I think I read somewhere that a fetus in its early stages has less cells than a fly. We kill flies. Let's kill babies instead.

 

 

 

duh, a baby starts as a one cell mass so clearly at some point it has less cells then a fly

 

 

 

I call strawman on that argument also. Human life>any other known creature life>0

I think I read somewhere that a fetus in its early stages has less cells than a fly. We kill flies. Let's kill babies instead.

 

 

 

duh, a baby starts as a one cell mass so clearly at some point it has less cells then a fly

 

 

 

I call strawman on that argument also. Human life>any other known creature life>0

 

 

 

 

 

I think that this is another reasoning failure stemming from religion. Why is a human life worth more than any other known creature? Because it is more complex, has more experiences, is self-aware, etc. But foetuses aren't any of these. It is possible to compare a foetus to an animal because evolution tells us that humans aren't "special" and ordained by God - we're just animals. So foetuses aren't sacred - they're just under-developed groups of cells with fewer cognitive abilities and less complexity than animals that we breed, kill, and eat every day.

[hide=]

I think I read somewhere that a fetus in its early stages has less cells than a fly. We kill flies. Let's kill babies instead.

 

 

 

duh, a baby starts as a one cell mass so clearly at some point it has less cells then a fly

 

 

 

I call strawman on that argument also. Human life>any other known creature life>0

 

 

 

 

 

I think that this is another reasoning failure stemming from religion. Why is a human life worth more than any other known creature? Because it is more complex, has more experiences, is self-aware, etc. But foetuses aren't any of these. It is possible to compare a foetus to an animal because evolution tells us that humans aren't "special" and ordained by God - we're just animals. So foetuses aren't sacred - they're just under-developed groups of cells with fewer cognitive abilities and less complexity than animals that we breed, kill, and eat every day.

[/hide]

 

 

 

the cold scientific answer would be that we are human and therefore need there to be humans for our species to continue so we consider our lives more important. As for my personal answer, I just think a human life is more valuable then any animal. You have the choice between saving a human adult and a dog which do you choose?

 

 

 

note--I wasnt making an anti abortion point with the explanation of why the fly=fetus argument was incorrect, though I am generally anti abortion.

This is what I don't get about the prolife types. They bleat on about claiming to believe that abortion is murder, and yet when it comes down to treating it like it they suddenly get cold feet. Come on. She tried to have someone murdered. Do you think someone who hires a hitman to kill their husband should be treated as "the second victim of murder" and not be prosecuted?

 

 

 

Everyone should watch this video, btw, it's hilarious and full of the same hypocrisy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD97OVJ4PNw How to stump anti-abortionists by asking one simple question!

This is what I don't get about the prolife types. They bleat on about claiming to believe that abortion is murder, and yet when it comes down to treating it like it they suddenly get cold feet. Come on. She tried to have someone murdered. Do you think someone who hires a hitman to kill their husband should be treated as "the second victim of murder" and not be prosecuted?

 

 

 

Ill try to answer this as best I can, I dont have the typical pro life position so this may be a little different then other pro life people

 

 

 

Abortion is murder, but its not murder in the typical sense. We all agree there is a difference between a single bullet to the skull and torturing someone before killing them correct? In my mind the same type of change is present, I personally find excessive abortions to be murdurous, but I think equating them to knifing someone is a tad of a stretch. I focus on opposition to late term abortions, if the only "reason" is the mother being depressed. If there is signifigant risk to the mother's health the government has no right to tell her the baby is worth more then her life. If the baby is just a group of cells at that point, I find it better for their to be readily available contraceptive(term seems wrong here) to prevent the baby from developing then to try to force a baby on someone. There is a line between enforcing morality through law and enforcing my morality through laws.

 

 

 

On the hitman comparison, it is difficult. If abortion is illegal within an area and the ban is reasonablly tolerant of things such as medical problems rape etc. then if a woman does go to a doctor and has a secret or "alley" abortion I think there should be a charge of something, possibly aggravated manslaughter.

