According to the dictionary, "experience" does not precede personhood.

Definition of Person

So yes, according to the dictionary a zygote is a person.


discussion of any proposed legal reform is purely theoretical. The personal and emotional nature of the decision has little to do with whether or not abortion on demand should be legal. The concern is whether or not the unborn child's life should be legally protected.

For those of you that support abortion rights on libertarian grounds (the right of a woman to her body as her property), I recommend the site L4L.com (libertarians for life).

Here is a link to a lengthy but very thought-provoking overview of their libertarian case against abortion:

http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html

Abortion is an issue that I continually struggle with. The article above actually swayed me toward the pro-life side, although I can't say that I'm all the way there.

Thought it might interest some of you to see a prolife perspective that is based on reason and political philosophy as opposed to religious justification.

Part of me is afraid that this is one of those issues where we blind ourselves to the reality because we are afraid to recognize the consequences of that reality. Sort of like how the founders "knew" that slavery was wrong, but couldn't quite comprehend how their world would function without it. In their writings, you can find them actually justifying slavery as being in the best interests of the slaves, not unlike how some argue that an unwanted fetus is better off aborted.

Its an ugly, rotten issue.

Again, no more so than an individual gamete which is also both distinctly human and qualified as living. Before you launch into your dictionary again to try and distinguish a fertilized egg from individual gametes on the basis of being a "member," I would ask that you specify this time around what qualifies an organism to be a member, as I recall having addressed your prior arguments trying to distinguish the two.

Early in the libertarian piece offered by PrismPaul I came across the following paragraph, which I imagine sums up the presented libertarian argument against abortion:
While I agree with the principle, I disagree with the science of classifying anything human and living as a human being. I do not consider a zygote, embryo or unviable fetus to represent a human being anymore than I do individual gametes (sperm and egg). None of these are guaranteed to develop into an independently functioning individual, and there are also estimates that approx. 80% of fertilized eggs spontaneously terminate.

Prior to viability and the capacity for consciousness, I see nothing to distinguish a zygote, embryo or early development fetus from gametes, thus nothing to qualify them as persons protected under the law. Rather than a superior or inferior class with different rights, I see it being a matter of laws protecting and regarding persons rather than potentials.

and I recall posting my response...

The basic distinction is that a zygote (and in it's future stages: fetus, infant, toddler, and into adult) is capable of interbreeding with other person. That is to say capable of sexual reproduction. Gametes on the other hand do not interbreed, indeed they have no sexual organs and actually cease their very existence upon merging and therefore have no true offspring (in the biological sense). Therefore a zygote is a member of the species Homo sapiens while a gamete is not.

I believe most people understand that there is a distinction between Yates drowning her five children, and a fertility clinic which cryogenically preserves several embryos and wastes many in the attempt to offer a couple the chance for a child. There are vast negative consequences to granting zygotes the rights that all human beings have at birth. Somewhere during the process, the distinction between a fertilized egg and a developed human is made in the eyes of the law.

Ok, ye of christlike abdominals, answer this:

How do you define "viability"?

Dictionary.com gives:

"Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions. "

and

"Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn. "

Does this definition mean "capable" as "independently capable"? I doubt it, since even a 1 year old cannot survive without the assistance of adults.

Doesn't the "capacity for consciousness" always proceed viability? If so, how does viability play in to your logic?

Edited to add:



Mrs. PigPen: There were also perceived to be vast negative consequences to granting blacks the rights that all human beings have at the time of slavery. At that time, a distinction was made between a black and a developed human in the eyes of the law.

Arguments about bad consequences and current law are as empty here are they were when applied to slavery.

Yes. Perhaps we should have a bloody civil war to determine if women should have the right to an abortion. Should I get my underground railroad ready?

Most western cultures managed to end slavery without a bloody conflict.

I hope you agree that the benefit of this kind of debate is the potential to change minds and challenge views in a nonviolent way.

I hope I didn't offend you by challenging the points you made about abortion by comparing them to the points made in defense of slavery.

