# I think I may be changing to an anti abortion (pro life) stance **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 8, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326 "2015-08-08T17:32:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/121 "2015-08-09T19:27:15Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Not really. In both cases, you’re making choices that determine life or death. The idea that if I were pregnant the pregnancy is somehow not my body taking action is really silly. That’s like saying having a direct bill pay is not an action, since I don’t have to authorize each one. But the bills are being paid, and my resources are being used. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/122 "2015-08-09T19:56:47Z")
> [@truthseeker3](#): > > An embryo is - not just in the future WILL BE, but RIGHT NOW IS - a living thing and a living thing with its own unique human DNA. That makes it at least quasi-human, and I think that makes it worthy of some consideration right now. “Unique” human DNA is interesting. If I were to be cloned, would I (and my clone) be worth less than most people, given our not unique DNA? Are twins less valued, triplets more so, quadruplets still further? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/123 "2015-08-09T20:11:18Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > “Unique” human DNA is interesting. It’s another arbitrary label, another variation of “you can’t abort a fetus because a fetus is/has _X_”. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/124 "2015-08-09T20:13:29Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If you don’t want to give money to Woody Allen… > But if you want to use the police to shut down theaters that show Woody Allen movies… And that is actually the main reason why I wouldn’t censure or outlaw abortion is that I don’t want to live in a dictatorial society. But I am in the position where I think a unborn child is somewhere in between clump of cells and fully 100% human. If I did think an unborn child was 100% fully human I would have no problem enacting dictatorial measures to protect human life. You doubt the logic of the pro life position but I will detail in a moment how I think it is logical, or, at least, follows a logical framework. > [@](#): > > As long as all you’re saying is that personally you don’t want to have an abortion, but you’re not going to push laws to impinge on other people’s freedom, you’re in the clear. It’s once you push your illogical emotional intuition onto other people that things get terrible. > > Removing their medical license because of your subjective, emotional, illogical objections to abortion is still completely unwarranted. Consider that many of these doctors genuinely believe they’re performing a significant positive service, by helping women maintain control over their reproductive lives. And for illogical reasons you want to ruin their lives? Not okay. All of these statements, I believe, are logical statements: If [ABC] then [1234] A + B = C… A and B therefor have a mutual interaction whereupon you arrive at C A=B, B=C, C=A If A leads to B and B leads to C and C leads to D then A and D are in a direct causal link and D is interrelated to and dependent upon A All wolves, coyotes and dogs derive from the same category of classification but wolves and dogs and coyotes are not the same animal. Same category but not the same animal. Fertilized Cell, Zygote, Embryo, Fetus, Human Heart beat and frontal lobe are human characteristics, therefor an organism that has these properties has human characteristics Preventing an unborn child from being born prevents them from living out their natural term of life See, I don’t think any of the pro life arguments are illogical or irrational. I think you disagree with them so you label them illogical and irrational. But there is no 100% completely accurate, completely objective definition of what constitutes human life. Ultimately your assertion that an unborn child is not a human is just as subjective and irrational and illogical as the assertion that it is a human life. It is the conclusion that you have a problem with, not the actual framework of the concepts themself. Or, have I somehow made a big mistake in what is and is not a logical framework? If I have made such a mistake I am open to being corrected. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/125 "2015-08-09T20:49:31Z")
> [@nate](#): > > There is a big difference between sperm and eggs and a fertilized egg. All non-fertilizing sperm will perish as well as an unfertilized egg. But a fertilized egg, barring an abortion (from a medical procedure or miscarriage), would eventually become human. It’s genetically encoded to do so. A sperm or egg is not. In fact a sperm \*is \*genetically encoded to become human. It is its only purpose. Of course in order to realize that potential it requires an unfertilized egg - just as a fertilized egg requires a womb to settle into. As per your argument a fertilized egg is a human being but an unfertilized egg or a sperm is not, because of the fact that most sperm and unfertilized eggs die even without human interference. That strikes me as rather arbitrary. The interesting word here is _most_. Every now and then one sperm and one egg get to become a human being and realize their potential - unless someone takes that chance away by using a condom. Why do you not say that the condom killed that one human being that could have been? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/126 "2015-08-09T20:49:38Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > I honestly don’t see how this matters, i will even concede to the pro life side that they are a baby. Now please convince me that anybody should be FORCED to save someone else’s life to their own detriment. If you are against abortion are you for mandatory blood and organ donations? should people with healthy kidneys be forced to give them to people who need them? should we march people to hospitals to give blood no matter their wishes every time there is an accident? Just give me one justification for a woman or anybody else to be forced against their will to sacrifice their body to save another life. Not why it is a good idea for her to chose to but why it is a good idea to force this on anyone. Yes, but it is the mothers actions that lead to the pregnancy so to act as if she has no accountability in the situation seems a bit odd to me. I think your comments are actually very good comments, save for this one component that I mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![BuddhaBeast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@BuddhaBeast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BuddhaBeast)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/127 "2015-08-09T23:34:11Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > In fact a sperm \*is \*genetically encoded to become human. It is its only purpose. Of course in order to realize that potential it requires an unfertilized egg - just as a fertilized egg requires a womb to settle into. > > As per your argument a fertilized egg is a human being but an unfertilized egg or a sperm is not, because of the fact that most sperm and unfertilized eggs die even without human interference. That strikes me as rather arbitrary. The interesting word here is _most_. Every now and then one sperm and one egg get to become a human being and realize their potential - unless someone takes that chance away by using a condom. Why do you not say that the condom killed that one human being that could have been? A 3 to 6 week old fetus demonstrates many signs of advanced development, it is far beyond a clump of cells. I think that’s where a lot of the issues lies, in aborting at that stage. It is rare that an abortion is ever performed before that (except in the case of the Morning After pill which often prevents conception itself), so to say “human life begins” at conception is purely rhetorical when it comes to abortion because almost every abortion performed is when the fetus is past 3 week of development. Which again is a far more advanced stage than most people realize. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/128 "2015-08-09T23:47:54Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Yes, but it is the mothers actions that lead to the pregnancy so to act as if she has no accountability in the situation seems a bit odd to me. I think your comments are actually very good comments, save for this one component that I mentioned. Well thank you for being honest, most anti abortionist never actually want to admit its about punishing women for their sexuality. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/129 "2015-08-10T00:00:19Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Well thank you for being honest, most anti abortionist never actually want to admit its about punishing women for their sexuality. He didn’t say anything about punishment. It was about responsibility once circumstances that demand it are already at hand. Imagine we identified a culture that encouraged the mother to inspect her infant immediately after birth and then she has the ultimate decision of whether to keep it or send it off to be killed immediately if she didn’t want to keep it. Most people would find that practice barbaric and want laws passed to end the practice. Many people do not see a fundamental difference between that scenario and most legal abortions today - especially in the later stages. The only difference is where you draw the line. I already said that I am pro-abortion but only because of practical considerations, not philosophical ones. The “it’s my body and I will do what I want” is a red herring based on middle school logic at best and should not be used as a backbone for arguments against people that have a legitimate philosophical stance against certain types or all abortion. ---
**Author:** ![BuddhaBeast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@BuddhaBeast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BuddhaBeast)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/130 "2015-08-10T00:03:16Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Well thank you for being honest, most anti abortionist never actually want to admit its about punishing women for their sexuality. That is absurd and completely untrue. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/131 "2015-08-10T00:09:09Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Imagine we discovered a culture that encouraged the mother to inspect her infant immediately after birth and then she has the ultimate decision of whether to keep it or send it off to be killed immediately if she didn’t want to keep it. Most people would find that practice barbaric and want laws passed to end the practice. Many people do not see a fundamental difference between that scenario and most legal abortions today - especially in the later stages. The only difference is where you draw the line. > > I already said that I am pro-abortion but only because of practical considerations, not philosophical ones. The “it’s my body and I will do what I want” is a red herring based on middle school logic at best and should not be used as a backbone for arguments against people that have a legitimate philosophical stance against certain types or all abortion. It should be used because that IS the argument, you can’t simply dismiss it as a red herring because you don’t agree with it. The line lies in the difference between ordering someone murdered and being forced to use your body to keep someone alive. It is a very clear and easy to understand line, one is barbaric against the woman and the other against the baby. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/132 "2015-08-10T00:38:36Z")
Here’s a way of thinking that creeps a lot people out due to the cold accounting nature of it: children and babies are worth less than adults. Think of your average person right out of high school. Society has poured tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars of resources and effort into him. His parents have spent years raising him from birth and putting tremendous mental energy into making sure he’s not a screw up. He probably has a web of friends and relatives who care about him at least a little. His dying would be way more tragic than a five year old’s death. But most people don’t see it that way, because children dying pushes their emotional buttons and they’re seen as helpless and naive and all those other psychological reasons. So with that premise, think of the worth of a fetus (basically nothing, easily replaceable) vs. an adult woman. Pregnancy is a serious medical condition that can kill you. Easy calculation. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/133 "2015-08-10T00:43:03Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > It should be used because that IS the argument, you can’t simply dismiss it as a red herring because you don’t agree with it. The line lies in the difference between ordering someone murdered and being forced to use your body to keep someone alive. It is a very clear and easy to understand line, one is barbaric against the woman and the other against the baby. It isn’t that simple. Medical science is getting good at keeping babies alive outside of the mother even at as little as 21 weeks gestation in extreme cases. That is still below the legal limits for late second trimester abortions in some states. What if ‘abortion’ in those cases was really just a C-section delivery followed by intensive neo-natal ICU care until the baby was healthy enough to be adopted? That would have the same end result except with one less dead person or do you believe that they mother should have the authority to dictate specifics of the end result as well? I am not actually advocating such a thing because it would be incredibly expensive and probably harm the child in the long-term. It is just a thought exercise to pinpoint your true views. However, despite being pro-abortion for my own reasons, I also believe that most of the supporters are intellectually and philosophically bankrupt. The only reason I support it are practical considerations. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/134 "2015-08-10T01:08:29Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Here’s a way of thinking that creeps a lot people out due to the cold accounting nature of it: children and babies are worth less than adults. Think of your average person right out of high school. Society has poured tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars of resources and effort into him. His parents have spent years raising him from birth and putting tremendous mental energy into making sure he’s not a screw up. He probably has a web of friends and relatives who care about him at least a little. His dying would be way more tragic than a five year old’s death. But most people don’t see it that way, because children dying pushes their emotional buttons and they’re seen as helpless and naive and all those other psychological reasons. > > So with that premise, think of the worth of a fetus (basically nothing, easily replaceable) vs. an adult woman. Pregnancy is a serious medical condition that can kill you. Easy calculation. Yes, that is a good point and one of the reasons I support. The main reason however is that the world already has more than enough people and parenting well is both expensive and a long-term commitment. I believe that only committed people should engage in it. Babies aren’t truly self-aware until well after birth so, if you are a potential parent that want to euthanize your own child before it becomes a much bigger problem for you and everyone else, go right ahead and save everyone a lifetime of grief. A life cut short very early is probably better than one built on regret and non-commitment. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/135 "2015-08-10T01:11:53Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > It isn’t that simple. Medical science is getting good at keeping babies alive outside of the mother even at as little as 21 weeks gestation in extreme cases. That is still below the legal limits for late second trimester abortions in some states. What if ‘abortion’ in those cases was really just a C-section delivery followed by intensive neo-natal ICU care until the baby was healthy enough to be adopted? That would have the same end result except with one less dead person or do you believe that they mother should have the authority to dictate specifics of the end result as well? If that were possible, safe and reliable I wouldn’t really see that as violating the rights of the female. I would see it as a huge waste because i don’t honestly think that is a person and all that money and effort would be much better spent on an actual person who’s already been born, but as a thought exercise of what might be possible/viable in the future it is an interesting solution. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/136 "2015-08-10T01:14:26Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Yes, but it is the mothers actions that lead to the pregnancy so to act as if she has no accountability in the situation seems a bit odd to me. I think your comments are actually very good comments, save for this one component that I mentioned. It’s the father’s actions too, and he walks away with no accountability - he may pay child support once the baby is born, but he can leave during the gestational period with no consequences. ---