 

 

 

I hope that is a sufficient answer, Im trying to explain my position in the best way possible. The main point is that "there is a difference between enforcing morality through our legal codes and trying to enforce my morality through legal codes"

I personally find excessive abortions to be murdurous

 

 

 

While I don't find this to be true, typically if it's your third abortion the doctor will suggest tubal. It's also dangerous to have that many surgical procedures in one area.

 

 

 

I focus on opposition to late term abortions, if the only "reason" is the mother being depressed. If there is signifigant risk to the mother's health the government has no right to tell her the baby is worth more then her life.

 

 

 

And most people, barring extremely radial people that compose of about less than 0.05% of the pro-choice movement, completely agree with you. If the fetus is viable, that is where I give it person hood. The Freedom of Choice Act agrees with you in this regard as well.

 

 

 

possibly aggravated manslaughter.

 

 

 

Are you arguing for late term abortions or abortions altogether? From your previous post it'd seem you were arguing for the former. I shall address the latter, though. What of a woman that took every precautionary measure that she could; her boyfriend wore a condom, she used birth control. The condom broke/tore, and the BC didn't cut it. These things happen. Is she guilty of murder if she has an abortion?

 

 

 

Let's make it a bit more clear cut with you. I walk down my garden towards some carrots, with full intention of using my machine to make them sentient. Say, with an equal chance of actually doing so that a fetus has of coming to term, just to make the analogy easier. You come into my garden, barge in front of me and eat one of those carrots before I use the machine. Is that wrong? Are you a murderer?

I think that this is another reasoning failure stemming from religion. Why is a human life worth more than any other known creature? Because it is more complex, has more experiences, is self-aware, etc. But foetuses aren't any of these. It is possible to compare a foetus to an animal because evolution tells us that humans aren't "special" and ordained by God - we're just animals. So foetuses aren't sacred - they're just under-developed groups of cells with fewer cognitive abilities and less complexity than animals that we breed, kill, and eat every day.

 

 

 

No. The answer is because it's human, and all creatures are partial to members of their own species.

 

 

 

Anywho, the bolded part is just stupid. Dolphins are incredibly intelligent creatures, yet people eat them. The next thing you're going to tell me is that because humans eat dolphins, that we should also be allowed to eat any human which shows less "complexity" (Whatever that means) than your average dolphin.

 

 

 

...And what in the blue hell does it mean to be a "under-developed group of cells"? The answer? Nothing. It's merely a way to try to devalue a fetus. Whoever came up with that term should be shot dead because it's inane and doesn't mean anything.

 

 

 

This is what I don't get about the prolife types. They bleat on about claiming to believe that abortion is murder, and yet when it comes down to treating it like it they suddenly get cold feet. Come on. She tried to have someone murdered. Do you think someone who hires a hitman to kill their husband should be treated as "the second victim of murder" and not be prosecuted?

 

 

 

Everyone should watch this video, btw, it's hilarious and full of the same hypocrisy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD97OVJ4PNw How to stump anti-abortionists by asking one simple question!

 

 

 

I've seen this video before and it's just as dumb now as it was then. See, I find people who ask this question to be completely unknowledgeable of abortion laws in the U.S. pre-RvW. If RvW were overturned and a state made abortion illegal, we'd return to the status quo pre-1973. In other words, nothing would happen to the woman having the abortion. The doctor, on the other hand, would be prosecuted for performing an illegal procedure.

 

 

 

(And surely you realize that video has been edited, right?)

Are you arguing for late term abortions or abortions altogether? From your previous post it'd seem you were arguing for the former. I shall address the latter, though. What of a woman that took every precautionary measure that she could; her boyfriend wore a condom, she used birth control. The condom broke/tore, and the BC didn't cut it. These things happen. Is she guilty of murder if she has an abortion?