Your argument is utterly ludicrous, of course. At the point in time when most abortions are performed, there is no way for the fetus to survive outside the woman's body. Medical science simply has no way to keep a 6-week fetus alive on machines, it simply cannot be done.

So what was your point again? A 6-week fetus is not viable. Period.

Abs like Jesus(or anyone), at what stage in development do you consider an unborn child to be a person?

I personally am pro-choice, but I think it's a decision that should be weighed heavily and not abused.

I believe there should be 'compelling interest rights' for the fetus as it gains complexity. IMO, the first trimester is a fairly good timeframe. That's obviously completely subjective, but the USSC thought it was a good timeframe, too. After that, the child's right to life supercedes much of the mother's rights over her body. She has effectively given an unwritten agreement to carry the child to term except under severe consequence to her health.

PrismPaul, bad consequences and problems related to legal enforcement are fundamental to the discussion of any law, they are not hollow. I agree that we can discuss the merits of one argument over another, but to say one argument is " as empty here are they were when applied to slavery." is quite inaccurate. They weren't empty then (thousands of dead disagree with you), and they aren't now. Potential repercussions over enactment and enforcement are fundamental to any proposed law.

Now, I would love to see the day when abortion is considered unnecessary by all. However, today I believe that granting a zygote personhood and legal protection would end in a very bad way. Such a measure would result in the eradication of some types of birth control, eradication of many fertility measures, imprisonment of women (thousands) obtaining illegal abortions, imprisonment of all the "coconspirators" to murder, creating of an expensive criminal underground for abortions and menstrual extraction kits, extreme monetary costs to society in new prisons and law enforcement officials, ect, ect.

I'm not sure what argument of mine is "utterly ludicrous", since I wasn't actually making an argument, just asking abs for clarification.

He had said:



I wanted to know the definition he used for viability.

Of course a 6 week fetus is not viable, that has no bearing on my post whatsoever.

Edited to add: don't mess with me man, I'm a JUNIOR CONTRIBUTOR!!!! (as of this post I guess

If a zygote is human then killing it is murder. I would suggest caution in defining what is human and what is not. There was a time when babies were starved to death and drownded because they were not considered human. If this is not the proverbial slippery slope I dont know what is.

Mrs. Pigpen,

I respect your view about the consequences of granting personhood to zygotes. But let me ask you this hypothetical to try to clarify your position:

If you were given proof beyond doubt that a zygote is human and that abortion at any stage following conception was really murder, would you still argue for continued legality based on the consequences?

Of course, abortion *CANNOT* be murder so long as it is legal, by definition, and nobody argues that the fetus isn't human, just that it is irrelevant that it is human... what's the point?

I like how a male posts about this.

Picture this - Your walking home from work one day and some sick bastard decides to have a little fun with you. Your raped and scared for life. Now, picture for 9 gueling months having this guys KID growing in you.. is that justice? Is that fair? Think about it. Walk a mile in someone elses shoes for a moment.

Picture this, you're the child of a rapist, the woman he raped kills you. Sound fair?

Walk a mile in someone elses shoes usually works both ways.

...and welcome to the forum

Turnea,
There is a viable, thinking, feeling woman involved in rape and what would be a "forced" pregnancy if abortion were not a legal option to her if her choice was to terminate.

IMO, every woman deserves the right to stop that force. Abortion allows her that right.

We can't justify breeding women by force.

..and if it is to save an innocent person's life, what then?

The zygote is human, though not developed. That doesn’t mean abortion is murder any more than keeping embryos in suspended cryonic animation for years and then disposing of them in a fertility clinic is murder. Birth control pills have potential abortificant effects and would have to be eliminated also in such a case. I would give up my guns before my pills. I love my pills, they’re my freedom. The government can pull them away from my cold, dead fingers.

