Anti-abortion question

[Munch]

Right, because I am no longer in utero.

I don’t see how this is an argument. No definition of life I’ve seen has ever excluded something because it was in utero. I’m sure this was a flippant statement against a weak argument, but it does bring up an interesting point. This statement implies you consider that abortion is killing. Do you?

Generally, we don’t hold funerals for fetuses that miscarry in the earliest stages, so I don’t think that most people look upon an early-stage fetus as a person in the fullest sense.

I don’t think cultural funeral practices should be a factor on determining what is a person. Also, the argument of “I don’t think most people look upon” needs to be stopped, especially here in the Straight Dope. Just the facts, not cultural opinion or trends, please.

Depends on what stage of development you’re talking about. An early stage fetus is “alive” as much as a cancerous tumor is “alive.” It’s growing, attached to the body, the cells are dividing, it aquires blood vessles. I have a friend who has endometrial cysts that do the same thing.

Arguing stages of development is legitimate. I’m not arguing what is “alive”. I am trying to present an argument for what we consider “human”, not even a “person”.

You can also argue against the “human”/“person” distinction. I’m sure there are many significant differences.

That’s true, but your brother is a fully developed, sentient human. A human doesn’t necessarily need the proper number of digits, but it does need a funtioning brain, heart, fully developed nervous system, etc. A first stage fetus doesn’t.

Another legitimate argument. The opposing view would be:

A first stage fetus doesn’t need a functioning brain, etc. But it DOES need to develop one. That’s its design. It carries and develops upon the working blueprints of a human.

Again, cell division isn’t necessarily a unique thing. (See cancer cell argument.) And as for harm: psychological harm isn’t a factor here?

No, cell division isn’t unique. But is a necessary component of life.

Psychological harm could be a factor here if you wish to present an argument for it. I’m sure there are many theories, models and instances which could support it. But also remember, there are probably (I don’t know) more psychological ramifications DUE to abortion.

Note: there are many harmful psychological rams. due to pro-lifers who insist on harassment of mothers. Lets stick to the medically inflicted ones.

[Dangerosa]

See Avalongod, we can’t even agree if it IS a baby…and then assuming we can agree is is a human baby, do we as a society have the ability to say a woman is obligated to provide a life support system for that baby…

Its a weak analogy (because there isn’t anything like pregnancy) but its been used before and sort of works - do we make you donate bone marrow to a dying child because you are the only match? Hell, we don’t even require dead people to donate organs.

[Lissa]

[quote]
This statement implies you consider that abortion is killing. Do you? [\quote]

My personal beliefs on the matter have no bearing on this discussion.

I don’t think cultural funeral practices should be a factor on determining what is a person.

Actually, I think it should be a factor. Because we do not bury a fetus with full pomp and circumstance as we would an adult means that we don’t accord a fetus with a fully human status. That’s very important in this discussion. I’ve wracked my brain and can think of only one culture that has ever given funerals to fetuses, so it’s not necessarily an American cultural element, but it, unless somebody more educated than I can point out more cultures, is an almost universal one.

But also remember, there are probably (I don’t know) more psychological ramifications DUE to abortion.

If you can call relief a ramification. Contrary to popular pro-life literature, most women report a sense of relief, rather than regret post-abortion. I’ve known several women who have aborted pregnancies, and they have all said that they rarely think about it, and when they do, they’re glad they made the decision that they made.

A first stage fetus doesn’t need a functioning brain, etc. But it DOES need to develop one. That’s its design. It carries and develops upon the working blueprints of a human.

I don’t quite understand your point. Are you saying that because something has potential to become something else, it automatically assumes the identity of its fully developed self? Need to develop one, by the way?

Glad you dropped in, Dangerosa.

[jenkinsfan]

God created human beings in His image. He loved us enough to send His Son to die for us. He died for people with eternal souls-not a group of tissue that has attached itself to a woman. BTW, abortion shows how ungrateful for life we as a society have become.

[Satan]

**God created human beings in His image. He loved us enough to send His Son to die for us.

**

I don’t believe that this has any bearing on the conversation, since we do not legislate based upon the personal morality that you get from this book since many do not think the same about this book as you do.

If a religion that was fairly prominent interpreted its texts to mean that abortions were MANDATORY, woudl you go along with this because, hey, those other people believe that.

