You’re not going to like my answers but since you’ve been respectful and asked politley I’ll answer them.
The first scenario is horrible. I don’t know if I would be able to end the pregnancy. I really don’t.
As for the secind scenario it’s not the baby’s fault she was raped. The baby is 1/2 hers. She can give it up. Why make the fetus yet another victim.
Most abortions are not done based on the two extreme scenarios you have presented,
Perhaps this is going off-topic a bit, but for the pro-lifers, do you feel that every successful intervention results in an ideal life for the child? Sure, a mother who considered abortion might feel glad that she chose to raise the child or give it up for adoption, but how certain are you that the next 18 years for any unwanted child will be healthy and loving?
Say an impoverished mother is guilted and shamed into delivering the infant and decides to raise the child. Is a child raised in poverty really the best solution to unwanted pregnancy? What about 18 years with a disinterested or resentful mother? What about a resentful father, tasked with 18 years of child support for a pregnancy he did not want?
And what of adoption? Have you never heard “I never felt like I belonged” “I want to know why my mother gave me up” “I want to know what I did wrong that caused my parents to abandon me to others” “I want to find my *real *mother/father” “I don’t look like anyone”. These are major crises of identity, and cause indelible emotional trauma to some adoptees.
And finally, those children who are never adopted, but wind up in state custody or foster care? How many times have social workers heard “I wish I were never born.” And you know what? Under those circumstances, *they mean that. *
No, I “admitted” that I may have misunderstood. Turns out I was wrong. 
So 3rd trimester fetuses may feel pain? How do you know a particular fetus isn’t developing quickly? I don’t agree with the assumptions about a blastula being human, but IMO, you past 20 weeks and it’s getting pretty human.
I am not “you people”. There are no absolute rights. If we assign the status of person to a 3rd trimester fetus, we are according it EXACTLY the rights of a person, not a “superhuman”. It’s then necessary to balance the rights of two persons.
I find it pretty funny how quickly people score their own arguments and assumptions as reasonable
And I’ve seen studies that suggest as early as 20-23 weeks. And as late as 12 months for “true” pain perception. It’s pretty hard to distinguish reflexes to noxious stimuli and “real” pain when the test subject can’t communicate.
Reposting my question again, for your convenience, Classy.
Okay, so what if we don’t kill it, we just gently remove it from the woman’s uterus and let it do its thing?
If that’s “killing it”, that makes “killing” equivalent to “letting it die by inaction” and we’re back to the kidney transplant–and we’re gonna have to rewrite the standards for duty-of-care.
As a general bit of advice, I’d say you’d do better by stepping back, actually thinking about your various axiomatic beliefs and the logical consequences thereof, and assembling a full list of what you actually believe about the topic. You’ve posted several things that are contradictory or lead to contradictory conclusions.
Only if those resources come from those who think that abortion is murder. Those of us who think that abortion is merely termination of a pregnancy shouldn’t have to pay to support your beliefs.
Can you name any other place in law where someone is REQUIRED to give up their bodily substance to preserve the life of someone else? If not, then disallowing abortion DOES give fetuses more rights than it gives normal persons.
I’ll wait.
Another thing you are ignoring was my post pointing out to you that not all women get pregnant as a consequence of their actions… 
classyladyhp, look. You’ve posted multiple internally inconsistent stances.
“Women must accept pregnancy as a possible consequence of their choice to have sex.” “Pregnancies as a result of rape shouldn’t be aborted because the fetus is innocent.”
“Abortion should be illegal because we should always preserve life.” “No person should be forced to give up their organs to support another person, because they aren’t responsible for other people.”
You need to figure out what it is you actually believe and come back with a coherent stance, if you want to try to defend it logically like you have been. If not, you can just say “I think abortion is immoral and that’s that”, but then don’t try to logically justify it.
This is what is commonly referred to as an intellectually dubious question. As you probably know, pretty much everyone will save the girl. The question is, “So what?”. If you’re going to argue that most people choosing to save the girl to be an indication of the girl having more worth than five-hundred embryos, then you’ve already run into a serious problem.
Here’s a question for you in the same vein as the one you asked. Let’s assume that you’re in a burning building, and you have a choice between saving a sixty year old and thirty newborns. Which will you save? Now how about a sixty year old and twenty newborns? A sixty year old and ten newborns? What about a sixty year old and one newborn? Does the one you don’t choose to save have no worth? Would you agree that the one not saved has no rights? What’s the point of me asking such a question in the first place?
You’re either too lazy or too stupid or too trolly to put in the effort, I see.
So after reading this thread, the old saying comes to mind. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. The amount of sophistry pro-choicers resort to is mind-numbingly amazing.
Why isn’t it, though? If, as **classylady **has asserted, an embryo is fully human from the point of conception and must be treated as such, then it’s a no-brainer to save the freezer of embryos.
