I think that most of the first four paragraphs of the article are fantastic in that that they confront head-on the issue that so many (especially on the pro-choice side), argue that we don't need to address: namely, whether or not an embryo is a human being.

From there, though, the article's persuasiveness drops off dramatically, because it simply asserts, without reasoning, that an embryo is only a "potential human being." The article also makes the common (and bigoted) blunder of saying "only the mystical notions of religous dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person."

First, to dismiss those with opposing viewpoints on the status of the fetus so cavalierly strikes me as evidence that the author is not an honest debater of this issue. What masquerades as a logical argument of a difficult issue is revealed as merely a pro-choice dogma (i.e., accepted as a matter of faith, not open to reason or debate).

Second, saying something so obviously and demonstrably false as that only the religious can believe the fetus is a human being further erodes the author's credibility. Rammesh Ponnuru has written extensively on the secular case for believing in the personhood of embryos for National Review (usually in the cloning context, but it applies to abortion, too). I needn't rely on Ponnuru to question this article, however. As an agnostic (sometimes athiest) who strongly believes in the embryo is a human being, I know first-hand that the author is full of hot air.

The author also goes a bit far when he writes, "That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person." Obviously, the author has stated as the premise of his argument the hypothesis he's trying to prove. Whether it's a "part" of a woman's body is a matter of perspective. Whether it is "independently existing" is another matter and depends on what the author means by independent. Claiming that the embryo is not a "biologically formed organism" is scientific nonsense. It's clearly 'biologically formed', and it's clearly an organism. The embryo is alive, by every scientific definitition of the word. It grows, it derives energy from food, and (most tellingly) it can die. It has a genetic makeup which is clearly distinct from that of its mother. Interestingly, if we were to accept the author's stacked deck in determining what constitutes a person (which I emphatically do not), then a conjoined (siamese) twin would have less right to life (at least as against the interests of his twin) than an embryo. Not only is a twin not a "separate" entity, but it doesn't even have unique DNA!

The conclusion of the article reveal the author not as someone approaching the issue with respect for the other side, but as closed-minded zealot. He writes, "Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the 'right-to-life.' The anti-abortionists' claim to being 'pro-life' is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue. Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life--lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings."

Haters of human beings? Is that not a bit strong? Note also that those who oppose abortion are accused wanting women to "sacrifice her life." One would hope that rational people on the pro-choice side could see that bearing a child does not contitute "sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life."

I'm pro-life. I take that position because I belive that an embryo or fetus is a living member of the human species, and that all entitities meeting that definition have entrinsic worth and the same right to be alive that I do. I belive that it should be the role of state governments to prevent the killing of of all living members of the human species. I also, however, recognize that people may have honest disagreements about whether an embryo or fetus is a person. I think those issues should be honestly and respectfully debated, and should be submitted to the political branches of government.

In short, if you've come around to the pro-choice side, more power to you. I hope that you will continue to develop and explore your views and contribute to the debate on this important subject. I'd hate to think, however, that you'd be persuaded by such an anti-intellectual, close-minded, hateful screed as the one written by Mr. Peikoff.

To say that the unborn child is "part of a woman's body" is just factually untrue. As for a mass of cells, differentiated or otherwise, this describes you or me, too. All living creatures are a mass of cells. You can't derive any moral status (or lack of it) from this.

Regarding the frog and fish, it's certainly true that in the first dozen weeks of life, the baby in the womb is tiny, developing slowly. But none of this changes the baby's status as a human life. As you say, animals do not, and should not, have the same rights as humans. Human life, however small and primitive, is simply morally superior to animal life. Until a cow or a fish can write a poem, compose a symphony, reason logically or fall in love, we shall matter more. Solely by constrasting the biological status of an adult cow and an adult human, you won't see this moral distinction. Equally, simply contrasting the biological status of a tiny human and a frog or something will not reveal this difference. But it exists.

Before someone says that unborn babies obviously cannot do any of the above things that I thought exemplified human superiority, all of them are capable of this given the chance to live. A born baby of 1 year cannot do this any more than an unborn baby, and a born baby is given the same rights as an adult, because we classify rights in terms of moral status, not maturity. This should be done more consistently.

Imho, abortion all boils down to one thing. Forget religious arguments about when a fetus has a soul, or scientific arguments comparing a fetus at a point in time to some other animal.

It has to do with what a fertilized egg cell, at any point in time, represents. A sperm cell on its own will die in a few days without ever becoming more than it is. An egg cell on its own will die after it is menstrated without ever becoming anything more. But a fertilized egg cell represents the potential for another human life to be lived. It will not die shortly of natural causes like a separate sperm or egg cell, but has a potential life span of a human being. It does not represent a future frog, chicken, or cow, but a human being.

Destroying a fertilized egg at any time destroys that potential and robs that life form of its future life experience. There is no doubt of two things - the organism is alive, and it contains the potential to live a human life. In that respect, destroying it is no different than murdering any other human being.

In that light, it becomes more than just "a woman's body". It represents the body and future life experiences of an independent human being. In this day and age of human rights, I believe the left culpable of a great hypocracy. They demand human rights for everyone from repressed minorities to criminals, while simultaneously demanding the right to end the life of an unborn human, when convenient. Their morality is inconsistent, so the reasons for their political demands must be based on something other than morality. Social control and engineering, perhaps?

Further, in the not-so-distant day and age of genetic technology and cloning, I think it is imperative that unborn humans are granted the same legal protections as born ones enjoy. Otherwise, imagine the results of whatever demented human cloning experiments that fringe groups like the Raelians might attempt. The unborn deserve protection from such tampering.

Such legal protections would probably also apply to medical research, particularly stem-cell research, that many doctors seem to support, and I am not educated enough in this area to make informed comments on it. However, my initial impression is that the argument in favor of such research is that great medical benefits and breakthroughs are to be had using it. I.e., the ends justify the means. But do they? Or is this another argument of convenience? Are such breakthroughs absolutely impossible without using stem cells, or can they be achieved in another way, using other technology, perhaps at a later date, at a slower pace? Does Christopher Reeve's desire to walk again trump the unborn's right to live?

The only time I would favor abortion is if a mother's life is in danger. In such cases, it is the woman's body that is at stake, and is the only time I believe the pro-choice argument correctly applies.

Basically, it is clear to me personally that the pro-choice argument is rooted in expedience and in the avoidance of the consequences of one's actions and decisions, while the pro-life argument is rooted in morality and in protecting human life in whatever form it takes.

I'd had only a passing familiarity with Capitalism Magazine before today. They have a useful section that links all of their articles on aboriton. I have to admit, I'm a bit surprised at how extreme their positions are. They are of the view, for example, that the fetus/baby/whatever has no rights, not only until it's born, but until the umbilical cord is severed. They argue that until that last act takes place, the mother has the right to 'abort' the fetus/baby.