And if you don’t go along with it (and you wouldn’t), why is your book better than anyone elses, or those who choose to have no books at all?

So, unless you want to say that “Christians should not get abortins according to this book,” let’s not go here, okay? Because those who do not care about the book don’t want laws to be dictated by it, and this country is NOT a theocracy. Dig?

**He died for people with eternal souls-not a group of tissue that has attached itself to a woman.

**

In that case, you are pro-choice, since what we are talking about is a group of tissue that attached itself to a woman.

Unless you can prove that there’s a “soul” in a fetus or zygotem, which would be difficult since you can’t prove there’s a “soul” in an actual human being.

b]BTW, abortion shows how ungrateful for life we as a society have become.**

Well, since there were so many women who died at the hands of illegal back-alleyt abortions, I would say this is society showing that it values a breathing, thinking and feeling, living human being than a lump of cells and blood which only has the potential to become the former, but ain’t there yet.

Maybe you value a bunch of cells and blood more than you do an actual person. That is your perrogative (made a lot easier since you are a male), but how you can choose to force this on people is beyond me.

---

Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One month, one week, four days, 17 hours, 33 minutes and 53 seconds.
1669 cigarettes not smoked, saving $208.66.
Life saved: 5 days, 19 hours, 5 minutes.

[jenkinsfan]

I don’t believe that this has any bearing on the conversation, since we do not legislate based upon the personal morality that you get from this book since many do not think the same about this book as you do.

Well, you certainly seem willing to participate in a conversation that bears no relevance. BTW, I never brought up the subject of the “Book”. You did. I simply stated my own personal narrow minded opinion.

If a religion that was fairly prominent interpreted its texts to mean that abortions were MANDATORY, woudl you go along with this because, hey, those other people believe that.

I’m not a Christian because it’s prominent. I don’t base my life around what other people believe. As a Christian, I have the Holy Spirit inside of me to interpret the Scriptures for me so I’m not dependent on what others interpret.

And if you don’t go along with it (and you wouldn’t)…

I’m guessing you aren’t really interested in what my answers are.

… why is your book better than anyone elses, or those who choose to have no books at all?

SATAN, from the bottom of my heart I believe by faith that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things no seen.” Hebrews 11:1

[QUOTE]
So, unless you want to say that “Christians should not get abortins according to this book,” let’s not go here, okay? Because those who do not care about the book don’t want laws to be dictated by it, and this country is NOT a theocracy. Dig?

SIR, you’re putting words in my mouth.

In that case, you are pro-choice, since what we are talking about is a group of tissue that attached itself to a woman.

Unless you can prove that there’s a “soul” in a fetus or zygotem, which would be difficult since you can’t prove there’s a “soul” in an actual human being.

No, I can’t prove that there’s a soul in a fetus or a human being…So, we might as well assume there’s not one and kill it.

Well, since there were so many women who died at the hands of illegal back-alleyt abortions, I would say this is society showing that it values a breathing, thinking and feeling, living human being than a lump of cells and blood which only has the potential to become the former, but ain’t there yet.

*Society values life by destoying those who have potential to be “breathing, thinking and feeling, living human being”? *

Maybe you value a bunch of cells and blood more than you do an actual person. That is your perrogative (made a lot easier since you are a male), but how you can choose to force this on people is beyond me.

GOD bless you, sir. I wish you and Drainy nothing but the best in life. BTW, I believe that only God knows our motives which is why I would never judge you or a woman that had an abortion.

jenkinsfan

P.S. Sorry about the hijack.

[St.Attila]

When a fetus will make it without being inside the woman’s body, and not be directly attached and sucking nutrients from the woman, then it is a “fallacious and poor” argument.

That day is near, Satan (hmm, a little too dramatic?). It is a mistake to arbitrarily define a human being in terms of the state of current medical technology. With the successful cloning of sheep, we are one step closer to transplanting a fertilized human ovum from one host to another.

When that day arrives, the current legal definition of a human being will be successfully challenged, but likely replaced under pressure of the pro-choice movement with a new, equally arbitrary definition.

Fact is, outside of the courts, a human being is simply a member of homo sapiens, that is, a living thing whose DNA is sexually compatible with other homo sapiens’. Since things are not so simple from a legal perspective, it will be a while yet before humans are all treated as equals.

