. It is, and no one can argue against that.

Actually, that is exactly the dispute in legal and scientific circles. Scientifically, there is no fine between one stage of life and others, just a continuum. sort of how you can't really say where a rainbow turns from one color to the next, even though you can agree that it does.

> But that doesn't really mean that much, as we kill living things all the time. That burger you eat or that pork chop both used to be alive. That mosquito you smash after it bites you was alive. No one considers it murder to kill any of those, so it is possible to kill a living thing and not commit murder.

There are people who consider that murder, they are just "on the fringe" politically. Many people refuse to eat food that was once alive for exactly that reason.

> What the pro-choice side is arguing is that the fetus isn't human.

Not at all. What the pro-choice side argues is that the woman has the right to determine what happens to her own body, and that the government most certainly does not get to control what she does with it - any part of it, including specifically her reproductive organs in this case.


> That it is part of the mother's body and therefore her choice on the matter.

Some might claim that, but that is a weak position not espoused by anyone who has really thought about it. Because not only does the fetus have human DNA, but it is not the same as the mother's DNA.

> As the fetus draws nutrients from the mother, it is arguable that it would be similar to a parasite and therefore within the rights of the mother to remove it for her own safety and health.

The "parasite" argument is a weak one, not really made by pro-choice folks who are thoughtful, because it is not necessary.

Under the doctrine, supported by the Constitution, that we are free to pursue liberty, the mother has the right to make her own health and safety decisions without likening the cause of concern to a parasite.

> I may not like it said that way, but legally speaking it is a viable argument.

Not really. although I see where you have gotten a fair outline of the legal argument and twisted it a bit. It is a better attempt then most to understand the other side. If you are sincere, I hope my insights will clear things up for you.

> If I had been a Supreme Court Justice and that argument came up I would have to go with it based on the constitution.

Good for you for recognizing we are a country of laws, and, while individuals may have religious beliefs, they are not one and the same!

> But I believe that if the pro-life side can prove the fetus is a human

I think that the fetus is human is a truism.

Probably in a more legalistic sense what you are after is, is the fetus a "legal person"?

That is unlikely to ever be the case - that a fetus would be granted "legal personhood" from the time it is but 2 cells.

And not because the law can't take into account abstract notions of "legal personhood" - after all, that is exactly the status granted to corporations that issue stock.

More likely because a mere group of cells can not exercise the responsibilities that go along with being a citizen at that stage of its life cycle.

> (and only using scientific means, not the religious books), it would be possible to reverse Roe v. Wade. Does anyone have an idea on how pro-life individuals could prove the fetus to be human?

I don't think that is really the crux of the argument at all.

No one disputes the fetus is human.

The issue is, in the real world of a country ruled by laws and not religious beliefs, do the mother's rights to freedom, privacy, and all that entails overlay any theoretical rights of a group of cells you could maybe ascribe "legal personhood" too?

If you can answer yes to that using a combination of law and science, more power to you, but really, why would you even want to try? You mean to tell me that the "rights" of a human at the stage of life where it is only 2 cells are more important than the long established rights of 50% of the population that has already been born?

> I want mainly answers from pro-life individuals, as they are the ones who would most want this question answered. However, I would not be against learning from those on the other side. If you want to provide arguments for abortion, who knows but maybe you could change my mind (I wouldn't depend on it, but I'm willing to listen).

You should always have an open mind if you want to make a persuasive argument. You might stumble across a persuasive argument yourself one day, and if you care close-minded enough to never be persuaded, why should you expect anyone to ever be persuaded by what you say to them?


> I submit this question with honest intellectualism combined with my honest beliefs, and I don't mean to attack anyone else. I formally say that I do not consider supporters of abortion to be murderers; I consider them wrong but only from my point-of-view. Who knows but maybe one of you could change my point-of-view.

Hope I planted a seed :)

Practice making my argument - learn all the supporting details space prevents me from including. Know it like the back of your hand. that way you can find all the weak points from actual first hand knowledge :)

Answer 5

Feel free to "thumbs down" my answer because it doesn't really answer your question.

First of all, it's not a question of whether a fetus is human. It's a question of whether a fetus is a "person." The fatty tumor I have removed has human, and only human DNA. It is not a person. What constiutes a person? Self-awareness? Ability to feel human pain and emotional responses? If that's the case, then when certain brain structures are in place and functioning, that person becomes a human.

