When a woman is pregnant, science tells us that the new life she carries is a complete and fully new human being from the moment of fertilization. By the time most abortions can be performed, the baby already has a beating heart and identifiable brain waves. The baby living in her mother is as distinct and unique a new person/human being as you are from me, and as deserving of protection under the law as we are.
The baby every mother carries as she faces a life and death decision has a beating heart at 18 days after fertilization and brain waves as early as six weeks after fertilization. Most abortions are not performed until nine weeks of the pregnancy. Even RU 486 chemical abortions can’t be done until after six weeks. http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Science does. The mother’s right not to be INCONVENIENCED by pregnany should not take precedence over the baby’s right to life.
There is a difference between surgical and medical. Personally I tend to agree with you. Once the fetus reaches the point of viability effort should be made to find a solution that gives the fetus a chance to survive. However, I’m a guy and will never face that decision and I also believe that since it’s not my body, it’s not my decision.
As a society it would be great if we fostered an atmosphere that nurtured and supported women and children and reduced abortions that way.
The vast majority of abortions done in the US are in the 1st trimester, 12 weeks, long before viability. A smaller % are done between 12 and 20 weeks, and very few after that. {1%} There also the consideration of the health of the mother or the fetus in later abortions. The facts reveal that with legal safe abortions women are able to make decent choices.
Anti Abortionists spread a lot of false information about abortion. Since the 2010 elections there has been an unprecedented number of laws proposed trying to circumvent safe legal abortions and a woman’s right to choose in a variety of ways, many addressing funding. It’s those kind of dishonest practices that I see as hateful towards women and society , rather than an honest fact based discussion. The whole , all life is sacred, abortion is killing babies, routine is self deluding BS, for the most part. IMO.
If you don’t get the transplant you could die but maybe you won’t die. If a mother aborts her fetus the fetus will die. Other than in cases of rape she was responsible for putting the fetus in her womb. It is part of her body and contains her genetic material.
I am not responsible for you NEEDING the kidney transplant. I have offered to give you a kidney because it’s a nice thing to do. I would be a real jerk if I backed out at the last minute but me not giving you the kidney does not cause me to be guilty of killing you. Your medical problems killed you.
No, you did exactly what I asked you not to do. You went to anti-abortion sources and used them as some sort of authority. Again, I specified that the key is understanding the difference between simply a human life and a human being. Science does not say they are the same thing. Science describes what sets Homo Sapiens apart from other species. It also gives specific definitions to points of development. Very few proper biologists would support your definition of a human being. But science itself does not answer your metaphysical question.
Again, the posts in this thread spell out that issue time and again. If you want to call an implanted zygote a person, have at it but don’t say science supports you.
Here’s another site that defines a human being scientifically.
Quote below from a biologist.
“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George
and another:
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris (discoverer of the Down Syndrome chromosome):
“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. . . . This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
The cite you used is conflating time after conception, with length of pregnancy. Did you know that? The statement about the use of RU-486 and timing of abortion is simply not true .
So, not only is your cite biased, but it is also factually inaccurate.
Ok, nice and clear, speaking about time after conception.
Is not true.
This would be true:
Most abortions in the USA are performed less than 9 weeks after the last menstrual period- approximately 7 weeks after conception. 88% of abortions in the USA are performed before 12 weeks since the last menstrual period, or 10 weeks since conception.
42% of abortion providers offer very early abortion- before a period is missed- and less than 2 weeks from conception.
Mifepristone (RU-486) can be used at any point from when pregnancy is confirmed until 49 days from the start of the last menstrual period (approximately 35 days from conception).
Define life. Bacteria has life of sorts, and for that matter so does an unferrtilized egg.
At conception an embryo in no way can be said to be concious and sentient.
Anyway I hate the abortion debate there seems to be a lot of polarized opinions: at one end you have the ridiculous idea that a newly virtualized embryo consisting of a few cells and no structures which could give it any form of conciousness should have the full rights of human being on the other you have the ridiculous idea that a fully-formed human baby who just so happens to be in utero should have absolutely none of the rights that same baby would have were it ex utero.
The rights and wrong s of abortion are complex, unfortunately people like to reduce this complex issue in to very simple terms out of laziness.
Ok, but we don’t have to agree that human life=human rights equal to the rights of a sentient, autonomous, independent, self-determining human who has been born.
Define human life. It seems to me that there are several points which you could reasonably define as the begining of ‘human life’ especially as ‘human life’ is a vague and poorly-defined term (doubly so when applied to embryos).
