Life begins at conception. Fertilized eggs are conceived, having unique DNA. So, it’s as much of a baby as an embryo or fetus.
What? Life begins at conception, but it becomes a baby at implementation? How is it any different? Am I a different person if I move into a new house?
With arguments like these, pro-choice talking points write themselves.
“Terr says women cannot be trusted to tell the truth about their bodies and medical needs. Call Terr and tell him women have rights too.”
Many of us believe there should not be any such limits.
Utter bullshit. Do women have a “right” to get drugs without a doctor’s prescription? After all, they should “be trusted to tell the truth about their bodies and medical needs”.
Yes, if you restrict something by medical criteria, then you need a medical professional to make the determination. Not the patient.
Yeah, and many conservatives think there should not be an exception for rape/incest, so I guess that does’t really change anything. 
Women have the right to ask their doctor for a drug without government intervention. If the doctor won’t prescribe it, she has the right to ask a different doctor. The same goes for any medical procedure – if she thinks it is medically necessary, she has the right to ask for a doctor to do it.
I absolutely agree with the statement “if you restrict something by medical criteria, then you need a medical professional to make the determination. Not the patient.” So why do you want the government involved? Women and their doctors should be making decisions about their bodies. Not the government.
Isn’t that true before implantation? I mean, the fertilized egg is going to implant and develop in to a baby unless it’s prevented from doing so (or some natural accident occurs), right? I’m by no means an expert in this field, so correct me if I’m wrong.
So it’s all about the personhood, then, because apparently your “she granted permission” argument doesn’t matter at all with respect to your views on abortion.
We were talking about the context of determining when there is a danger to mother’s life in order to allow an abortion. You think that the mother should determine this. That, of course, would make such criteria meaningless - but then that’s your goal.
No, it would be by determination of a medical professional, and that medical professional would have to stand behind the determination if it was ever criticized or reviewed.
Not if the fertilized egg is in a test tube. Which is the context in which I posted.
So women = self-assembling automaton. No feelings, no health, no life. Just putting fetus parts together on auto-pilot. I must be imagining it when I deal with the aftermath of childbirth every day in the bathroom, 2+ years later (look up rectocele if you’re not eating). Like I said above, if you don’t think of the woman as worthy of any consideration, then of course abortion is abhorent.
I think the mother and her doctor should determine this.
My goal is to get the government out of limiting what decisions women (and their doctors) can make about their bodies.
It’s my understanding that this is already the case with pretty much every big medical decision.
I guess the concept of an analogy is lost on you.
The doctor, after examining the mother, should determine this.
If you view the woman as analogous to a lifeless automaton (and it’s clear that you do), then the humanity of the woman is lost on you.
What if the pile of wood requires slave labor to turn into a house? What if the automaton emits toxic gases that have a chance of injuring someone else? You have set up every scenario to discount the woman in every way. I would agree with you if fetuses grew in robo-wombs, if all they require to be born is non disturbance. But they don’t. They require tremendous investment from the woman to be born.
I’m going to change the answer to the OP to “in some cases, simple misogyny”, as you have clearly demonstrated.
I have two kids. I have watched the two pregnancies up close and personal for the whole duration. I know the inconveniences and the negatives associated with them. I still do not think those inconveniences and negatives justify snuffing out a human life. Not unless it threatens the life of the mother. YM obviously V. Too bad.
Easy for you to say since you’ll never sacrifice anything of your body to bring a person to life, isn’t it?
If your child should need blood/tissue/organs, do you think you should, by law, be compelled to donate to them?
OK. But how is that different from, say, pulling the tubes from someone on dialysis? And by “that”, I mean destroying an embryo (or egg or blastocyst) in a test tube.
Because someone on dialysis is already a human being. An embryo (or egg or blastocyst) in a test tube yet isn’t. Not until it is implanted and is in a situation where, without intervention or someone preventing it from happening on purpose, there will be a baby born (barring some natural event).