[pepperlandgirl]

Sure, its a clump of cells. But it can also be viewed as Person: Stage 1. It has every characteristic of
the definition of life (sorry don’t have it on me, but I think this can be a given).

According to http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,109620+1+106478,00.html

life

the state of a material complex or individual characterized by the capacity to perform
certain functional activities, including metabolism, growth, reproduction, and some form
of responsiveness and adaptation. Life is further characterized by the presence of
complex transformations of organic molecules and by the organization of such
molecules into the successively larger units of protoplasm, cells, organs, and
organisms.

Ok,so based on that defintion, is a fetus alive? It has a metabolism, it grows, it has the potential of reproduction (We have to make that point, because children can’t reproduce, but they are living.) THey have " complex transformations of organic molecules and by the organization of such
molecules into the successively larger units of protoplasm, cells, organs, and
organisms." Also this definition doesn’t specify if something is only alive if it’s no longer in utero.
So, from a scientific stand point,a fetus is a living organism.

Fact is Connor, that a lot of people would argue that it’s not a “being” at all. It’s a clump of cells that
has attached itself to the uterine wall

Technically, a clump of cells is a ‘being’

Main Entry: 1be·ing
Pronunciation: 'bE(-i)[ng]
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something
conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists

The cells do exhist.

Generally, we don’t hold funerals for fetuses that miscarry in the earliest stages, so I don’t think that
most people look upon an early-stage fetus as a person in the fullest sense.

Not very scientific.

Depends on what stage of development you’re talking about. An early stage fetus is “alive” as much as
a cancerous tumor is “alive.” It’s growing, attached to the body, the cells are dividing, it aquires blood
vessles. I have a friend who has endometrial cysts that do the same thing.

Well, let’s run with that line of reasoning.
Defendent:I was perfectly justified in murdering that person.
Lawyer: How so?
Defendent: Well, he was living true. But so is cancer, and we kill that all the time.
So again, not very scientific.

That’s its
design. It carries and develops upon the working blueprints of a human.

A fetus technically doesn’t have a fully functional brain, but it does neural cells, which will eventually function as a brain.
I wanted to add more to the conversation then this, but it was really hard to find anything on the net that wasn’t so full of propaganda from either choice/life side that I could find any facts.

[Sweet_Lotus]

**

Depends on what stage of development you’re talking about. An early stage fetus is “alive” as much as a cancerous tumor is “alive.” It’s growing, attached to the body, the cells are dividing, it aquires bloodvessles. I have a friend who has endometrial cysts that do the same thing.

Well, let’s run with that line of reasoning.
Defendent:I was perfectly justified in murdering that person.
Lawyer: How so?
Defendent: Well, he was living true. But so is cancer, and we kill that all the time.
So again, not very scientific.
**

But they are at the SAME level of functioning. A human being out of utero can do so much more than a cancerous tumour.
In a fetus there is only potential. Does the potential to be alive constitute being alive? I would say no. Being alive constitutes being alive. Potential is only potential, nothing more. I think there is a reason we call a seed a “seed” and not a “flowering plant”. If these distinctions carried no weight, why would we make them?

[pepperlandgirl]

In a fetus there is only potential. Does the potential to be alive constitute being alive? I would say no.
Being alive constitutes being alive

quote:
Sure, its a clump of cells. But it can also be viewed as Person: Stage 1. It has every
characteristic of
the definition of life (sorry don’t have it on me, but I think this can be a given).
According to http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,109620+1+106478,00.html
quote:
life

                      the state of a material complex or individual characterized by the capacity to perform
                      certain functional activities, including metabolism, growth, reproduction, and some form
                      of responsiveness and adaptation. Life is further characterized by the presence of
                      complex transformations of organic molecules and by the organization of such
                      molecules into the successively larger units of protoplasm, cells, organs, and
                      organisms.
                 Ok,so based on that defintion, is a fetus alive? It has a metabolism, it grows, it has the potential of
                 reproduction (We have to make that point, because children can't reproduce, but they are living.) THey
                 have " complex transformations of organic molecules and by the organization of such
                 molecules into the successively larger units of protoplasm, cells, organs, and
                 organisms." Also this definition doesn't specify if something is only alive if it's no longer in utero.
                 So, from a scientific stand point,a fetus is a living organism. 