 

 

 

Let's make it a bit more clear cut with you. I walk down my garden towards some carrots, with full intention of using my machine to make them sentient. Say, with an equal chance of actually doing so that a fetus has of coming to term, just to make the analogy easier. You come into my garden, barge in front of me and eat one of those carrots before I use the machine. Is that wrong? Are you a murderer?

 

 

 

to the first point, while in some technical sense that adresses all abortions, I intend it to be aimed at late term abortions. I have no problem with very early term whatever method of birth control or abortion pills(need better name for those), and since we all agree a viable fetus should have protection the only real problem is the gray area where it is not quite vialbe but it is clearly very human in appearence has brain function etc.

 

 

 

With the garden thing, the clear difference here is that carrots have no inherent ability to develop into something intelligent and thats why there is nothing wrong with eating them in that situation. On a less serious note, if you find a way to make carrots sentient I want to be there when you do :lol:

I've seen this video before and it's just as dumb now as it was then. See, I find people who ask this question to be completely unknowledgeable of abortion laws in the U.S. pre-RvW. If RvW were overturned and a state made abortion illegal, we'd return to the status quo pre-1973. In other words, nothing would happen to the woman having the abortion. The doctor, on the other hand, would be prosecuted for performing an illegal procedure.

 

 

 

 

Why should just the doctor be prosecuted? Again:

 

 

 

Come on. She tried to have someone murdered. Do you think someone who hires a hitman to kill their husband should be treated as "the second victim of murder" and not be prosecuted?

 

 

 

the clear difference here is that carrots have no inherent ability to develop into something intelligent and thats why there is nothing wrong with eating them in that situation.

 

 

 

Right, but that's not the point of the analogy. This is a "what if I had this machine". Would it be murder?

Why should just the doctor be prosecuted? Again:

 

 

 

Come on. She tried to have someone murdered. Do you think someone who hires a hitman to kill their husband should be treated as "the second victim of murder" and not be prosecuted?

 

 

 

Because abortion wouldn't be considered murder. It would be considered an illegal operation.

Right, but that's not the point of the analogy. This is a "what if I had this machine". Would it be murder?

 

 

 

No, the "deadline" for unlimited abortions would be based off of a definition of personhood; therefore, the aborting of a person would be illegal. The reason I dont oppose destruction of embryos in labs(for a good purpose) or oppose early term abortions is that it isnt destroying a person. A carrot is clearly below a human regardless of what you could do to it; if you could use that carrot to cure cancer that would be a different matter of course.

 

 

 

The thing is there is a clear moral agreement that destroying a living human being is wrong, abortion debates are a matter of what is a living human. I personally think its fairly early on, but for objective legal purposes I belive something such as neural development or breathing or whatever should be set as the marker(not preferencing any of those just examples). We can also agree that killing an animal "for the hell of it" is wrong though not nearly as wrong as killing a human "for the hell of it". It is pretty well established that killing a plant is not morally wrong excluding destrying people's crops etc. Unless transforming this carrot has some high moral cause like curing cancer then it is fine to kill the unchanged carrot; killing the sentient carrot would equate to killing a dog or cat.

 

 

 

(this is of course ignoring the fact that studying said carrot would be important to science since your example isnt about scientific value)

I think that this is another reasoning failure stemming from religion. Why is a human life worth more than any other known creature? Because it is more complex, has more experiences, is self-aware, etc. But foetuses aren't any of these. It is possible to compare a foetus to an animal because evolution tells us that humans aren't "special" and ordained by God - we're just animals. So foetuses aren't sacred - they're just under-developed groups of cells with fewer cognitive abilities and less complexity than animals that we breed, kill, and eat every day.

 

 

 

No. The answer is because it's human, and all creatures are partial to members of their own species.

 

 

 

Anywho, the bolded part is just stupid. Dolphins are incredibly intelligent creatures, yet people eat them. The next thing you're going to tell me is that because humans eat dolphins, that we should also be allowed to eat any human which shows less "complexity" (Whatever that means) than your average dolphin.