Even if the zygote was a little homunculus, which we know it isn’t, my fundamental views wouldn’t change very much. I would prefer to educate and persuade than lock desperate women and girls up like they were Dahmer. We do not force anyone to endure deleterious effects to their person in order to save another’s life. Pregnancy should be an agreement. It actually is an agreement, as abortion has gone on since the beginning of recorded history.

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here?

Are you asking if it is ok to force something as encompassing as a pregnancy on a woman if a fetus is involved? Does that justify it?

Because if that is the reasoning here, I would think we as a society would find it morally acceptable to force organ donation, bone marrow donation, and issues of that nature. But we have laws that include obtaining consent from the donor.

The only instance I am aware of that is being argued that force is ok is where a pregnancy is involved.

Apologies to those who have responded specifically to my last posting to this debate and to those who have posted since then, as I'm about to go back a bit in this debate. The schedule has been a bit hectic lately.


A zygote is no more capable of interbreeding with another person than an individual gamete from a member of either sex of any species known to us. Like individual gametes, which are both living and distinctly human, a zygote, embryo and fetus prior to viability represents only the potential to develop into independently functioning members of a species capable of interbreeding and other activities.

Edited for brevity

The definitions your provided are pretty much how I define viability, though I would clarify by putting the two together to refer to the ability to survive independently. Then, to clarify further in regards to your infancy comment, I would point out that an infant does have the ability to survive independently of another organism's biological functioning whereas the vast majority of zygotes, embryos and fetuses lack any capacity for survival independent of a pregnant woman's biology.

And as far as I have found, the capacity for consciousness does not always preceed viability.


As I have stated before in this debate and others, I view viability and the capacity for consciousness as the bar for personhood. Without the ability to survive outside the womb or the ability to reason, a zygote, embryo or early stage fetus is merely a mass of human cells and tissue.


Something else I've also mentioned before in this debate is the fact that like a zygote, gamete cells are distinctly human. Ejaculation for non-reproductive purposes, as far as I know, is not considered genocide anymore than the menstrual cycle is considered assisted suicide. There is a difference between what is human and what is a person. Killing a single human cell or a collection of human cells and tissue (which are all living) is not murder. The intentional and unlawful killing of a person is murder.


Excluding late term partial birth procedures (which for reasons already expressed I in large part oppose), I have yet to see where a person is being killed during a legal and safe abortion procedure. A fertilized egg prior to months of development, viability and the capacity for consciousness, is no more a person than the mass of cells and tissue which makes up individual organs within an individual.

Without a person there is no you or I killed in an abortion procedure, miscarriage or still birth. Arbitrarily assigning character to a mass of cells no more qualifies them as a person than assigning character to an art piece or a rock. Without the person spoken of in this instance, there are no other shoes to walk in.

*If you respond or question my post, and I don't respond right away, I will get around to it. Don't think that any posts related to my postings are not being considered for lack of immediate response. I just have to find the time.

Abs writes:



Isn't it true that a newborn infant, or let's say a 7 month premature baby, cannot survive without "another organism's biological functioning"? Prior to today's technology, an infant that was not held and nursed by her mother (or a substitute) would simply die. Is that not dependence? Is the difference that sustenance flows through an umbilical cord rather than breast or hand to mouth?

Does a 3 year old child have a right to life? If so, does this not place an obligation on someone to feed, shelter, and protect that child? The point is that nobody acheives "viability" - biological independence and abitity to survive until well into childhood.

Have you considered what happens when technology makes possible an artificial womb from conception to birth? Suddenly, every zygote, embryo, and fetus is "viable" in the sense that it can survive outside the mother (with the help of society at large). When this day comes, will abortion then become the moral equivalent of murder?

Final thought for those who, as many posters here have said, believe that abortion should be legal but should be "carefully weighed" or "not taken lightly", yada yada:

Why??? To quote Gary Cherone from (Libertarians for Life) :



If abortion is not the moral equivalent of murder, then why all the gnashing of teeth? Abort away!