I'm not saying that they're automatically wrong merely because their position is extreme (I think that's a dishonest debating trick that's used too often: sometimes the extreme view is correct). Moreover, their view has the virtue of being internally consistent. Still, I'm quite surprised that a mainstream publication would take a position supporting a right to what a majority of people would consider infanticide.

Abortion is a very tough issue for many thinking libertarians and I cannot yet reconcile the issues in my own mind to be honest...but I must say I found Peikoff's article fairly unpersuasive and not that well reasoned. Admittedly I find that par for the course when it comes to Ayatollah Peikoff.

Spoons is quite correct that Peikoff's position is infanticide, which is to say 'pro murder'... to 'abort' a child right before the umbilical cord is severed a few hours before a birth might occur means killing an independently viable human being. I am inclined to think killing a fetus 1 week after conception is the moral equivalent of squeezing a pimple... to kill it a week before birth is murder. Of course where one draws the line is the vexed issue and I have no answer to that.

However Peikoff is a dependable moral compass in my view: just head in the opposite direction and you will be fine.

The embryo is human, that cannot be denied, which instantly differentiates it from a frog or a fish. The embryo is life, that cannot be denied. So the embryo is human life. However, we don't accord full rights to all forms of human life (the brain dead are not guaranteed life, for instance), so merely being human life is not enough.

On another point, the idea that the fetus is part of the woman's body is silly. The DNA is different. The placenta is built according to instructions from the father's chromosones and actually bores parasitically into the woman's body. So I don't think that argument works.

If you want a much better article to base your thoughts on, try Gregg Easterbrook's Abortion and Brain Waves, which looks at the issue scientifically.

Capitalism Magazine is produced by followers of Ayn Rand. Such people believe a person's attitude to others is nothing to do with morality ie. infanticide is not immoral unless it harms the person who does it. Inconsistently, Rand recognises the need for individual rights in all of this, but doesn't grant them if it means the slightest sacrifice from someone else, infanticide on umbilical corded babies being a perfect example.

As for religion and abortion, I think you're absolutely right. I was pro-life before I was a Christian. There is nothing specific to "Abortion is murder and murder should be illegal" that makes it a religiously-based view. It just seems that religious people are more keen to recognise the sanctity of innocent human life.

The lengths of these comments show just how contentious abortion is.

The best I've been able to manage on this important issue is the following two contradictory feelings:

a] A potential, still-attached, half-developed few-weeks-old embryo is clearly not the same status of being as a newborn child or even a foetus a couple of months before birth;

b] We all rightly feel morally squeamish about dismissing weak and helpless creatures as not deserving mercy or protection.

It seems obvious to me that there is a sliding scale of difference between something clearly sub-animal but likely to become a person, and what is clearly a new person [such as an embryo after seven months] because all, not just some of us, feel instinctively compelled to protect and nurture it.

Attempts from either end to provide legally-reasoned transition points are self-evidently bogus, and are the source of the problem. I'm afraid I think that anybody who feels a baby is not a person until the umbilical cord is cut is mentally disturbed, and I think that anybody who thinks that a few-days-old fertilised egg is a person deserving sacred protection is equally obviously mentally disturbed.

-

I think Iain hits the nail on the head. Just as the brain-dead can't be regarded as human, a bunch of undifferentiated cells in a womb also aren't human. The key ingredient is MIND. As long as that mass of cells in a womb has no functioning nervous system, however rudimentary, there's no mind or personality present.

The alternative is to grant humanity to any clump of cells bearing human DNA, which leads to the absurd position that the skin cells that you lose every day down the shower drain are "persons" being negligently murdered.

That's my two cents' worth, anyway.

Mark G,

I don't think anyone is deserving of "sacred" protection, whatever that means. Not even you or I.

I'll say that your need to dismiss as "obviously mentally disturbed" those who disagree with you shows why there will never be peace on this issue. Hardly anyone is willing to show people the minimum respect that is a preconditioned of any rational debate.

The pro and anti abortion arguments have, for decades now, been based on emotion, political ideology, religious fervor and everything else but scientific consensus regarding the stages of human development within the blastocyst because said consensus has not existed. Mr. Peikoff's statement that; "what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body..." is merely another example of an uninformed statement made for personal, ideological reasons. Current research in neuroscience, childhood intellectual development and genetics are beginning to shed light on human development from conception to birth and it is hoped will lessen the rancor between the opposing points of view in this matter. However, the abortion issue is not settled even if these developments finally answer the "when the embryo become human" question.

The Supreme Court has, in a terribly reasoned decision, decided that abortion is legal. There have been subsequent decisions that have minimally limited abortion, but the basic "right" is untouched and will continue to be so due to the split in the populace regarding the issue. No congress will pass a law ending abortion nor will a Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade; stare decisis anyone? When all is said and done, the debate will come down to public funding for abortion; i.e.: will tax dollars be required to pay for abortions?

When this is finally the point at issue, it would seem a libertarians position is clear; no for tax dollars and tax breaks for charities to pay for abortion, yes for privately funded abortion. In this way, those that are opposed can still speak against and set up non-abortion solutions to unwanted pregnancies (adoption, foster care & etc...), those that are pro-choice can set up funds to pay for the poor to avail themselves of abortion. Finally, it is the individual(s) whom are responsible for the pregnancy that are left with the moral and ethical questions and the mental and physical health fall-out of their actions.

You don't have to be a six-footer,
You don't have to have a great brain,
You don't have to have any clothes on -
You're a Catholic the moment dad came...

because...

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs, on the dusty ground,
God shall make them pay for each sperm that can't be found

Every sperm is wanted, every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.

Spoons, come back, we miss you! It's nice to read your stuff, even if it's just in comments. Your first comment pretty much sums it up for me. Mind if I plagiarize that? It shouldn't come as a surprise to me that there are other people that view the argument in such a manner, but the instances that I'v found have been few and far between. Articles like the one in discussion, however, are pervasive. Go figure.

Hey, the best thing about not blogging is that I have more time to visit sites that I couldn't fit in before (like this one), and have more time to take up other people's bandwith with my rantings!

it would seem a libertarians position is clear; no for tax dollars and tax breaks for charities to pay for abortion, yes for privately funded abortion.

Only if you decide that the state should not protect all innocent human life, which is what a "foetus" is for as long as you listen to science.

Nothing is sacred, some life is worth more than other life (Hitler's life was probably worth significantly *less* than a couple of undistinguished cells, for instance). The fact that we don't have easy measuring devices for these sorts of problems doesn't alter the facts we do know. It just makes the problems hard to solve.

But common sense does tell us that four cells are not a human, and a viable baby is, and that it is morally right to preserve human life at some cost, generally.

Trying to simplify things by saying "a foetus is as valuable as Einstein" is just silly. Morals are sometimes complex, and this is one of those times.

I'm afraid I think that anybody who feels a baby is not a person until the umbilical cord is cut is mentally disturbed, and I think that anybody who thinks that a few-days-old fertilised egg is a person deserving sacred protection is equally obviously mentally disturbed.