 

 

 

...And what in the blue hell does it mean to be a "under-developed group of cells"? The answer? Nothing. It's merely a way to try to devalue a fetus. Whoever came up with that term should be shot dead because it's inane and doesn't mean anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So "every sperm is sacred"? (since they also have the potential to be human, like a foetus)

 

 

 

Personally I cannot see how you can reconcile killing dolphins for food being OK with killing a foetus that has been through, say, 12 weeks of development, being murder. The foetus will know nothing about it. It won't feel pain. It certainly doesn't know that it exists.

So "every sperm is sacred"? (since they also have the potential to be human, like a foetus)

 

 

 

Nope. Sperm are simple haploid cells, unable to grow or propagate themselves through any means. Left alone, a sperm cell will forever be a sperm cell.

 

 

 

Personally I cannot see how you can reconcile killing dolphins for food being OK with killing a foetus that has been through, say, 12 weeks of development, being murder. The foetus will know nothing about it. It won't feel pain. It certainly doesn't know that it exists.

 

 

 

Going by your logic, infanticide would also be acceptable, as infants (More specifically newborns) have no awareness of their own existence and don't develop that awareness for some time.

Nope. Sperm are simple haploid cells, unable to grow or propagate themselves through any means. Left alone, a sperm cell will forever be a sperm cell.

Unlike a foetus, who'll when left alone develop into a human being completely unaided.

 

 

 

Might want to think that one through a few times.

You all do realize you're getting abso-f**king-lutely nowhere, right?

 

 

 

IT'S A PERSON

 

IT"S NOT

 

IT'S A PERSON

 

IT'S NOT

 

I"M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG

 

NO, I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG

 

RABBIT SEASON

 

DUCK SEASON

 

AARGH

You all do realize you're getting abso-f**king-lutely nowhere, right?

 

 

 

IT'S A PERSON

 

IT"S NOT

 

IT'S A PERSON

 

IT'S NOT

 

I"M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG

 

NO, I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG

 

RABBIT SEASON

 

DUCK SEASON

 

AARGH

 

 

 

You expected anything else?

Nope. Sperm are simple haploid cells, unable to grow or propagate themselves through any means. Left alone, a sperm cell will forever be a sperm cell.

Unlike a foetus, who'll when left alone develop into a human being completely unaided.

 

 

 

Might want to think that one through a few times.

 

 

 

He clearly means if in a womb, its kind of a given that left alone means without being aborted in this context.

Nope. Sperm are simple haploid cells, unable to grow or propagate themselves through any means. Left alone, a sperm cell will forever be a sperm cell.

Unlike a foetus, who'll when left alone develop into a human being completely unaided.

 

 

 

Might want to think that one through a few times.

 

 

 

Being facetious gets you nowhere, but it makes me go :wall:.

You all do realize you're getting abso-f**king-lutely nowhere, right?

 

 

 

IT'S A PERSON

 

IT"S NOT

 

IT'S A PERSON

 

IT'S NOT

 

I"M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG

 

NO, I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG

 

RABBIT SEASON

 

DUCK SEASON

 

AARGH

 

 

 

You expected anything else?

 

No, I didn't expect anything more of a debate on this topic. I just hoped that after ten pages they would have realized the above is all this is.

So "every sperm is sacred"? (since they also have the potential to be human, like a foetus)

 

 

 

Nope. Sperm are simple haploid cells, unable to grow or propagate themselves through any means. Left alone, a sperm cell will forever be a sperm cell.

 

 

 

So, sperm meets egg, BAM. Completely untouchable. The woman can go ahead and kill chimps and dolphins, but that's nothing compared to disturbing that cell which is murder and she (and/or the doctor) deserves to be locked up.

 

 

 

Don't agree with you.