Not exactly. If one is to take that approach the same can be said about any human stage in development prior to adolescence. In order for an organism to be a member of a species is must itself gain the ability to interbreed at some point in it's development(assuming full, healthy development). This is true of a zygote and not true of a gamete.
A gamete is living and human.
A zygote is a living human(noun) and therefore a person.

I don't understand the parallel there. I prefer not to lie, use profanity around children, steal anything, smoke, or murder. I apply different amounts of caution to those five things. "Gnashing of teeth" or the lack thereof is not endorsement of a behavior, and certainly not a suggestion that life imprisonment is the proper punishment for all offenses.

IOW...abortion doesn't have to be right to be legal, and it can simultaneously be wrong and not murder.

Edited to add: Regarding the artificial womb technology....considering the amount of mass slaughter that would go into creating and perfecting such a device, I think we'd be hard pressed to cry foul to zygote 'murder' thereafter. Thousands of scientists would have to be tried as well. Unless there were some retroactive policy which would be beyond hypocritical. "Yes, we slaughtered millions to make this device so that now no one can object to maintaining a pregnancy" Same underlying concept would still apply.

Says who? The definition of murder is killing that is not sanctioned by law. In order for it to be murder, if must *BY DEFINITION* be illegal. Abortion is not illegal, so it *CANNOT BE MURDER*.

Stop playing fast and loose with the language.

Emphasis added for inset quotation

A newborn infant has the ability to survive, even if it lacks the means; two different things. Prior to viability there is no capacity for a zygote, embryo or early stage fetus to survive independent of a pregnant woman's biology. Newborn infants may not have the means to feed or shelter themselves, but they do have the ability to survive independent of another organism's biological function, specifically that of pregnant women.


If and when such a day comes, I don't imagine there would be such a pursuit for abortion as any women with unwanted pregnancies could remove a fertilized egg for alternative placement in a hypothetical artificial womb. A woman would still have the choice of whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not, with the removal and placement in an artificial womb taking the place of abortion procedures.


I'm not taking the approach of considering the ability to interbreed as a marking point for personhood. You are trying to make that a necessity for personhood in spite of the fact that zygotes and embryo's do not possess this ability and any ensuing persons may also not possess such an ability. There are those born without gametes and with dysfunctional or deformed sexual reproductive organs. Unless you're prepared to make a case against those without gametes or sex organs, or those with deformed organs, as persons, the ability to interbreed is hardly a defining characteristic for personhood, much less a point to distinguish between zygotes and gametes.

As one of those who fall into this category, allow me to explain my position.

I won't get into the debate over the definition of "living" or "human" or "person." My criterion for deciding whether or not something is worthy of some degree of consideration is to ask one question: Can it suffer?

It seems to me that the ability to experience suffering depends on the degree to which the organism's nervous system is developed. Plants do not suffer. (I place the hypothesis that they can in the same category as astrology.) Vertebrate animals suffer, and therefore are worthy of some degree of consideration. To be sure, a fish does not have the same capacity to suffer emotional distress as a human being, and therefore is not worthy of the same degree of consideration; but it is worthy of some consideration. Our fellow mammals are capable of a higher degree of suffering than fish, and are therefore worthy of a higher degree of consideration.

What about the unborn? At a very late stage of pregnancy, there would seem to be little or no difference in the ability of the unborn to suffer to the same degree as a newborn. At a very early stage of pregnancy, there would seem to be little or no ability to suffer. It is clear to me that the degree of consideration that should be given to the unborn varies with the degree of the development of the nervous system. If anything, I would tend to be conservative, and consider abortion to be unacceptable in the middle-to-late stages of pregnancy (except when it is absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother, in which case it is simply the lesser of two evils.) In the early stages of pregnancy, although abortion is never a thing to celebrate as a positive good, it may be acceptable.

This is why I defend my position that it should be carefully weighed and not taken lightly. It is not a black and white issue, but very gray indeed.

Victoria,

I just have to compliment you on your post. You hit the nail on the head and did so eloquently. I’ve never heard it placed in such simple yet thought provoking terms. Thank you for defining so clearly that which so many of us have tried to convey.