If a fetus matches the criteria of life, how can it only have the potential of being alive?

[Sweet_Lotus]

I suppose I should have clarified that I believe the “life” in the fetus does not qualify as “human life”, which begins at birth.

[pepperlandgirl]

Can you provide a scientific, medical defintion of when Human Life begins, or is it just your personal belief that human life begins at birth?
According to http://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CE018267.html
(Which by the way, is an encyclopedia, it’s nuetral, neither pro-choice or pro-life)

fetus
term used to describe the unborn offspring in the uterus of
vertebrate animals after the embryonic stage. In humans, the fetal
stage begins seven to eight weeks after fertilization of the egg,
when the embryo assumes the basic shape of the newborn and
all the organs are present. This stage continues until birth. The
fetus is protected by a sac of amniotic fluid that also enables
movement to occur. The placenta and umbilical cord are the
sources of oxygen and nutrients and the means of waste
elimination.** During the fetal stage, the body grows larger, the
proportions of the features are refined, and organ development is
completed. During the seventh and eighth weeks, the body
grows more erect, the chest area develops, and the face begins
to acquire a* human* look. In the third month, facial features
continue to develop, nails form, ossification centers develop in
bones, the sex of the unborn can be determined, and the fetus is
capable of responding to outside stimulation.** During the second
trimester (fourth to sixth months), distinctive facial features
develop, the fetal heartbeat can be detected, and fetal quickening
(movements) can be felt externally. In the third trimester (the
seventh to ninth months), the body proportions, except for the
somewhat large head, are established, the skin becomes
smoother, and the organs develop sufficiently for the newborn to
function on its own. If the fetus is expelled before 36 weeks of
gestation are completed, it often can survive outside the womb,
but artificial assistance, such as intravenous feedings and strict
maintainance of the ambient temperature, may be needed during
the remainder of its normal developmental period. Such births
are called premature. Fetuses expelled before that period are not
viable and are termed either a miscarriage or an abortion. A
dead fetus delivered in the third trimester is termed stillborn. See
also reproductive system.

So, a fetus is technically alive. By eight weeks all of the organs are present. By the 3rd month the sex is determined, and it’s capable of reacting to stimuli. So by the 3rd months it’s more human than cancer and fits all of the criteria of life. It’s still not a human life?
I have provided the defintion of life, the defintion of what a fetus is, and when an unborn baby begins to become more then a clump of cells. Do you have any proof that a human only becomes a human after birth other then your own beliefs or feelings?

[DoctorJ]

We can throw dictionary definitions of “human” and “life” and “person” at one another all day long. When it comes down to it, it’s subjective.

Besides, I don’t think it’s quite the right question. Ideally, we make laws based on ethics and not morals. Ethics deal with our interactions with other members of society. So a better question might be when do we consider it a member of society?

In my opinion, certainly not before birth. I’m willing to make birth the cutoff, although I think Peter Singer had some valid points. <ducks thrown object>

However, you might say, we have laws against cruelty to animals, even though they’re not exactly “members of society”. That’s because we have decided that it’s bad to torture animals, and we shouldn’t do it. However, we do allow animals to be euthanized when they have no place to go. In short, we treat them differently. I’m not comparing embryos/fetuses to dogs here, but I am saying that we should see the fetus as a special case and not subject to the same laws we have governing interactions between people.

When it comes down to it, I support the right to an abortion not only because I want to keep them safe, but because I think it’s the best course of action in some cases. (Not that I would ever, as a doctor, try to talk someone into having one.) I think the question of when the growing group of cells becomes a person cannot be objectively defined, and that a woman should be able to make her own moral choice in the matter. I only wish it were possible to do so without the tremendous external emotional baggage we’ve created.

Sorry if I’m rambling–I’ve been studying immunology all day. I’m seeing complement molecules before my eyes.

Dr. J

[pepperlandgirl]

I’m not interested in morality or ethics. I’m interested in science and medicine. So yes, I think we should throw definitions at each other all day. Here’s why:

1. Obviously we cannot bring morals into this. We are all different religions etc etc. So morality is not accecptable.
2. We cannot discuss how “society” defines life. Some people believe that since a miscarried fetus doesn’t receive a funeral, it’s not a life. I disagree with that because millions of people don’t receive funerals.