 

 

 

 

 

So girls at any age who are irresponsible enough to get pregnant can now go and get abortions, with no repercussion, and, furthermore, without even altering their parents?

 

 

 

Remember when you were a small child, and you'd do something stupid and irresponsible? Your parents would learn about it from one medium and then punish you by putting you in time out. Do you know why they did this? Because they wanted to teach you a lesson! They wanted to teach you, 'What you did was wrong, and you will be punished so you won't do it again!'

 

 

 

Sex may or may not be bad, but getting pregnant when you're underage is, yeah, bad.

 

 

 

Let's say you're a father / mother, I mean, wouldn't you at least want to hear if your daughter was irresponsible enough to go off and have sex with some dude you didn't know about or even hear about?

 

 

 

How is this supporting 'planned parenting' if it's encouraging reckless underage endangerment?

 

 

 

And it even overturns the right of the doctors to refuse to do abortions, which means that many privately founded and funded hospitals, such as Catholic and Jewish foundations, will either be given the option to have to give abortions or close down. My own diocese has made it clear that if this act is passed, it will close it's hospital down to preserve it's ideals on abortion.

 

 

 

For conservatives, this is a huge step in the way of a completely government controlled society that can change at the whims of the Senate, and for liberals, this is a huge breach on the sanctity of the rights of the family to know what's going on with such sensitive subjects like sex.

 

 

 

I don't know. If this gets passed, I'm packing up and going to Russia, where there is at least some sanity.

 

 

 

...and because they're goin' back to communism WHOO!

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a pretty big liberal on most issues, including abortion. I don't however support this act, and think it's the wrong way to go about it. Your reasons however, are not the best. The forcing of relgious hospitals to shut down is a big no no, and that is a valid point though.

 

 

 

You discuss how it doesn't give punishment to kids and doesn't give them an incentive to not have sex. This is..no. Just no. First off, take a look at teen pregnancy rates. They are extraordinarily high, and this is WITH your

 

 

 

State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states

 

- Forty-four states laws concerning parental involvement

 

- Forty states laws on restricting later-term abortions

 

- Forty-six states conscience protection laws for individual health care providers

 

- Twenty-seven states conscience protection laws for institutions

 

- Thirty-eight states bans on partial-birth abortions

 

- Thirty-three states laws on requiring counseling before an abortion

 

- Sixteen states laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion

 

 

 

 

Isn't it then fair to say that laws that ban abortion are actually in fact poor incentives to teens? I mean who's to say if the rates would rise (i guess they wouldn't of course with free abortion, but say hypothetically FOCA passes, all these teens go and do their business and then FOCA is repealed) if FOCA was passed? Hard to say. But it's without doubt that these things that you talked about that ban abortion do NOT serve as a factor that makes kids necessarily think twice about sex. And in fact, your punishment analogy loses strength, since none of the kids actually feel threatened by the consequences of their actions.

 

 

 

Second, i'm going to play devil's advocate and take the opposing viewpoint. Say you aren't allowed abortions, like many states require. What happens when you do get pregnant, like 75 out of 1000 teens anually do? You have to keep your child, and raise it. You have to drop out of school and dedicate your life to raising the child, thus depriving you of an educated and successful life. You talk about punishments though: this is what you get. Oh please. I can understand wanting to punish the mother maybe (though the father goes unpunished. Those who use this argument are inherently sexist (whether they actually are or not) by saying the woman should be punished and leave out the reprecussions for the man.). That's still a tricky argument, since about half of teenagers have had sex before. It's quite commonplace really. It's not quite, but almost like saying after a guy gets hit while he's jaywalking "oh well. He deserved it because he was jay walking". But i digress. Anyway, it punishes the child as well. It deprives the child of having a life where it can be supported by the mother in an effective way. Teen mothers aren't equipped, and it denies the child the right to fair living. Not only this, but it can also potentially punish the parents! yes, the parents, who might have to look after the child instead (i know a case where this is happening with a friend of mine).