1. so.
2. so whats wrong with killing a human?
3. but many will grow up to pollute the earth one way or another

What I am saying is, Imagine a 15 year old, pregnant crack whore, living on the street, do you realy want this fetus to be born?

There's an idea. I mean it's not like these people's lives have any value. Why don't we have less stringent murder laws as well. It should help clear up the "pollution".

Do you seriously suggest the law allow people to be killed because you don't consider their lives valuable?

It doesn't really matter whether any of us want a 15 year-old crack whore living on the street or a 30 year-old mother of three giving birth or not. Just as the government should not impose mandatory gestation, they should also not impose mandatory termination of any arbitrarily judged zygote, embryo or fetus.

Assuming that "many will grow up to pollute the earth" is not a sound argument for continued abortion anymore than "many will grow up to do wonderful things" would be a sound argument for discontinuing abortion. Just as not every fertilized egg will mature into an individual person, not every newborn will mature into a bad or wonderful person. Just as I do not think the mere potential of a person represented by a gamete or pre-viable fetus should outweigh the rights of an established individual to make decisions about a pregnancy, the mere potential for a fetus to grow up 'good' or 'bad' should not alone justify the termination of any pregnancy.

As to killing a human, we prohibit the taking of another person's life in this country. We have laws and court rulings explaining why this is so, with game theory and evolutionary studies offering practical reasons as to why there should be laws pertaining to the taking of another person's life.

That being said...
Regarding the practice of abortion, no person(s) are being killed. Only the lives of individual persons are valued and protected by our laws. The killing of organisms with distinct human characteristics alone is not prohibited.

I'd like to congratulate Victoria as well.

I've been somewhat playing devil's advocate here. As I said in my first post, I struggle with the abortion issue. I was letting the pro-life side of me have free reign in this forum to see what stuff others came up with to counter that side.

"Capacity to suffer" is an interesting take, Victoria. I think that's what everyone struggles with. At week one, very few people "feel" that it is murder to terminate a preganancy. At week 40, few people feel that it is justified. The area in between is very gray indeed.

How difficult to draw any kind of line in that gray area. Perhaps that's why it must be left to individuals to draw that line.

How do you, or the courts, or biologists, distinguish between 'individule persons' and the 'distinctive human characteristics?

At the point when a distinctly human cell or collection of cells becomes more than just a cell or collection of cells, phaedrus. Like a zygote, embryo or pre-viable fetus, individual gamete cells are both alive and distinctly human. Yet they are not persons, nor have I heard any argument that they should be considered such. So at what point then do a collection of human cells become different from gametes and other distinctly human cells?

I have proposed that they become different -- that they become individual persons -- when they are viable with the capacity for consciousness, just before the 30th week of gestation. I have explained why previously, but if you feel there is another standard which works, or which suits you better, please feel free to offer it.

The Hand of Hope

Abs like Jesus, I'm not quite ready to weigh in on this. I will say this, abortion as contraception isn't science it's sadistic. The ban on partial birth abortions would seem to establish that legal doctrine of abortion being murder beyond the 12th week. I don't really see what the difference is between the 12th and the 30th week that makes the third trimester human while the 12th week is just a 'pre-viable fetus'.

I'll give the rest of the thread a closer look and get backto you on this.

Science aside, if you can't take care of a baby, then honestly why make them suffer like that? I mean, I have friends who's parents have problems and abuse their children screaming that they never should have had them. Would you really let a child be born into that? People leave their babies in dumpsters like trash, a broken doll, because they can't take care of them. People drowned baby animals when the mother can't take care of them so that they don't suffer a slow death of starvation or whatever. Isn't this the same? The human race is still classified as an animal. I would prefer never to have known the abused people I know and they were spared than hear them suffer in the hands of their parents just because they couldn't have abortion.