This discussion right now is mostly about examining axioms. As I said above, if you want to say “I’m anti-abortion, that’s that” that’s a valid belief–but attempts to logically justify it MUST hang together logically or they’re worthless. **Classy **attempted to justify it logically by making an assertion about the status of human embryos (that is, that they are 100% fully human and have 100% human rights); that stance immediately fell apart from a purely logical standpoint when she subsequently revealed her views on natural miscarriage, because her view is that natural miscarriages need not be investigated or solemnized (as we would any other human being who died). I presume the above example was an effort to bring that contradiction into sharper focus.
I can cheerfully say that if you’re too stupid to logically defend your viewpoint AND stupid enough to try to do so, you are going to often feel like your opponents are sophists and bullshitters.
You wanna step up to the plate and take a swing? Or do you want to just assert abortion is wrong, full stop? Either would be preferable to the classylady approach, which is “come up with multiple reasons for your stance, and then contradict those reasons with later statements of how you’d behave in situations that (by your own axioms) are analogous.”
And, for the record, abortion-clinic protestors are STILL scumbags who need to find something more constructive to do with their lives, like play tag on the interstate.
Under what basis is it a “no brainer”? It seems to me that you’re engaging in a slight straw man, as you’re assuming that if one believes two groups are both human beings, then faced with a choice to save one at the expense of the other, that one must save the the larger group of human beings rather than the smaller. This, as far as I can tell, is quite untrue.
Number one, when does we, as a society, investigate the deaths of every individual? I am unaware of any jurisdiction which does that. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Number two, hard as it is to believe, some women (and their partners) actually do lament the loss of their child to a miscarriage, so I don’t know what you’re talking about or where the contradiction lies.
This situation was one of the first I encountered as a pathology resident on the autopsy service.
It involved a newborn suffering from a large cranial teratoma. Intrauterine diagnosis was made and the mother elected to carry the child to term (it died shortly after birth). It was her decision to undergo the risks of continuing the pregnancy. Not all decide to do so, as was the case in this instance, where prenatal diagnosis was not made until 21 weeks and it took longer to realize that the tumor was so rapidly growing as to place the mother in danger of life-threatening complications at delivery. She elected to terminate the pregnancy.
This kind of tumor is relatively rare; other serious fetal conditions are not.
I’d hope you consider the predicament of these parents in deciding what they must do.
If all innocent human lives are equally valuable (as specified by classyladyhp), and if it’s equivalently difficult to save 1 or 500, both of which were specified.
The jurisdiction that I am in does in fact investigate every death that doesn’t occur under the care of a doctor–that is, if someone just up and dies, there is GOING to be an autopsy 100% of the time.
I don’t care what people do–we’re discussing policy here.
Also, don’t condescend to me, man–my parents are both ludicrously Catholic (in the sense of “church organist/liturgy director” and “lay minister and church council chair”) so I’m quite familiar with the extremes of the “pro-life” stance, and unlike just about everyone I’ve seen argue here HAVE taken a logical anti-abortion position that flows from their axioms. I reserve the right to disagree with said axioms, but I don’t hassle them about it because their position holds together logically. By the same token, I have jumped on people like Der Trihs and others when they make equally ludicrous statements like “the anti-abortion movement is exclusively anti-woman in nature”, despite the fact we’re on the same side of the debate. Bottom line–if you’re pro-life, you don’t want **classyladyhp **to be the face of your group, and defending her makes you look silly.
You’re defending her to us? Heck, earlier I defended you to her.
We do not force people to give bodily substances to sustain anyone. That includes our own babies. I said it in the part you quoted. Zerial and others already mentioned this. To force a woman to carry a fetus to term is giving an embryo or fetus rights that other people do not have. It makes it superhuman.
All the literature in the past 5 years say at least 24 weeks and some suggest a fetus never feels pain. I only saw one cite for maybe 20 weeks. That same author also has a paper entitles “A fetus never feels pain.” in a journal called, “Conscience”. Doesn’t look respectable to me.
Regardless, people who want to outlaw abortions at conception want to give a cell rights beyond any rights real people have. Why? Why are embryos more sacred than people?
But by your own statements a single cell with 46 human chromosomes is a human being deserving all of the protections afforded to mature adult humans. So, here sits a cell taken from a human tumor with the same 46 human chromosomes that you say doesn’t deserve the same protections. Why not? Saying that 99/100 people would say so is not an explanation.
Perhaps you will say that the fertilized egg can potentially develop into a complex, organized system of organs and tissues, which will eventually be capable of surviving without the constant support of a host organism, etc., while the tumor cell does not have that potential. So you would be arguing that the potential for possessing such complex organization is what makes the fertilized egg a person and deserving of protection, not merely the possession of the correct number of human chromosomes, which I believe is what you said earlier. I personally believe that it is not the potential for such complexity but the actual possession of it that matters, but de gustibus and all that.
But I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so what in your opinion is it that differentiates one rapidly dividing set of cells from the other?
No. Here’s a classic example of sophistry at work.
Pro-choicer: “The unborn aren’t human!”
Pro-lifer: “Yes, they are.”
Pro-choicer: “No, they aren’t. That’s just your unsubstantiated opinion!”
Pro-lifer: “But science says they are.”
Pro-choicer: “No, it doesn’t!”