 

 

 

So you can't look at it as punishment for the women. It's sexist and doesn't acknowledge the other players in the ordeal who didn't actually do anything wrong, yet are punished for it. Oh, and the government too. Government's gotta pay.

 

 

 

That said, I don't believe FOCA is the right way to go about abortion laws. It's far too encroaching on rights of people who may not adhere to abortion, people who I respect.

[hide=]

 

 

 

 

 

So girls at any age who are irresponsible enough to get pregnant can now go and get abortions, with no repercussion, and, furthermore, without even altering their parents?

 

 

 

Remember when you were a small child, and you'd do something stupid and irresponsible? Your parents would learn about it from one medium and then punish you by putting you in time out. Do you know why they did this? Because they wanted to teach you a lesson! They wanted to teach you, 'What you did was wrong, and you will be punished so you won't do it again!'

 

 

 

Sex may or may not be bad, but getting pregnant when you're underage is, yeah, bad.

 

 

 

Let's say you're a father / mother, I mean, wouldn't you at least want to hear if your daughter was irresponsible enough to go off and have sex with some dude you didn't know about or even hear about?

 

 

 

How is this supporting 'planned parenting' if it's encouraging reckless underage endangerment?

 

 

 

And it even overturns the right of the doctors to refuse to do abortions, which means that many privately founded and funded hospitals, such as Catholic and Jewish foundations, will either be given the option to have to give abortions or close down. My own diocese has made it clear that if this act is passed, it will close it's hospital down to preserve it's ideals on abortion.

 

 

 

For conservatives, this is a huge step in the way of a completely government controlled society that can change at the whims of the Senate, and for liberals, this is a huge breach on the sanctity of the rights of the family to know what's going on with such sensitive subjects like sex.

 

 

 

I don't know. If this gets passed, I'm packing up and going to Russia, where there is at least some sanity.

 

 

 

...and because they're goin' back to communism WHOO!

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a pretty big liberal on most issues, including abortion. I don't however support this act, and think it's the wrong way to go about it. Your reasons however, are not the best. The forcing of relgious hospitals to shut down is a big no no, and that is a valid point though.

 

 

 

You discuss how it doesn't give punishment to kids and doesn't give them an incentive to not have sex. This is..no. Just no. First off, take a look at teen pregnancy rates. They are extraordinarily high, and this is WITH your

 

 

 

State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states

 

- Forty-four states laws concerning parental involvement

 

- Forty states laws on restricting later-term abortions

 

- Forty-six states conscience protection laws for individual health care providers

 

- Twenty-seven states conscience protection laws for institutions

 

- Thirty-eight states bans on partial-birth abortions

 

- Thirty-three states laws on requiring counseling before an abortion

 

- Sixteen states laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion

 

 

 

 

Isn't it then fair to say that laws that ban abortion are actually in fact poor incentives to teens? I mean who's to say if the rates would rise (i guess they wouldn't of course with free abortion, but say hypothetically FOCA passes, all these teens go and do their business and then FOCA is repealed) if FOCA was passed? Hard to say. But it's without doubt that these things that you talked about that ban abortion do NOT serve as a factor that makes kids necessarily think twice about sex. And in fact, your punishment analogy loses strength, since none of the kids actually feel threatened by the consequences of their actions.

 

 

 

Second, i'm going to play devil's advocate and take the opposing viewpoint. Say you aren't allowed abortions, like many states require. What happens when you do get pregnant, like 75 out of 1000 teens anually do? You have to keep your child, and raise it. You have to drop out of school and dedicate your life to raising the child, thus depriving you of an educated and successful life. You talk about punishments though: this is what you get. Oh please. I can understand wanting to punish the mother maybe (though the father goes unpunished. Those who use this argument are inherently sexist (whether they actually are or not) by saying the woman should be punished and leave out the reprecussions for the man.). That's still a tricky argument, since about half of teenagers have had sex before. It's quite commonplace really. It's not quite, but almost like saying after a guy gets hit while he's jaywalking "oh well. He deserved it because he was jay walking". But i digress. Anyway, it punishes the child as well. It deprives the child of having a life where it can be supported by the mother in an effective way. Teen mothers aren't equipped, and it denies the child the right to fair living. Not only this, but it can also potentially punish the parents! yes, the parents, who might have to look after the child instead (i know a case where this is happening with a friend of mine).