So, because of that, we can only discuss science and medicine. I have been trying to do that without offending anybody’s belief structure. The only thing that can convince me to get off the fence at this time is cold, hard, scientific facts that can be proven or disproven, not what somebody “thinks” or “believes” or “feels”. I have been providing facts to this arguement, all I ask is for somebody to reply in kind.

[DoctorJ]

I’m not interested in morality or ethics. I’m interested in science and medicine.

What I’m saying is that science and medicine don’t have an answer for this, because it’s a moral/ethical/philosophical/religious question. Besides, you should keep in mind that the just because science defines a word one way, that doesn’t mean it isn’t used differently in the lay public or elsewhere. (See also “Evolution is only a theory!”)

1. Obviously we cannot bring morals into this. We are all different religions etc etc. So morality is not accecptable.

That’s what I’m trying to say–we all don’t have the same morals, so we can’t all agree on whether abortion is morally acceptable. That’s why the choice should be left up to the individual.

2. We cannot discuss how “society” defines life. Some people believe that since a miscarried fetus doesn’t receive a funeral, it’s not a life. I disagree with that because millions of people don’t receive funerals.

I agree–once again, because we all have different ideas about what it means to be alive.

The only thing that can convince me to get off the fence at this time is cold, hard, scientific facts that can be proven or disproven, not what somebody “thinks” or “believes” or “feels”.

But the point at which life or “personhood” begins is not an objective, scientific fact. It has everything to do with how one thinks, believes, or feels. If there were an objective solution to the debate, it would have been settled long ago.

If you’re waiting for cold, hard, scientific fact to get you off the fence, you’ll be waiting for a while. The effort is certainly admirable, but it’s like trying to answer an essay question with a number.

Dr. J

[Sweet_Lotus]

Exactly, Doctor J.

I agree that a fetus is a living organism. I also think that the woman who created that life should have the right to end it as long as it is dependent on her blood supply for survival. Cold enough for ya?

[pepperlandgirl]

I try not to post anything here that I cannot back up. Especially if I’m trying to persuade people to see things the way I see them. And when people say “Human Life begins after birth.” and offers no proof other than “I say so.” I don’t think their arguement is a very strong one.
Debates are not about “This is my opinion” and that’s it. Debates are “This is my opinion, and this is why I have this opinion, and this is how I’m defending it.”
Pro-Choicers don’t seem to have any of that except stories and antedotal evidence. At least pro-lifers make a valid scientific attempt to prove themselves. Well, some of them anyway.

[Satan]

**Well, you certainly seem willing to participate in a conversation that bears no relevance. BTW, I never brought up the subject of the “Book”. You did.

**

I brought up the Bible? Please go back and point this out to me. You brought up Christianity, of which you get your morality and ethics from a book called the Bible. Don’t mess with semantics.

**I simply stated my own personal narrow minded opinion.

**

Well, my own “personal narrow minded opinion” on a lot of things shouldn’t, I don’t think, be legislated or somehow pushed onto others who don’t share my opinion.

And unless you are pro-choice, that is exactly what you are doing.

**I’m not a Christian because it’s prominent. I don’t base my life around what other people believe. As a Christian, I have the Holy Spirit inside of me to interpret the Scriptures for me so I’m not dependent on what others interpret.

**

That’s great, but it doesn’t answer the question. The question was would you change your views on something because another group of people with another view on an issue believes it? In don’t think you would. Yet, you would ask others who do not share in your book to abandon their beliefs. I do not see the consistancy here.

Oh, and saying, “I’m right and they’re wrong because the book says so” won’t fly here. This ain’t the LBMB.

**I’m guessing you aren’t really interested in what my answers are.

**

I am all for dissenting views, and I’ve even had my mind changed by them from time to time. However, you brought up that you get your beliefs from a book. I contend that you should not be able to force those beliefs on others who do not look at this book with the reverence that you do.

So, tell me that you SHOULD be able to do that, yet also not be under any obligation to follow the teachings of a book that is not the Bible, and provide a good reason why this is so.

This is exactly why I said what I said about how this has no bearing on the issue as presented in this thread.

**SATAN, from the bottom of my heart I believe by faith that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

**

Great! And others do not share this belief.

