No, but they will arrest women for miscarriage.
I doubt the issue will fade in the foreseeable future.
In the far distant future, the very nature of humanity will be challenged and changed dramatically, and the issue may become moot, or change terms enough so that we won’t recognize it. (I believe that if we survive long enough, humans will change themselves both genetically and artificially far more than biological evolution ever would by itself, and it would be very hard for us to make much in the way of specific predictions.)
Unfortunately, there isn’t a scientific answer to when life begins. Instead, there is an agreement in society about when the rights of being human begin, and that’s exactly what’s being debated. Until procreation changes to the extent that we would hardly recognize it, this question will remain arguable.
Those who put it at conception have a smaller slippery slope to navigate. (Note that there is no “moment of conception” since the process takes hours and has a number of intermediate steps … so which one is the magic step?) I’m OK with the bigger slippery slope. The current US legal definition is based on out-of-date facts, but I don’t subscribe to viability as being the key factor.
I have to agree with JThunder’s arguments that if we agree that ethical/moral personhood begins at conception, then we have to disallow abortion. But I don’t agree that personhood begins then, and I don’t believe that science can answer the question.
If abortion is illegal, then what you say would hold. If it’s legal, then it’s the opposite side of the coin: there would still be people who think that ethical personhood begins at conception.
I’d be interesting in hearing JThunder nonreligous pro-life arguments, specifically, those establishing personhood at conception. If anyone knows where to find them, please point me. Even using site:boards.straightdope.com, my google-fu fails me. I hit a lot of threads that discuss abortion, but haven’t managed to find these arguments.
They’re beside the point of this thread; if quickly summarized or pointed to it would be good but I don’t want to debate them here.
This needs restating. Of course it is not possible that abortion will ever go away; but it is conceivable that some day, nobody will object to it very much any more.
The anti-abortion group want no abortions. Nothing less than that will satisfy them. They will kill doctors, and lie to and harass people to make this happen. And guess what? It ain’t gonna.
. . . Who? 
Well, of course not. The question is, how long can they last?
If a group thinks genetic material is a human being it might never end, no matter what techno wombs are invented. My sperm is alive yet not a human being and yet no you cannot have my jack rag for your test tube project. It isn’t about killing what’s in your body as much as everyone else minding their own god damn business. And I don’t see that happening.
I disagree. I’m assuming you’re pro-choice. (I am also.) Can you imagine that in the future the pro-choice position will disappear and everyone will be pro-life and there will be a resolution on abortion on that basis? I doubt it.
So why assume that the pro-life position will disappear in the future and everyone will be pro-choice? I don’t agree with the pro-life people but I don’t doubt their conviction. I see no reason to assume people won’t hold those same convictions in the foreseeable future.
We do know we had ancestors, so in reality our lives began many generations ago. There is human life in a man’s sperm and each ejaculation many human lives are lost even if there is a conception.
I disagree. First, a man’s sperm is less of a “life” than a woman’s egg, since the egg contributes considerably more to the embryo than the sperm (more epigenetics, more mitochondrial DNA, plus the machinery to implement the blueprints).
Second, an egg or a sperm cell contributes only half of the resulting nuclear DNA. Conception is significant because after conception, the nuclear DNA is fixed. (Mitochondrial DNA may take longer to sort out, but usually only in rare cases.) So, before conception, we only have “probable outcomes” regarding the resulting embryo’s DNA. Conception fixes the DNA.
Of course, there’s a lot more to what makes the characteristics of a human than DNA, even ignoring post-natal environment.
So by your definition of “a human life”, it has nothing to do with the actual characteristics of a particular life, and furthermore, every menstrual cycle results in the loss of “human life”.
I am not my ancestors. My life did not begin before my conception. The seeds of my life began before me, of course … those go back billions of years. Where to draw the line?
And while I say “my life” began with my conception, I don’t hold that my legal personhood should have begun then. It’s just the simple fact that, as an organism, my genetic characteristics were determined at my conception. Had abortion been legal then, I probably wouldn’t be here now. I’m thankful that my biological mother didn’t abort me, but just because I’m happy to be alive, that doesn’t change my opinion that it should have been her right to do it legally.
Likewise, I adopted my wife’s son. I’m very glad she didn’t have an abortion. It was her legal right, and she’s pro-choice, but chose not to, thank goodness. The fact that I appreciate the outcomes in no way justifies removing the right.
In any case, I reject the definition of an individual life to include all antecedents of that individual life. That blurs the meaning of “individual” into meaningless: there now is no such thing as an individual, merely a continuum. Yes, the continuum exists, but why call that (and give it the status of) an individual life? By that definition, birth control is murder. Not having sex when one could, would be murder. Having sex, and giving birth to only one of the millions of possible individuals would be murder. Even the Catholic church doesn’t leap into that chasm of absurdity.
No, because the anti-abortion forces believe that requiring all fetuses to come to term is the ultimate good, despite all the misery and suffering that sometimes results.
Exactly:
and
Your father’s sperm had no life then you would not be here to write on this board. Every individual got life from it’s parents and they from theirs, life is a passed on thing from generation to generation.
Then biologically, a pollenated apple blossom is an apple, a fertile chicken egg is a chicken, and all fertile animals ova is that particular animal?
It is just a religious decision to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body. Once the fertile egg can be seen to have grown into a human then it is a human being. And since there are women who in self defense have an abortion it is no murder anymore than in a war etc.
Didn’t Joshua (according to the OT) Go at God’s bidding, and kill all the people(with his help) of Jericho. There must have been many born and unborn lives in that city, just so his chosen could take the town?
Nonsense. Even in a strictly pro-life society abortions will be necessary in order to protect the life of the mother.
Necessary, but not necessarily legal. And Chile’s not the only country to outlaw abortion with no exceptions whatsoever- see also El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, and Malta.
Not assume but speculate. Culture and values do change over time, in every nation and every religion and ethnicity. For instance, there was a time when most deeply religious-conservative Americans simply avoided politics as a thing of this world and an occasion of sin. In the 1970s they started to get politically engaged. That could always change back.
For the time being, the issue of abortion will not be resolved because it serves the purpose for which it is being used. As long as it serves that purpose, or no other issue surfaces that serves that purpose better, it will remain a hot-button issue.
The purpose, of course, is to divide and distract. There are far more important and pervasive issues that face our nation than abortion. However, abortion has the almost unique ability to be black and white – you either want it allowed or you don’t. The gray area is very small and clearly defined.
Politicians could engage issues that directly affect many more of their constituents’ lives, but those issues lack the black and white feature that abortion has. So, engage abortion. Stake your claim, on whatever side of the fence you like. Single-issue voters will flock to your side and view the other side with contempt and even moral outrage. Once that is accomplished, you can commit a world of sins and your voters will stay with you even as you advocate for policies that will directly hurt those very same voters.
I’m referring to Protestants above, of course. Catholics have always been politically engaged. But, as I understand it, American Catholics nowadays are no longer all of one mind about abortion, whatever the Church may teach.