**Author:** ![truthseeker3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@truthseeker3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthseeker3)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/137 "2015-08-10T01:24:23Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > “Unique” human DNA is interesting. If I were to be cloned, would I (and my clone) be worth less than most people, given our not unique DNA? Are twins less valued, triplets more so, quadruplets still further? I meant unique from its parents. That is, it’s not part of the mother’s body, as I’ve heard claimed. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/138 "2015-08-10T01:25:45Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > I’ve long held the view that I disagree with abortion but that it is a woman’s body/woman’s right. A large part of this thinking was historical, that in the past women were dependent on men financially and otherwise, I am talking like 50 years ago. Since then women have made a large amount of progress and now it is quite easy for a woman to live independently. > > If a woman gets pregnant I think she should keep (deliver) the baby. If she wants no financial help from the father or if none is available, she should receive government assistance financially to help her carry and deliver the child and any and all expenses related to that. I do not know how you would legislate that, I am only talking conceptually. > > The child could be adopted if need be. Personally, I am in favor of open adoptions. If the woman chooses to keep the child and does not have the necessary finances, again, she receives financial assistance. Again, this is only a concept, I am not sure how you legislate that. > > I have no problem with birth control or the morning after pill. > > These are my comments/opinions. My comments/opinions are not meant to blame or judge anyone. I am open minded to other opinions and after discussion may change my position. 1. What do you think about some of the situations described here? [http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/24Weeks/After24Weeks.aspx](http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/24Weeks/After24Weeks.aspx) (and there is more on the site) 1. What about this case, where a fetal heartbeat cost the mother her life? [Husband: Ireland hospital denied Savita Halappanavar life saving abortion because it is a "Catholic country" - CBS News](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/husband-ireland-hospital-denied-savita-halappanavar-life-saving-abortion-because-it-is-a-catholic-country/) 2. And this case? [HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/beatriz-baby-dies-dead-el-salvador_n_3384635.html) ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/139 "2015-08-10T01:27:26Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > It isn’t that simple. Medical science is getting good at keeping babies alive outside of the mother even at as little as 21 weeks gestation in extreme cases. That is still below the legal limits for late second trimester abortions in some states. What if ‘abortion’ in those cases was really just a C-section delivery followed by intensive neo-natal ICU care until the baby was healthy enough to be adopted? That would have the same end result except with one less dead person or do you believe that they mother should have the authority to dictate specifics of the end result as well? > > I am not actually advocating such a thing because it would be incredibly expensive and probably harm the child in the long-term. It is just a thought exercise to pinpoint your true views. However, despite being pro-abortion for my own reasons, I also believe that most of the supporters are intellectually and philosophically bankrupt. The only reason I support it are practical considerations. I fail to see the logic of that argument. The moral and ethical questions surrounding abortion have to do with when a fetus should be declared a sentient human being with its own independent rights, and in particular, if and when those rights should supersede the rights of the mother – who is indisputably a sentient human being, one with a life history and all that goes with it. I **t has nothing to do with the technology** of when a fetus is viable outside the mother. In theory, sufficiently advanced technology could make the fetus viable right from conception. Indeed, given sufficient technology the whole process could be carried out external to the mother, given only an egg and a sperm donation. Does that make the fertilized egg a “sentient human being” with rights at that instant? Of course not. The definition of what it means to be human has nothing to do with any machinery you might have on hand. It’s clearly ridiculous, and the whole anti-abortion argument is premised on some emotional projection around what that blob of cells may (or may not) eventually become – the projection of what “might have been”. But in this remarkable backtracking narrative, why stop at conception? I herewith advance the theory that whenever I see a pretty girl, I have a moral and religious obligation to passionately leap on her and see to it that this potential for sacred human life is not squandered. This is no more silly than the core of the argument against contraception advanced by Catholics and various other fundamentalists – there isn’t even anything there, but by your actions (in my example, letting the pretty girl walk away non-impregnated) your are preventing the sacred thing from occurring. It seems to me that it’s the anti-abortionists who are intellectually and philosophically bankrupt, because this is the kind of thinking that they believe has priority over the well-being of the mother, an actual human being beyond any nuanced dispute, with a life lived and a life yet to live, with hopes, dreams, and loved ones. Not just intellectually and philosophically bankrupt, but heartless and cruel. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326/140 "2015-08-10T01:44:27Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > It’s clearly ridiculous, and the whole anti-abortion argument is premised on some emotional projection around what that blob of cells may (or may not) eventually become – the projection of what “might have been”. It is not clearly ridiculous. You yourself are just a ‘blob of cells’. So is a fetus or a an infant just much younger. Late-term fetuses can respond to complex stimuli and even respond to familiar voices from within the womb. The typical political abortion narrative has an oddly religious overtone. There is something magical that happens when the baby passes through the mother’s birth canal through the mother’s will that imparts innate humanness on it but it is never specified what that is exactly and it is completely unscientific. Let me ask you, when does a given ‘blob of cells’ become a person? That is a very serious question and I expect an insightful answer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-i-may-be-changing-to-an-anti-abortion-pro-life-stance/727326.md?page=8)