However even lets say we were to define fertilization as staring at the staring point of human life, defining human life to satrt at fertilization and then arguing that all abortions are wrong as they end a ‘human life’ is what is called circular reasoning.
Virtually every secular medical book and even a senate hearing declare human life begins the instant of conception.
A report from Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 1981 reads: “Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being–a being is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”
A split second after conception, this one-celled forty-six-chromosomed human being possesses everything it needs to grow into an adult human except time.
As per the above example. Human life begins at conception. Since abortion kills the fetus it ends a human life. Every human has a right to life and the right of the mother to not be inconvenienced is not more important than the baby’s right to live.
You know what? This is very OT but reading this thread I’ve come to an epiphany of my own. It may be a bit out there but here goes. The anti-abortion people have coalesced into a sort of separate religion from the parent religions. The general views come from Catholic and fundamentalist religions. However, the common thread is a worship of procreation. Sort of like the ancient fertility cults sans the high status of women in the cult.
Procreation itself is sacred and having babies gives people a high status in the group. The Quiverfull movement is an extreme example. Catholics even call birth control a sin. This is why IVF clinics are given lip service for their sins but, really, they are promoting procreation. The sacred act of procreation negates the sin of lost embryos.
The unborn attains status above the mother. In fact, the unborn is the object of worship because it is main symbol of procreation. It is sacred beyond a mere human being like the mother. The mother’s right to control her own body has now been subjugated to the unborn deity. As seen in this thread, other situations in which an innocent person would be required to lose the rights to their own bodies or even their lives can not be compared to this situation. Because this situation involves a deity.
Those who oppose the deity are committing a mortal sin. There’s no middle ground here. You can’t be pro-choice. If you allow these sins to continue, you are complicit in this depravity. Like any religion, the integrity of humanity rests on everyone following this doctrine. Otherwise, civilization will be diminished. This is why the might of the government must be involved even though many of the followers absolutely abhor government involvement in even practical matters.
Deity status is only for the unborn. Once birth occurs, the baby still has high status within the group but it loses it’s deity status. We can no longer force mothers to give their organs to the baby. Supporting the baby, if it is unwanted, is given some consideration but never the full might of the government. The government is not forcing people to adopt unwanted babies. Why? The worship is of procreation (ie. ancient fertility cult).
As you say: You’re not guilty of killing me, even if you agree to support me, and then you decide not to. It just potentially makes you a jerk, depending on your reasons.
A pregnant woman is not guilty of killing her fetus, because abortion doesn’t need to involve killing it, just removing it from the uterus. Even though she can be said to have effectively “agreed” to support the fetus (by having sex), and then she decided not to. (legally, this is certain–**Bricker **has already let us know that women have no legal duty of care to their fertilized embryos) It just potentially makes her a jerk, depending on her reasons.
If you don’t agree with that, then you need to re-evaluate what you’re claiming as your axioms and get back to us (that is, “all human life is precious”, “life begins at conception”, and “you’re not morally bound to save a life unless you have a duty of care”)
Interestingly this line of reasoning would appear to draw a odd line–if we accepted those axioms, as I outlined above, D&C abortions would be verboten (because they directly kill a fetus) but abortions via induced miscarriage or implantation prevention would not be (because they are causing changes in the mother’s body directly that only incidentally eject the fetus). That result alone ought to tell us we’ve got something weird going on in our stated axioms.
So why is your right to not be inconvenienced by a kidney transplant more important than a patient with two dead kidney’s right to live? Is duty of care/responsibility primary or is right-to-life primary?
Sorry I do not take a comittee of the legislature of country (and in my case another country to boot) as an authority on the issue, the fact that your choosing to quote them on this politically-charged issue sends out the wrong signals to me.
It doesn’t seem necessarily wrong to define human life beginning at the moment of conception, but in the term ‘human life’ we’re talking about a very vague concept (and certainly not a medical/scientific term) and it goes no way at all for me to arguing that what is little more than collection of cells should be afforded the same rights as me.
Any thoughts on IUDs, combined hormonal contraceptive pills, the Mirena device and emergency post-coital contraception/Plan B?
Those all potentially prevent implantation of an embryo as a possible mechanism of action.
They have been legally determined not to be abortifacients.
In order to induce a miscarriage there must first be carriage, and pregnancy begins from the moment of implantation.
Do you consider healthcare workers who fit coils and women who use them to be baby killers too?
I am ok with methods of contraception that PREVENT the sperm and egg from joining in the first place. I am not ok with methods of contraception that are abortifacients.
I am ok with vasectomy, tubal ligation and condoms. I am not ok with methods of contraception that prevent the implantation of the fertilized embryo or that force the uterus to expel and implanted embryo.