The only person on this thread who came close to being mentally disturbed is you. Everyone else has been quite reasonable without resorting to such name calling. Maybe you and Peikoff should get together and figure out other names to call honest debaters.

The alternative is to grant humanity to any clump of cells bearing human DNA, which leads to the absurd position that the skin cells that you lose every day down the shower drain are "persons" being negligently murdered.

Just any old clump of cells, like your dead skin cells, will never become a human being. A fertilized egg cell will. See the difference?

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,

lol. Monty Python?

Trying to simplify things by saying "a foetus is as valuable as Einstein" is just silly.

What if you're referring to Einstein's fetus?

The evils of outlawing abortion are obvious. It always causes more problems than it solves. The only real choice is to allow abortion but discourage the practice at every turn.

Who says a fetus is innocent? It's a parasite.

OK It's not. But I personally am glad there have been thousands of abortions. Not glad for any pain it has caused in making the decision. Not glad that the choice had to be made. But glad that there was a choice that someone could make about their own lives.

How more libertarian could you be? Being libertarian it seems to me has never been about protecting human life. It has been about saving money and making life easier for those already alive.

You cannot logically be an anti-choice or ant-abortion libertarian. The one says every child should be born, the latter belief says there should be limited or zero government help for those families and single mothers who now have an extra child to support but did not want one.

Abortion is a reality. No one is pro-abortion. Even those who advocate a woman's choice, do not like that it happens. But it does for the overall good of society.

Abortion is a reality.
And it will be even if Roe v Wade is overturned. Except then you'll have many women, but not men, (curious eh?) in already overcrowded jails.

You want that reality?

Being libertarian it seems to me has never been about protecting human life. It has been about saving money and making life easier for those already alive.

I think that says it all.

dimm;

"It has been about saving money and making life easier for those already alive."

How shallow.

"You cannot logically be an anti-choice or ant-abortion libertarian. The one says every child should be born, the latter belief says there should be limited or zero government help for those families and single mothers who now have an extra child to support but did not want one."

I keep reading that looking for the contradiction. Where is it? Am I "logically" required to support everyone I'd prefer not be murdered? But I don't want anyone to be murdered. I can't provide for humanity. Is the government "logically" required to provide for everyone it's illegal to kill?

"No one is pro-abortion. Even those who advocate a woman's choice, do not like that it happens."

Abortionists don't like getting business?

"Abortion is a reality.
And it will be even if Roe v Wade is overturned."

Murder is a reality.

"Except then you'll have many women, but not men, (curious eh?) in already overcrowded jails."

Most abortionists are men. They'll be the majority of those against whom proof beyond a reasonable doubt can be found. If a client of an abortionist who wasn't coerced by a boyfriend or whoever gets sent to jail, good.

I don't think that my rights came from my "Creator" (also known as God). I think that my rights are mine because I am a Rational, Moral agent. This difference is effectively ensconced in most laws, since minors are treated differntly than adults. At some arbitrary point, it is decided that a person is now a Rational, Moral agent (16, 18, 21, etc.).

But we still grant children some rights and protections. This is an acknowledgement of three things.
1. The child is loved by others, and the loss of the child would be mourned.
2. The child will probably become a Rational moral agent.
3. From birth to majority, the child is developing more rationality and morality.

So can these three reasons be brought backwards to a fetus?
1. Is true, but not to the same extent. A miscarriage is not a devastating as the death of a child.
2. Is true, but no with the same probabilty. At conception there are 130 males for every 100 females. At birth there are about 110 males for every female. Where did all of the extra boys go?
3. Is totally not true. While the fetal brain is developing, it is primarily getting to the point where body functions can be maintained. A new-born baby has very little interaction with the world beyond stimulus response.

So why have abortion illegal?

Because some people vehemently disagree with me on 3. They think that each fetus is a moral agent, even if it isn't rational, due to the presence of a soul. I will grant them this. Aborting a fetus/baby that has a soul would be immoral. Now all they have to do is deomstrate when a fetus/baby gets their soul.

Byna

Byna, would your position go so far as to say that a parent has a right to terminate their child's life up until some young age, say, 1 year old? 1 month?

What if a baby is born 4 months premature? It would then have the same cognitive development as a 5-month fetus.

What legal status would you give that preemie?

As an aside, I wish that people would stop assuming that everyone who is pro-life is religious. I don't even know for sure that I have a soul, much less a fetus. That doesn't mean I want either one of us killed. I think people who are are pro-choice and not religious simply dismiss the pro-life crowd as religious, because then you don't have to deal with their arguments. Where do non-religious pro-lifers like myself fit into this debate, or don't we get to participate?

...evasion...evasion...blank out....

Leonard Piekoff is absolutely right.

A fetus is only a potential human being and therfore has no rights.

What defines an actual human being, is a rational being that lives by means of self sustaining, self generated action, which posesses a volitional consciousness.

Morally an embryo can not take precedence over a fully developed, independently existing human being.

As Ayn Rand put it, "A potential is not equivalent to an actual" " and "the living take precedence over the not yet living or unborn".

When is a fetus a 'person'?

When It Can Live Outside of Her Body

If the potential person can survive without being Inside Mommy, it's actually a person now, and has rights. If it can't even with insanely expensive Western medicine, then it's still part of her.

I think that's pretty clear, and seems to never get mentioned in these debates. Yes, that point in time is shifting to earlier in pregnancy as medical technology advances. Once you accept that point, the questions turn into 'who pays for the neo-natal ICU if she didn't want it and it's viable?'

Different political/economic camps will of course answer that question in radically different ways :-)

I'd say that a fetus, even if you consider that it don't have the same value as an human live, does have a value and I personally can't stand the idea of killing an human being because someone, somewhere, wasn't responsable enough to use a preservative, take the pill, etc. In some case, like a rape, it might be acceptable.... but not when you were simply too drunk to use a preservative or to ask your partner to do so.

I think that the act become immoral as soon as the organism can feel the pain. And if you ever watched a late stage abortion, you sure wouldn't like to be at the place of the baby...
I forget when exactly this happen (the creation of the nervous system)...

Btw I'm an athee so stop to consider all pro-live as religious it's stupid.

dimm, your argument is statist, not libertarian.

Pro-life libertarians believe in little or no govt. intervention, but we do not believe in a society that tolerates murder. We therefore believe in a society that outlaws abortion just as it outlaws all forms of homicide. Such laws form the basis of any society, and people who believe a government should have no say even that respect are anarchists, not libertarians.

If you think that being libertarian is about "saving money and making life easier for those already alive", then you've grossly misinterpreted libertarianism. Being libertarian is about neither. It is about identifying the truths in the world and basing your decisions on them, rather than on some dogma, be it religious, social, or whathaveyou. If such truths require life to be harder, such as no abortions allowed, then so be it.

"You cannot logically be an anti-choice or ant-abortion libertarian. The one says every child should be born, the latter belief says there should be limited or zero government help for those families and single mothers who now have an extra child to support but did not want one."