**SIR, you’re putting words in my mouth.

**

If you are indeed pro-choice, then I am and I take everything back. If not, well…

**No, I can’t prove that there’s a soul in a fetus or a human being…So, we might as well assume there’s not one and kill it.

**

Why should we assume that there is something there? Because that’s convenient for you? Well, not for the pregnant woman who doesn’t want a baby and doesn’t see what is inside her as something with a soul but a mass of cells and blood which will one day become a PROBLEM.

Why should we assume anything when the woman - remember her? - is perfectly able to voice her opinion and do with her body what she wishes?

You don’t have to like it. I don’t like a lot of things people do. But if they are not hurting anyone else (and they are not in this case), me liking it is irrelevant.

**Society values life by destoying those who have potential to be “breathing, thinking and feeling, living human being”?

**

Well, what are you going to eat today, jenkinsfan? Whatever it is, it was living, and you chose your life over that pig, cow, grain, or whatever it was. Before you KILLED it! Or had someone else KILL it for you, before you came in like a vulture and ate it! And I’m not even talking about a potential cow here, I mean Bessie in all her Mooing glory!

Seriously, sperm has the potential to become a human being, and we kill it all the time by wearing tight jeans. Eggs have the potential to be a human being, and we all know about that monthly visitor.

**GOD bless you, sir. I wish you and Drainy nothing but the best in life. BTW, I believe that only God knows our motives which is why I would never judge you or a woman that had an abortion.

**

I am not saying that you are judging them, jenkinsfan. But you are prepared to take away that choice from them, which is something I cannot see any good coming from.

Thank you for your fine wishes, God bless you as well. And Allah too!

---

Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One month, one week, six days, 5 hours, 33 minutes and 38 seconds.
1729 cigarettes not smoked, saving $216.16.
Life saved: 6 days, 5 minutes.

[Sweet_Lotus]

**
I try not to post anything here that I cannot back up.
Pro-Choicers don’t seem to have any of that except stories and antedotal evidence. At least pro-lifers make a valid scientific attempt to prove themselves. Well, some of them anyway.
**

I think you are missing a piece of the puzzle. If the “valid, scientific point” that “pro-lifers” are trying to make is; “A fetus is a living organism”, then I think that is a good point, but it is meaningless to most pro-choicers.
You need to recognise that even the most objective information is subject to interpretation. “Pro-lifers” take the information “A fetus qualifies as a living being” and interpret it as; “And it is wrong to kill any living thing so therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus” Pro-choice people take the information “A fetus qualifies as a living being” and interpret it as; “And in some cases it is better to end that life than allow it to continue”.

There is no scientific way to prove that it is morally wrong to have an abortion. There is no formula to measure how much one life is worth over another. “Pro-lifers” value the life of a fetus over the free will of its mother. Pro-choicers value the free will of the mother over the fetus.

[Lissa]

Do you have any proof that a human only becomes a human after birth other then your own beliefs or feelings?

Yes, I do. See Roe vs. Wade. A fetus is not legally a human being, thus aborting it is legally not “killing” anything. That dead horse has been beaten quite enough, I think. I see from the latest posts that a lot of posters * believe * that a fetus is a human being, but your beliefs are immaterial to this discussion.

I try not to post anything here that I cannot back up. Especially if I’m trying to persuade people to see things the way I see them. And when people say “Human Life begins after birth.” and offers no proof other than “I say so.” I don’t think their arguement is a very strong one.

Which is pretty much what I’ve been saying all along. When a pro-life supporter says “A fetus is a human being, and killing it is murder,” they generally offer only their own ethical opinion on the matter. As I have said before, since the legal aspects of the abortion debate have been settled, the only arguments against it come from differing moral opnions on the matter.

We cannot discuss how “society” defines life. Some people believe that since a miscarried fetus doesn’t receive a funeral, it’s not a life. I disagree with that because millions of people don’t receive funerals.

Again, I disagree. Many people don’t have funerals, but we don’t throw their bodies in the trash, either. The body of a dead fetus isn’t respected in the same way as a fully grown adult, or a toddler, for that matter, is respected. We do need to discuss how society defines life, because isn’t that what this debate is all about? If we, almost * universally * have decided that a fetus doesn’t deserve a funeral or burial rites, doen’t that make a point in that we don’t consider a fetus fully human?