Pro-lifer: “Yes, it does. gives links”
Pro-choicer: So? They might be human (life), just like cancer cells, but they’re not human beings!"
Pro-lifer: “But the link I just gave you referred to the unborn are human beings and stated that all human beings begin their life at conception!”
Pro-choicer: “But I’m talking about being a person!”
Pro-lifer: “So you’re using person and human interchangeably?”
Pro-choicer: “Yes!”
Pro-lifer: “So if you’re using the two interchangeably, then you can use person to mean human and vice versa. Therefore, if science-- which we all love, know and respect-- define the unborn are being human, then that would mean that the unborn are persons, since the two are interchangeable, right?”
Pro-choicer: “No. Just because the unborn are humans doesn’t make them persons.”
Pro-lifer: “Then how can you say that the unborn aren’t humans, but when I point out that they are, claim that they’re not persons?”
Pro-choicer: “Because they aren’t.”
Pro-lifer: “So you agree the two aren’t interchangeable?”
Pro-choicer: “Yes.”
Pro-lifer: “So you agree that you were wrong when you said the unborn aren’t humans?”
Pro-choicer: “No. I wasn’t wrong. The unborn might be human (life), like cancer, but they’re not human persons.”
Pro-lifer: “So what’s a human person?”
Pro-choicer: “A human person is <enter a bunch of philosophical rambling here about sentience or individuality or duality or whatever else>.”
Pro-lifer: “What does that have to do with anything?”
Pro-choicer: “Everything.”
Pro-lifer: “Why is that important?”
Pro-choicer: “Because it is.”
Pro-lifer: “How is differentiating the human population on the basis of individuality or sentience any different than differentiating the human population on the basis of sex, skin color or creed? Why not just grant rights on the basis of being human? Why the need to define some humans out of rights held by everyone else”"
Pro-choicer: “Because all of those individuals are (usually) born, whereas the unborn aren’t.”
Pro-lifer: "So then the issue isn’t about any of that philosophical mumbo-jumbo you mentioned earlier, but about whether or not one is born?
Pro-choicer: “Yes.”
Pro-lifer: “So you agree that abortions should be permitted up until birth”*
(*If yes, see #1.)
(*If no, see #2.)
#1
Pro-choicer: "Yes."
Pro-lifer: "Why?"
Pro-choicer: "Because the woman should have absolute control over her own body."
Pro-lifer: "Even over someone else's?"
Pro-choicer: "Yes."
Pro-lifer: "Why?"
Pro-choicer: "Because it's inside of her."
Pro-lifer: "Then let me ask you this. Since a woman has absolute control over her own body, which includes killing that which resides inside of it, then should she be able to severely maim or that which is inside of her, and even give birth to a child which dies directly after birth as a result of her actions, without any manner of culpability?"
Pro-choicer: "No."
Pro-lifer: "Why not?"
Pro-choicer: "Because it's no longer inside of her."
Pro-lifer: "But it was when she was engaging in said activities."
Pro-choicer: "So?"
Pro-lifer: "Are you saying that a woman can do whatever she wants to her unborn child so long as they result in the death of the child en utero, but not if they result in serious defects or even the death of the child after it's born?"
Pro-choicer: "Well, no."
Pro-lifer: "So what are you saying?"
Pro-choicer: "I'm saying that a woman has absolute control over her body."
Pro-lifer: "Which means that she should be able to severely injure or maim, in addition to killing, that child because it is inside of her, regardless of the effects it has on that child later on which it will, in your opinion, become a person."
Pro-choicer: "I'm not saying that!"
Pro-lifer: "So what are you saying"
Pro-choicer: "Well..."
Pro-lifer: "Well...?
Pro-choicer: "Well..."
Pro-lifer: "Well...?"
Pro-choicer: "Well..."
Pro-lifer: "WELL...?"
#2
Pro-choicer: “No.”
Pro-lifer: “Why not?”
Pro-choicer: "Because after <enter arbitrary month here>, that is simply too late.
Pro-lifer: "But surely if the issue is of being born or not, then why does it matter? Before it’s born, the unborn has no right to life which is paramount to that of the mother to abort it. Is the woman’s body not hers the first month as it is the eighth or ninth month or pregnancy? When does her body not become hers?
Pro-choicer: "Well never, but how many women want to abort their eighth month?
Pro-lifer: “It doesn’t matter. Are you saying your argument is based solely on the number of women who abort at a specific gestational age?”
Pro-choice: “No.”
Pro-lifer: “So then if your argument isn’t based solely on the number of women who abort at a specific gestational age, and you agree that the woman’s body is always hers (and as a result ‘choice’ follows), then how can you argue that a woman shouldn’t be allowed to abort at any age she wishes?”
Pro-choicer: “Because…”
Pro-lifer: “Because what?”
Pro-choicer: “Because…”
Pro-lifer: “Because what?”
Pro-choicer: “Because…”
Pro-lifer: “BECAUSE…???”
Pro-choicer: “…”
Well, now that you’ve defeated a fictional pro-choicer (and bravo, applause-applause, you’re a regular gladiator), how about addressing some real ones? How do you feel about posts 1079 and 1089?