There is no logical fallacy there. Yes, every conceived child should be born, so long as the mother is physically able to undergo childbirth. No, there should be no welfare for people who did not want the child. If you don't want a child, use birth control. If you're not willing to risk even that, don't have sex. But don't expect the government to pay for your mistakes, or bad luck, and don't expect to be able to get out of that jam by murdering another human being. Abortion is simply an expedient solution for people who aren't willing to face the consequences of their actions.

Finally, does abortion truly improve the "overall good of society"? Just who and what is that anyway? That's the exact argument that statists have used throughout history for every ethically bankrupt social engineering endeavor they've attempted. What we should be asking instead is, is it good for the individual? Does a pregnant woman's inconvenience and hardship outweigh an unborn human being's life?

Leaving the abortion at such a late stage as Ghaleon mentions, ( apart from the danger to the mother), is totally irresponsible but that is not an argument against abortion.
If you base the debate on the first 3 months then I fail to see any basis to oppose abortion based on my definition of an human being detailed above.... unless of course dictating other peoples choices is one's goal.

PS. I'm off now to head off in the opposite moral direction to Mr Piekoff as Perry De Havilland suggests...I am going to serve others as the sole justification of my existence......

As Ayn Rand put it... "the living take precedence over the not yet living or unborn".

When it comes to life and death, that's true. The life of the mother takes precedence over the life of the unborn, when her life is at risk due to the pregnancy. But the convenience of the living does not take precedence over the life of the unborn.

"I think that's pretty clear, and seems to never get mentioned in these debates. Yes, that point in time is shifting to earlier in pregnancy as medical technology advances. Once you accept that point, the questions turn into 'who pays for the neo-natal ICU if she didn't want it and it's viable?'

You're defining human life based on our technology. Need I say more?

I'm sick of hearing about "choice" without anyone acknowedging that in most cases of pregnancy, the choice was made to have sex, and abortion is only an avenue of avoiding the consequences of the original decision. To me, the only sticking point in disallowing abortion comes in the case of rape. Society already puts a very heavy burden on women, and I would hate to stack another log onto an already overburdened cart, but aborting a fetus only punishes the fetus, not the rapist.

"When is a fetus a 'person'?
When It Can Live Outside of Her Body"

David, a pregnant woman in her third tri-mester is hit by a drunk-driver. She lives, but the fetus dies. There are currently laws that allow for the driver to be prosecuted for manslaughter. Should these laws be revoked? There is a difference (she didn't choose for the fetus to expire,) but our laws still consider the fetus to be a "life."

Spoons, I'm only giving you a hard time about your blog. There are a lot more important things. btw, how's the woodworking going?

Byron wrote:

"But the convenience of the living does not take precedence over the life of the unborn".

So Byron you're saying that the mother must sacrifice her future for the sake of a few developing cells or fetus?
In other words, the mother must give birth to an unwanted baby because you want the right to dictate her personal choices.

I think that in the very persuasive "pro life" arguments above - the rights and wishes of the pregnant woman have been overlooked.
She has to carry the foetus, she has to suffer. You can't force people to suffer against their will (unless they comitted some crime).
You also can't force a woman to raise a child, after it was born - and you don't have to - you don't have to kill the child as you can have it adopted. This option is not available for a foetus. It is here a situation of one's rights (the foetus) against another's - the unwilling woman. Somebody has to suffer. Who ?
Imposing a total ban on abortions seems to me too harsh on women, and also impractical.

>>Being libertarian it seems to me has never been
>>about protecting human life. It has been about
>>saving money and making life easier for those
>>already alive.

>I think that says it all.

I always thought the first value of libertarianism was freedom, not life. Life is valuable because it allows freedom, not the reverse. Murder is wrong because it deprives someone of their liberty.

If someone prefers slavery over death, can he be legitimately described as a libertarian?

"So Byron you're saying that the mother must sacrifice her future for the sake of a few developing cells or fetus?

In other words, the mother must give birth to an unwanted baby because you want the right to dictate her personal choices."

First, you're assuming the baby will destroy her future. That's not a given. Second, I'll say it again. The convenience of the mother does outweigh the life of the unborn. How exactly is that wrong? Third, I don't seek the right to dictate anyone's personal choices, except when it comes to their choice to murder another human being. That's a personal choice that every civilized society has claimed the right to dictate.

Further, to address your other Ayn Rand quote, "A potential is not equivalent to an actual".

A fetus is not a potential. It is a guaranteed human, unless by some accident or abortion its growth process is unnaturally ended.

Byron wrote:

"A fetus is not a potential. It is a guaranteed human, unless by some accident or abortion its growth process is unnaturally ended".

But Byron at that specific moment in time that is all it is....
a fetus..with POTENTIAL...not an ACTUAL. So quite obviously it is not murder as you suggest.

Remember, in contrast to a fetus/embryo, an actual human being is a rational animal that lives by means of self sustaining, self generated action, posessing a volitional consciousness.

"Somebody has to suffer. Who ?"

So in your mind, the hardship of the mother in having to carry a pregnancy and raise the child equates perfectly equally to the death of the child? I beg to differ.

Additionally, no one is forcing the mother to suffer. Suffering happens. It's part of life. Nowhere are we guaranteed an easy life. Men are perhaps endowed with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but certainly not with guaranteed happiness and no suffering whatsoever. The woman made certain choices which led to her getting pregnant. If suffering is a result of that, she has to bear it. Otherwise, make different choices. Again, abortion is all about expediency and nothing more.

But Byron at that specific moment in time that is all it is.... a fetus..with POTENTIAL...not an ACTUAL. So quite obviously it is not murder as you suggest.

True, at that specific moment. But on the other hand, the fetus WILL become an ACTUAL in 9 months. Killing the fetus prevents the actual from becoming. It destroys a lifetime, and a unique genetic branch.

"Remember, in contrast to a fetus/embryo, an actual human being is a rational animal that lives by means of self sustaining, self generated action, posessing a volitional consciousness."

I agree with your definition of an actual human being, and if a fetus were to remain a fetus forever and never become an actual human, this argument would never have taken place. But the unavoidable fact is that killing a fetus erases an actual human being from future history. I consider that murder.

Interesting that there aren't many (any?) women contributing to this slanging match.

Just a thought.

The women are too busy outnumbering men in higher education, and plotting to take over the world, to spend all this time arguing on the internet. ;)

Byron wrote: "But the unavoidable fact is that killing a fetus erases an actual human being from future history. I consider that murder".

But Byron, by using that "future" philosophical argument, I could define you as a corpse....(because you have the potential to become a corpse).

On that note......Goodnight.

Trevor, that 3rd trimester pregnancy killed in your example by a drunk driver would be a person by my definition, since, had the mother gone into early labor or had it induced because her life was in danger, there is a possibility that the child could have lived.

The line for 'can survive outside of Mommy' is currently, with extreme medical measures, near the early part of the 3rd trimester.

So it'd draw the line, currently, at the start of the 3rd trimester for 'personhood' status.