The anti-abortion argument seems to be that "could be," or "potentially might be" qualifies. For a Catholic, the moment of fertilization. Actually, before that, since they are against any kind of birth control, including condoms or pills that prevent ovulation.

I'm going to go out of bounds, however, and cite the Bible as my proof that a fetus is not equal to a person. In the Bible, when Moses brings back the laws of the Lord, they lay out a number of rules, some that are still followed, and many that are considered absurd today (can't plant certain crops beside each other, etc.).

Let's juxtapose a couple of examples from the same passage.

If a woman loses her child because of two men in strife against each other, there will be penalties as determined by the judge and the husband - basically fines and forfeitures.

But if anything more serious happens, the penalty shall be an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and life for a life.

That's pretty clear, it's the same passage. If the bible equated the unborn to the born, there would be no differentiation between the unborn being lost and the "life for a life" penalty.

There is no biblical justification that is as clear cut as that passage...

From Exodus:

"21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

In any case, in order to get some resolution, you have to get the parties to agree to standards and definitions from which an argument can be evaluated, and each side wants to set the standards and definitions (what is life, what is human, what is a person) according to what will agree with their foregone conclusion.

Answer 6

"What the pro-choice side is arguing is that the fetus isn't human. That it is part of the mother's body and therefore her choice on the matter."
This is patently absurd and disprovable by a simple DNA test.

"As the fetus draws nutrients from the mother, it is arguable that it would be similar to a parasite and therefore within the rights of the mother to remove it for her own safety and health."
Again, completely absurd. Most humans can not feed themselves until more than a year old. Although the child may not be taking nutrients directly out of the mother's body at that time, they are taking food resources that would otherwise be available for the parents to eat.

"I may not like it said that way, but legally speaking it is a viable argument."
Not even close. Nobody can prove the existence of a soul, so the only thing we can legally define a human by is biology. DNA proves that a fetus is human and completely distinct from it's parents.

There is no reasonable, rational, or legal argument in favor of abortion. The one I hear most "it's a woman's body" is the most absurd of all. My house is my private property, explicitly protected by the 4th Amendment, but I can't commit murder in it! Murdering an innocent human is murder, regardless of whether it is in your house, your car, our busines, or your body. Trying to defend murder with property rights is monstrous.

Answer 7

Medically Speaking, When Does Life Begin?
http://abort73.com/HTML/I-A-1-medical.html

Photos and Facts About Prenatal Development:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-2-prenatal.html

Pro-Life Answers to “Pro-Choice” Arguments:
http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/

Photos and Video of Abortions, Including 1st Trimester Abortions:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-video.html
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures.html

A Comparison of Abortion and Other Historical Genocides:
http://www.blackgenocide.org/abortion.html
http://cbrinfo.org/Resources/abortion.html

Answer 8

All law is based on ideas found in the Judeo-Christian faith. To say you can't legistlate something because your "Bible" tells you its wrong is rediculous. Check out the 10 commandments. The argument on abortion is about when you believe life begins. A women getting a sonogram the doctor listens to the baby's heart beat.
When a couple announce that they are expecting. The question isn't what? Everyone know its a baby, they may ask if you know the sex.

Answer 9

I believe in choice even though I think it is really harmful to both parents (emotionally) and of course, to the child. But freedom (in the US) and free will (God's law) is all about choice.

However, it has always seemed strange to me that the law provides more protection for a pregnant animal (cow, horse, etc.) than for a pregnant woman. There is legal recourse for the destruction of an animal fetus, but none for human? However, the legal recourse for the animal is given to the animal's owner (who presumably lost an asset). Who owns a human fetus, and is it considered an asset?

Answer 10

I have 4 children who I love dearly and wouldn't be without. I have also had an abortion because at that time it would not have been right for me to have a child, for the baby's sake too.
It is wrong to take away this right and force women to have children they don't want. It will just send them to back-street abortion hellholes, which we moved on from. What if a woman is raped?
The only time I don't agree is when someone leaves it til 24 weeks to have one. I could feel my children inside me by then - how could someone do that?

Answer 11

What is your question, you sound like already have the answers...i disagree with pro life. What if a 13 year old is rape and becomes pregnant from the abuser. She shouldn't have carry that burden with her. I agree that abortion should never be used because of carelessness. People who made a mistake while engaging in sexual activities should have the right to get "rid" of their problem with a simple appointment.