 

 

 

So you can't look at it as punishment for the women. It's sexist and doesn't acknowledge the other players in the ordeal who didn't actually do anything wrong, yet are punished for it. Oh, and the government too. Government's gotta pay.

 

 

 

That said, I don't believe FOCA is the right way to go about abortion laws. It's far too encroaching on rights of people who may not adhere to abortion, people who I respect.

[/hide]

 

 

 

+1

 

 

 

just for being a reasonable person, you have earned my respect whatever that is worth. Its good to see at least some pro choice people see a problem with full legalization.

So, sperm meets egg, BAM. Completely untouchable. The woman can go ahead and kill chimps and dolphins, but that's nothing compared to disturbing that cell which is murder and she (and/or the doctor) deserves to be locked up.

 

 

 

Don't agree with you.

 

 

 

Of course, one cell or a gazillion cells, it doesn't matter. Human life is human life. I mean, if we're going to play this game, then just how many cells must someone be comprised of for you to consider it "murder".

So, sperm meets egg, BAM. Completely untouchable. The woman can go ahead and kill chimps and dolphins, but that's nothing compared to disturbing that cell which is murder and she (and/or the doctor) deserves to be locked up.

 

 

 

Don't agree with you.

 

 

 

Of course, one cell or a gazillion cells, it doesn't matter. Human life is human life. I mean, if we're going to play this game, then just how many cells must someone be comprised of for you to consider it "murder".

 

 

 

It's a tricky and subtle question - one where lots of factors have to be taken into account such as whether it would survive on its own, what species it is, how "complex" it is in terms of cognitive factors (self-awareness, can it feel pain, etc.), what damage it would do to the "host" if it survived.

 

 

 

These factors are what current abortion law acknowledges. I don't know American law as there are lots of laws in different states, but in the UK I believe the deadline is around 26 weeks, after which it is too late for an abortion other than in exceptional circumstances.

 

 

 

I do not think that "human life is human life" as you do. Humans are one of the animals, not set apart just because we are human. We are not sacred. What does separate us is complexity - and this is something that foetuses don't have.

It's a tricky and subtle question...

 

 

 

No, it's not.

 

 

 

...one where lots of factors have to be taken into account such as whether it would survive on its own...

 

 

 

Irrelevant. Stages of development are just that-- Stages of development. If you take a newborn and throw him/her outside, it'll die because it cannot fend for itself. Does that mean it has less of a right to live than someone who is forty and can take care of him/herself? I doubt it. Of course, this is the exact argument you use.

 

 

 

...what species it is...

 

 

 

Also irrelevant, since we're speaking of humans.

 

 

 

...how "complex" it is in terms of cognitive factors (self-awareness, can it feel pain, etc.)...

 

 

 

And, yet again, also irrelevant as, by your logic, you have no choice but to agree with infanticide.

 

 

 

...what damage it would do to the "host" if it survived.

 

 

 

Yes, because we all know just how many abortions are performed due to the mother's life being at risk.

 

 

 

I do not think that "human life is human life" as you do. Humans are one of the animals, not set apart just because we are human. We are not sacred. What does separate us is complexity - and this is something that foetuses don't have.

 

 

 

Once again, no. The word "complexity" holds no meaning. Considering the fact that, in many instances, animals display far greater cognitive abilities than humans do and can, it'd be faulty to assume that just because you're a human you're the epitome of the proverbial evolutionary ladder (That is, being "more intelligent" than your animal counterparts).