I find 3rd trimester abortions abhorrent, and I find those wanting to ban 1st trimester abortions repugnant as well.

I'd personally find things just dandy and balanced if the legal line was drawn right in the middle at 4.5 months....you've had plenty of time to realize you're pregnant and abort if you want to, but after that there is an increasing chance of survival for the infant, and you dithered too long.

"But Byron, by using that "future" philosophical argument, I could define you as a corpse....(because you have the potential to become a corpse)."

Are you threatening me? ;) Seriously though, if you're alluding to death by natural causes or old age, how does that apply to abortion? Abortion is not a natural cause, is it?

On that note, it was nice debating with you. Till next time.

A woman should be allowed to do, or have done, anything she wants to do, within the confines of her own body. This includes scraping her womb with sharp objects, drinking copious amounts of alcohol, etc.

Exception: when a developing fetus/baby is capable of surviving independently (as determined by a competent physician) the woman's sole pregnancy-terminating option should be to have the fetus/baby removed from her womb.

If you don't believe that a woman should have this basic right, how far will you go in restricting her? Should she be forced to eat a highly restricted diet because the fetus/baby might be harmed by a diet high in caffeine or sugar or preservatives? Should she be prevented from vigorous exercise because of the elevated possibility of a miscarriage during strenuous activity? How about boxing during the eighth month? Scuba diving? Running up and down the stairs? Smoking?

I don't believe that line can rationally be drawn anywhere. A person's right to control his/her own body is and must be the fundamental right.

David, thanks for the reply, and the consistency in your argument. In-vitro fertilization muddles the argument further, and as you point out the no-abortion stance may soon be inevitable.

Bombadil, the argument being discussed here is really about the definition of life. If a woman had consensual sex, she already made the decision with her body. If the definition of life is a fetilized egg, then a woman is not making the decision over her body, but rather the decision over another's life.

btw, to all posters, kudos for a well-mannered debate on a touchy subject.

If all pregnancies are to be carried to term regardless of all else, then a woman ceases to be a human at the moment of conception and becomes a breeding-stock item. In the case of rape, the circumstances were certainly not of her choosing. There are many more things that make this a most difficult subject to discuss, but those two make the idea of banning legal abortion just obscene.

Hey, Tom Bombadil...
Is it really that horrible to oblige a women who made a decision to live with the consequences? I think it's pretty normal myself...

And David Mercer... I'm thinking kinda like you but instead of setting the line at 4.5 months only because, hey.. its the middle.... we should really put it as soon as the fetus have a nervous system. Before that, okay I accept the fact that it's not really a crime as the fetus doesn't feel anything and isn't even conscious he exist... After that, I consider it's immoral.

MommaBear
1-In our society, womens have all the tools they need to never get pregnant... Not and excuse

2-In case or a rape it might be acceptable... but I'm pretty sure without having to verify the exact number that rapes are only the cause of a very small % of abortions

I personnaly fear the day when such a things as abortions will become too banalized...

"The line for 'can survive outside of Mommy' is currently, with extreme medical measures, near the early part of the 3rd trimester."

Again, a pro-choicer is essentially defining human life based on the current state of technology. You're saying that b/c our machines are capable of maintaining a fetus without help from the mother near the beginning of the third trimester, then the beginning of the third trimester marks the beginning of human life, the point after which abortion should be illegal.

However, as our machines and medical technology improve over time, which I think most would agree is inevitable, then that definition of human life is subject to change accordingly. Perhaps by 2100, we will be able to technologically maintain a fetus by 5 months. Where will you then draw the line? I assume your preference for 1st trimester abortions would remain, so wouldn't a new line logically be drawn at 4 months, halfway b/t 3 and 5 months? And say by 2200, we can maintain a fetus at 3 months? Will your line now be moved to 3 months, halfway between your 3 month abortion window, and the new definition of an independent human being? And what happens when the day arrives that we can maintain a fetus from conception to birth, in a laboratory, with no need for a human mother whatsoever? Will your line then be moved to conception? Or will it suddenly jump all the way back to allowing an abortion up 9 months, just before the baby comes out of the jar? What criteria will you use to decide then? Some feature of the new technology, perhaps? What happens when that feature eventually becomes obsolete, or changes in some other way? Now you're essentially right back where you began, unable to logically define when human life begins. Do you see the fallacy of basing a definition of human life on something so inconsistent, transient, and, I would argue, irrelevant?

Truly, the definition of human life must be independent of technology for it to be meaningful. Additionally, it should only be defined under an objective standard. Technology certainly isn't such an objective standard. I have already stated one possible standard - the moment of conception - and the objective reasons for it - 1) a fertilized egg is alive, and 2) it will become a human being and live a human life. Anyone have any rational argument against that, please enumerate. I'm all ears.

In the meantime, what other possible objective standards are there? Technology failed the objectivity test. Claims that a fetus becomes alive at some point in the womb, be it the 3rd trimester, or 4.5 months, or whatever, are all based on opinion, not fact. The only other possible objective standard I've seen mentioned is that the fetus becomes a living human being the moment it is born. As James Taylor claims:

"What defines an actual human being, is a rational being that lives by means of self sustaining, self generated action, which posesses a volitional consciousness."

But that argument fails its own test too. Even after a baby is born, it is in no way self sustaining and rational. It requires its mother, or at the very least, other humans, for survival. It cannot feed itself, and will quickly die without someone to feed it. And I won't even mention mention how rational newborn babies and young children are.

So for its first few years of existence, a baby/child is neither rational nor self-sustaining. Therefore, it cannot, according to Ayn Rand and James Taylor, be a human being. In those respects it is logically no different than a fetus in the womb, so if we allow women to abort their fetus, we should also logically allow them to kill their young children up to a certain age. (What that age is and who decides it is another problem entirely, but suffice it to say it would vary per child)

The "terrible two's" are an awful age for many parents, who become extremely sleep-deprived due to the non-stop crying of their infants. So why not allow them to kill their crying two-year-olds when they feel they just can't take it anymore. How is that different from allowing a woman an abortion when she does't want to deal with the inconvenience of a pregnancy?

With respect to Ayn Rand, I don't think she intended to apply that statement to the abortion argument. In fact, I don't think there was even a such thing as medical abortion when she wrote her masterpieces, Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in 40s and 50s. Rather, she was using that phrase to differentiate the looters from the movers, and I distinctly remember at one point in Atlas Shrugged, in Midas Mulligan's secret valley, where she said that children are an exception to that rule until they grow old enough to go off and make their own way in the world. So I'm pretty sure she did not define children as non-human simply b/c they are dependent on their parents for survival.

So the technology-based definition of human life does not hold up, nor does the independence-based definition of human life. What other possible criteria for objectively defining human life are there?

"I personnaly fear the day when such a things as abortions will become too banalized..."

So do I, Ghaleon. Few things devalue human life more. Look at all the rationalizations for abortion, and imagine what could they also be applied to. Doesn't any of this remind people of how the Nazi's rationalized that Jews weren't human? It's a slippery slope...

"and isn't even conscious he exist..."

That's an interesting criteria for human life. Self-consciousness. That also happens to be a criteria for true artificial intelligence, fwiw. However, at what point does a newborn baby become self-conscious? Before birth, after birth, and how can we tell? Anyone have any arguments pro of con for using self-consciousness as the definition of human life? Is there any other kind of life that is self-conscious?

What of people with severe mental problems, not conscious they exist? There are some who do not require medical life support, but need the same amount of care (and force-feeding) as newborns and will forever. There are occasional injunctions (a la terry schiavo) saying they should be starved to death if their guardian does not want them....

And here is one female joining the argument, a female who started off anti-abortion (through simple repugnance first, and then through researching and finding out about it), then through that got led first away from the Democrat party and then towards religion (not that those two are mutually exclusive -- that's just how it worked in my case). As for miscarriages: I'd say there are definitely quite a few women who mourn a miscarriage as they'd mourn a stillborn or a child who died in infancy. My mother (who has had all three of those, as well as three survivors) mourns all three of her dead children (her term) equally. Of course, a six-year-old or a teenager who died would be mourned in a very different way, because of shared experiences, knowledge of personality, etc., but should then only older children with personalities and activities be of worth?

Bombadil;

I own my own property just as much as I do my body. Suppose there's a person in a cabin I own, with no winter clothes, and it's a blizzard outside. Can I shoot him?

MommaBear;

So then, if abortion is made illegal, will it be okay to kill pregnant women? After all, they won't be humans, and the fact that they will be human again in nine months or less surely doesn't matter, since that's mere potential.

David Mercer.

> When is a fetus a 'person'?
> When It Can Live Outside of Her Body

That's neat, but I think it proably proves more than you want it to. Sure, the newborn can live outside the mother's body, but it won't stay alive for very long without direct intervention by an older human. Please don't tell you you're with Peter Singer and think that infanticide is just jolly, too, until some unspecified age when the infant becomes, uhh, well, um... whatever-it-is that Singer thinks makes it no longer OK for the Stronger to dispose of the Weaker.

Ghaleon: I'd buy 'has a nervous system' as a good point, what time is that, anyway?

Kirk: No, I'd call it infanticide as soon as it's delivered, and then neglected.

Byron: My definition IS objective, it's just that as technology advances, the line moves. This ALWAYS happens when technology changes, laws and customs must change to adapt.
Before the printing press, you didin't need laws protecting freedom of it, for instance.

It'd put the time of 'personhood' as an equation that does shift with technology, rather than a fixed constant (although I do like the 'has a nervous system' point better than any other...that's a new one to me, thanks ghaleon :-)

Now, I'd say that any website that spawns a viewpoint that's new to ANYONE on abortion definately is 'critically rational'.
Speaks well of the Samizdata crew and their readership.

NOTE:

I am not libertarian. Byron's comments about libertarianism being against murder is based on a false premise or at least a "squishy one" in defining what murder is.

Byran seems stuck on the "future human" being thing. Others have addressed it. The future ain't here buddy. I could make plans for next year - and I could die. I could think about killing a president but thinking and acting are two different things.

As different as say, being alive baby and being a fetus.

I keep on reading expediency is not worth murder (of course murder only in some people's minds). Again i go back to my original pontn way up there, phrasing it differently here - there are a lot more people happier and able to get on with being useful and productive membmers of society) because abortion is legal within certain perameters

And guess what - birth control fails. When that happens you ruin three lives, not just one, which cannot be considered human at the time it is aborted.

Also agree about keeping this "debate" well-reasoned and unscreechy." thanks.

Wait -- what three lives are being ruined? Perhaps if the woman was having an affair or was otherwise engaging in activities she's not willing to let be known, things are going to be a bit tough on her (although that's her own fault, and would be the same as any other evidence she'd had sex, such as, say, walking in on her).

But I think you're claiming that the lives of the father, mother, and baby, who are forever forced to live with and despise each other, are ruined? Not hardly. If the mother wants to keep the baby, she has a legal claim on the father, which (should he not want any part of it) will certainly inconvenience him, but not ruin his life, oder? And if she doesn't, she can give the baby up for adoption, inconveniencing her for about five months (the first several months really aren't that much of an inconvenience, unless you think that not being able to do drugs etc. (and even that's a choice made by the mother, separate from abortion) is ruining her life?). The father's life is not disturbed, the mother's is inconvenienced for a few months, and the baby's is not disturbed. The baby's new parents are getting an incredible gift they (if they live in the US) probably waited years for. How are three lives being ruined?

"My definition IS objective, it's just that as technology advances, the line moves. This ALWAYS happens when technology changes, laws and customs must change to adapt. Before the printing press, you didin't need laws protecting freedom of it, for instance."

Human life existed before technology, and the true definition of human life has always been independent of the current state of technology. Deciding now that the definition of human life depends on technology that is only a few decades old is an attempt, imo, to redefine what human life is to suit your idealogical whims.

"Byron's comments about libertarianism being against murder is based on a false premise or at least a "squishy one" in defining what murder is."

What's "squishy" about murder? I said that libertarians prefer as little government intervention as possible, except in providing for the basic needs of a civilized society, such as the prevention of murder. I wasn't referring to abortion there, but to murder in general. I was correcting your statement that Libertariasm is about making life cheaper and easier for people, which is completely untrue.

"Byran seems stuck on the "future human" being thing. Others have addressed it. The future ain't here buddy. I could make plans for next year - and I could die. I could think about killing a president but thinking and acting are two different things."

Now you're reversing my argument. Anybody might do anything in the future, or they might not. In that respect, the future is uncertain, and I agree with you completely. However, do you agree that an abortion definitely prevents a new human being from entering the world? Is there any way you can disagree with that at all? Of course not, the sole purpose of abortion is to prevent a human from living a life.

"And guess what - birth control fails."

Abstinence doesn't. That's birth control too, don't forget. The risks of other forms of birth control are stated on the package - 3% chance of failure for condoms, I believe, and I don't know the others off the top of my head. Anyone not comfortable with a 3% chance of failure, or whatever they can reduce that to by using a combination of contraceptives, can choose to abstain.

The problem is, people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to have sex with no risk of pregnancy, and abortion is the only method that provides zero risk. But what at cost? It's a very selfish attitude, imo.

Would be a nice call Spoons [good name, by the way!] except should have been clear I wasn't calling anyone mentally disturbed who disagreed with me - because as I spelled out, I haven't fixed on a view yet so I don't have a view for them to disagree with. I started off with two contradictory beliefs, remember?

I think you and I partly agree [especially if you re-read] - certainty and cut-off points are suspect and these are what stop people from hearing each other. And let me rephrase - do you not find something at least slightly barmy in the self assurance of those who either
- fail to see a helpless child deserving protection until some point like the cord being cut? or
- already see a person days into cell-division?

How can there possibly be a clear, legalistic answer or date saying "before this extinguishable, after this, fully-fledged citizen"? Where did everyone get to be so sure on this notoriously fuzzy issue?

If a woman does not have the right to choose, then the very quality of her life becomes different from a man's.

Many memes in our society would need to change, pronto. Boys and girls would need ideas about heterosexual sex not being a desirable activity, that it can only be engageded in with the intent to procreate (yeah, some religions already attempt this... ). Girls *especially* would need to absorb the meme of 'never have heterosexual sex, unless you are willing to bear a child. NEVER'

Homosexuality could be promoted as the best way to get the loving physical intimacy that humans require for good health and fun. Memes about homosexuality need a good overhaul,too, apparently.

When the right to choose abortion is outlawed, some women kill themselves when they become pregnant, because they don't see any better solution to the problem of, what?... living through the pregnancy, bearing the child, caring for the child, the social stigma, lack of support through pregnancy and after.

Abortion in the case of danger to a woman's physical health has been mentioned here as a case when abortion would be acceptable. If a woman is not mentally able to cope with pregnancy and childbirth, to the point where she is willing to kill herself, then that is a danger to her physical health.

That is an extreme case, but obviously it happens with regularity- or did, before abortion was legal.

It is much more than just 'a woman's choice to have sex'. There are lots of bad memes floating around, about why and when women should have sex, what a woman gains from having sex- jpressure andstatus of having a boy friend (and how is she going to keep him?), a home and survival support from a man who has vastly more earning power than she does.

It's quite easy and comfortable to theorize, when one does not have a body that will get pregnant. Women without access to dependable birth control, which includes the word 'no' as well as the rest of the array available, including abortion,are breeding stock. Their lives are defined by their reproductive *potential*. Guys, get ready to do without sex with women, and start eyeing up the other fellows.

I agree, no one really wants to undergo a surgical procedure that includes both physical and psychological risk, but isn't it a better alternative to suicide?

With freedom comes responsibility. People apparently don't feel free, when evaluating thier current alternatives. We are limited by the ideas we are open to, when looking for solutions to the problems.

Lars: I agree with several of your points, which is why I am involved with Feminists For Life and some local groups with similar goals. Rather than saying, "it's tough to bear children if society isn't supportive, so let them kill the children instead," these groups say, "it's tough to bear children if society isn't supportive, so make society more supportive." These groups (in agreement with many of the early feminists) see abortion as a sign of women's oppression, because society made it difficult or unacceptable to have children (esp. out of wedlock) and also have productive lives outside the home. For decades they have been working, with a good amount of success, for increased maternity leave, for laws allowing public high school girls to be pregnant without being kicked out of school, for pre-natal and childcare facilities at colleges, and so forth. Same acknowledgment of problem (childbearing ain't easy), different answer.

National Review editors: "[W]hat greater claim on our protection, after all, does that infant have a moment after birth? He still lacks the attributes of "personhood" — rationality, autonomy, rich interactions — that pro-abortion philosophers consider the preconditions of a right to life. The argument boils down to this assertion: If we want to eliminate you and you cannot stop us, we are justified in doing it. Might makes right."

All of this is the antithesis of true libertarianism.

"Rather than saying, "it's tough to bear children if society isn't supportive, so let them kill the children instead," these groups say, "it's tough to bear children if society isn't supportive, so make society more supportive."

Agreed. There are much better solutions to all the social problems women face due to their ability to bear children, than abortion. Abortion is the easy solution, but not the right one.

"If we want to eliminate you and you cannot stop us, we are justified in doing it. Might makes right."

Well said. The unavoidable culmination of all pro-choice arguments. There endeth the lesson. Byron, signing off. For now...

I personally am deeply uncomfortable with denying women the choice of whether to continue with pregnancy at an early stage. With the relevant arguments of potential in mind I would add there is the potential for an unwanted child to be neglected and abused, for it's mothers life to be directly affected in a negative fashion, conceivably resulting in the end of her own life. If these factors are of enough concern to the potential mother that they decide they are not capable of bringing up a child properly I am in support of their decision to abort, at an early stage.
It is my belief that to draw a conclusion based on the potential of a life solely in terms of positive outcomes and ignoring the negative potential is irrational. Life above all else, when there is only a theoretical proof of life i.e. four cells have the potential to be a human being ergo they should enjoy the same right of protection as a newborn, sits uncomfortably with me.

I should also add that this 'ducking the consequences' attitude is a ridiculous simplification of events that occur in peoples lives. I refuse to believe that the majority of abortions occur because people find it an easy alternative to sorting out birth control or asking their partner to withdraw. Individuals that I know to have gone through this have certainly not just taken the attitude 'Oh a baby, that would be so inconvenient'. The expediency argument used in this way presumes that there is no thought process or concern on behalf of the mother which I believe is an inaccurate and potentially offensive portrayal.

Mark G,

You wrote: "I think that anybody who feels a baby is not a person until the umbilical cord is cut is mentally disturbed, and I think that anybody who thinks that a few-days-old fertilised egg is a person deserving sacred protection is equally obviously mentally disturbed. "

Did you forget?

And since I'm one of those people (a sizeable minority in the U.S.) that belives that a "few-days-old fertilised egg" is a person deserving of legal protection, then yeah, you've called me "obviously mentally disturbed."

You criticize others for clarity, and yet are so clear in your beliefs that you accuse others of mental illness?

I may hold a view that you strongly disagree with, but at least I've paid others the respect to listen to their arguments and debate them rationally.

-Spoons

The thing that bothers me about the caveat of 'backstreet abortions' is that no one in the last thirty years has EVER put out known data about how often that occured before Roe v Wade, nor does anyone point out nowadays that the stigma of out of wedlock births has lost its sting.

Backstreet abortions, when they happened, occured because the mother faced social ostracisation, while the one performing it faced legal ramifications. The former social ramification is no longer existent in our society today. I can only assume it is because of the permissiveness of abortion, or the laxity of today's society to hold the mother and father of the baby to the responsibility of bringing that child into the world. I often wonder just how valid the threat of backstreet abortions would be if there was a greater push to facilitate ADOPTIONS of the baby.

For the doctor or one performing the abortion, it is more clear as to why the push for legal abortion is logical. However, there does not seem to be any overseeing as far as the health of the one who just had it performed. I know of a few women who had it performed who told me there was no attempt to talk them out of it, and no attempt to look after than after it was done. This to me does much more harm than society insisting that the mother see the pregnancy through. No matter what, she still has to cope with the consequences.

I am very loathe to have Big Brother come down on the doctor and restrict his means of performing the surgery, but there does not seem to be any effort even after legalization to treat the situation, nor is there a real effort to support other options, like adoption. If you went to a credible doctor for ANY OTHER procedure, he is REQUIRED by law to notify you of not only the benefits but of the negatives. Yet there does not seem to be any of that for the abortionist. They have free reign and no responsibility. So what difference does it make to insist that backstreet abortions are any worse? AT least there woudl be legal ramifications.

Abortion is abhorrent to me, a child of adoption whose birth mother did indeed concieve me out of wedlock. It is not the panacea to a childs future problems, but it does work to provide a more secure environment. I am not sure I understand the disconnect people have with a choice between killing a growing fetus, which they will have to already acknowledge has changed their lives forever, and being patient with the pregnancy and making sure the child is placed where it IS wanted.

I often argue that here in the States, legal abortion should be determined by individual states. It should not be a federal mandate, as there are populaces within the body of the US that will try to formulate its own methods of dealing with out of wedlock pregnancies. This is how it should be, regardless of personal views of abortion.

Contrary to what a couple of other posters have said, my argument does not presuppose that the fetus/baby is not alive until it can exist outside of the mother's womb. I am perfectly willing to concede that the fetus/baby is alive, not at the moment of conception, but when the sexual partners first make eye contact (i.e. before the sex even took place). It doesn't make a difference. I am even willing to call abortion murder if you like - it doesn't affect my argument. Restricting a woman's right to place sharp objects in her womb is the tippy-top of a slope whose bottom is a restrained "gestation bottle" being fed a healthy diet intravenously and forced to exercise under severe penalties. I notice that no-one has attempted to draw that line: how restrictive on a pregnant woman are you willing to be? Can a pregnant woman engage in kick-boxing or a high-risk sport such as skydiving or rock climbing? Can she drink? Smoke? C'mon, show the strength of your convictions here - how restrictive are you willing to be? Where's the line?

Aaron Armitage: could you shoot him? Not unless he refused to leave! But let me extend your argument - suppose he is breaking your stuff and generally being an asshole. Does his lack of winter clothing and the presence of a blizzard force you to tolerate him? Or suppose that his presence (for whatever reason) makes you nauseous, to the point that you are unable to function. Does the blizzard and his lack of winter clothing force you to endure your sickness (caused by his presence) ???

Ghaleon: I agree that having an abortion is a terribly immoral thing to do. I would love to see all pregnancies carried to term. But I don't see any way to force women to carry babies full-term without making them slaves, and the implications for all of us are truly scary. For example: you and I are in a remote clinic somewhere during a blizzard. You have sustained a life-threatening wound and require a transfusion of blood. You MUST have it to live. I am the only one around with the blood type you need. Can I be compelled to give some of my blood to you? How about some skin? How about some bone marrow? How about a kidney?

The reason these questions are difficult to answer is that there is an inherent contradiction between the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus/baby. Since the fetus/baby is dependent on the mother and not the other way around, the mother's right to control what happens in her body must be paramount - UNTIL the fetus can survive outside the womb.

Kirk Parker: your claim that there is no qualitative difference between a baby needing a biological connection to a mother to survive and a baby needing food and shelter to survive really isn't a strong point. Clearly parents do have a responsibility to their children, but a child who needs formula to live isn't in the same situation as one who needs nutrients through an umbilical cord. A child who needs a blanket to stay warm isn't in the same situation as one who needs the mother's body temperature to stay warm. And pretending that they are is dishonest.

Bombadil, I don't think the hypothetical situation you propose to Ghaleon is germaine to the argument. If you really want to create a parrallel to abortion try this:

You shoot Ghaleon, despite the fact that he was un-armed, has not harmed you in any way, is not trespassing (you invited him to your home, by mistake,) and is only threatening you with inconvenience and a loss of income. He is dying of blood loss. Are you compelled to save him? You better, unless you want to be charged with murder instead of attempted murder.

Some might be interested in an example of what a "non-biologoically formed," "not independently existing", "parasite" looks like.

Note: I don't want to ambush anyone. The following photo is shocking. Don't look if you don't want to be disturbed. Here it is.

You can read the story of that parasite (with no scary pictures) here.

Trevor: how is that a parallel to abortion? The question isn't whether I can kill another person - it is whether I can control my own body or not.

If Ghaleon takes up residence inside my leg, can I decide to stab myself there?

Explain to me how drinking a quart of whiskey is equivalent to shooting someone. It isn't? Ok, then explain to me how skydiving is equivalent to shooting some. It isn't? Ok, then explain to me how douching with a weak acid is equivalent to shooting someone. It isn't? Try explaining to me how a woman scraping her womb with a blade is equivalent to shooting someone. Ah, that one is??? Where does that line get drawn?

Still waiting for someone to show the courage of their convictions and draw the line.

Bombadil, I think several people have explained that they belive that a fetus is a human being, and that they believe that all human beings have a right not to be killed by others.

I understand that you start from the premise that a fetus is not a human being, and that if it were, not all human beings have a right not to be killed. It is your right to believe that. However, your claim that others here lack the courage of their convictions to address your arguments is not accurate.

If, through your actions, you bring about the death of your baby, you have killed your baby. That's pretty simple. Our laws make a differentiation based on intent, however. If you're driving carelessly, and get into an accident that's your fault, and your passenger dies, you're not charged with first-degree murder. That's the equivalent of the woman who does something stupid that brings about the death of her baby, but was not aware that it would bring it about, did not intend for that to happen. At least in the US, if you're driving drunk, and kill someone, you can be tried for murder, because it's a reasonable assumption that you knew not to drink and drive, even if you did not expect to kill someone. In my mind, drunk driving is the equivalent of child endangerment (which doesn't always result in child *harm*, but does involve a greatly increased chance of it), the equivalent of drinking your quart of whiskey. I'm not sure what the result of douching with a weak acid is (does it always result in an abortion? disfigurement? usually result in abortion? rarely?) -- I'd have to put it as equivalent to trying to shoot someone, or trying to crash things into the right side of your car (where your passenger is). Because there's clearly an intent to harm, whether or not you're successful. Scraping the uterus with a blade? equivalent to shooting someone in your car.

(But you're in the car, I hear people say. Yes, and abortion isn't exactly fine and dandy for the mother's body either.)

"I notice that no-one has attempted to draw that line: how restrictive on a pregnant woman are you willing to be? Can a pregnant woman engage in kick-boxing or a high-risk sport such as skydiving or rock climbing? Can she drink? Smoke? C'mon, show the strength of your convictions here - how restrictive are you willing to be? Where's the line?"

Good argument. The difference is, abortion carries the intent to end the life of the fetus. Your other examples don't. And if a woman denied a medical abortion decides to smoke and drink her fetus to death, then that would essentially be same thing. There is intent to kill.

"But I don't see any way to force women to carry babies full-term without making them slaves, and the implications for all of us are truly scary."

So who makes women pregnant in the first place? If you want to blame someone for making them a "slave", blame the woman for getting pregnant.

"there is an inherent contradiction between the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus/baby."

You overstate the case. That contradiction only exists when carrying and delivering the baby could cost the mother her own life. Otherwise, it is a matter of expediency for the mother vs. the life of the unborn child. No contradiction there whatsoever.

"Since the fetus/baby is dependent on the mother and not the other way around, the mother's right to control what happens in her body must be paramount - UNTIL the fetus can survive outside the womb."

Babies usually cannot survive outside the womb until several years old.