Regarding the "Hand of Hope" mentioned by phaedrus, Dr. Joseph Bruner had this to say about it:
"Depending on your political point of view, this is either Samuel Armas reaching out of the uterus and touching the finger of a fellow human, or it's me pulling his hand out of the uterus ... which is what I did."

The article first reporting the surgery and displaying the photograph, The Tennessean, included the above quote from Dr. Bruner as well as reporting the following:


Abortions can and do take place beyond the 12th week without relying upon partial birth procedures. The ban of such a procedure wouldn't, as far as I can tell, prevent abortions beyond the 12th or define them legally as murder. The difference between 12 weeks and 30 weeks is a considerable amount of development, including the ability to survive outside the womb and the capacity for consciousness. Specifically, a 12 week-old fetus is likely still without developed lungs and brain.


Not every person who has a baby without the means to care for them makes them suffer. While not every story is a pretty picture, there are more than enough instances of children given up for adoption who were fortunate to lead happy and productive lives to counter the presumption that any or all children of ill-prepared women are going to suffer if birthed.

I honestly had never given the 'Hand of Hope' a second thought, but my wife shows it to me everytime the subject comes up so I thought I whould share that with you guys. Getting to this buisness of being a viable human as opposed gamete or a zygote. The zygote is just a fertalized egg and it becomes an embryo in about a week. This was the heart of the issue in the Griswold v. Connecticut case that set the precedence for the Roe v. Wade decision. The Griswold case was over contraceptives and it was decided over the 14th amendment issue of privacy (confidentiality between Dr. and patiant). The Roe v. Wade may be undermined and eventually overturned by the same amendment. Not over privacy though but the right to not be denied 'life liberty and property without due process'. The embryo stage lasts until the eighth week, then it becomes a fetus and can be considered an unborn (prenatal) human. There is really no question that it is human of course but whether or not it is a person, that's the thing. A one cell zygote has no face, no limbs, no organs, no brain, no nervous system...etc. The baby by the twelfth week,(the fetus) is obviously male or female, sucks its thumb, kicks, and makes fists and faces but it has a sparse civil right to life. That may be slowly changing.

I dont think I'm inclined to take the extreme view the Catholic church that it is a human soul at conception. I'm opposed to abortion as contraception beyond the first trimester, as far as I'm concerned its a person by then. I see no rational reason to believe otherwise.



Is a Fetus a person within the 14th Amendment

It would seem that they would first need to somehow recognize an embryo or fetus as a person, which is what I'm trying to establish with viability and the capacity for consciousness. Physical resemblance to a person and errant motion do not alone seem to charcterize individual persons. As the 14th Amendment currently stands (Section 1):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

While a move to undermine legal abortion by way of the 14th Amendment might sound pretty good to some, there is still the task of defining a fertilized egg, at various stages of development, as a person.

Ditto, I am getting refered by scientists to clerics and it would seem to come down to moral and philosophical ideals. I mentioned that this is a slippery slope issue and the abortion issue is far larger then a scientific definition. In the Roe v. Wade case they came away with an ambiguise answer. I don't want to take the thread off topic but some of the issues bleed into cloning and stem cell research. Good luck nailing this one down, Abs like Jesus, I'm inclined here to err on the side of caution. The link provided as well of the quotes are far from conclusive but this would seem to be strangly immersed in semantics defined in generalities. Anyone thinking they have a definative answer should refer to the fact that; clergy refer to scientists and vice versa. My view is an abortion beyond the first trimester, it is wrong, but beyond the third trimester it is murder. Now in the second trimester, I can go either way and its safe to say there are no easy answers. Maybe the Griswold case had the right idea, within certain limits this comes down to a private choice. I may change my mind but that's where I'm at with it.



When Does Life Begin? The Final Answer.

Personhood (abortion spin-off)

Here is a thread specifically for debating at what point a cell or collection of cells become persons capable of being murdered, as has been implied from the start of this debate.

The real issue in abortion is individual freedom. The question is wether the mothers act of abortion is an act she is free to do, or if it violates the freedom of the baby. Freedom is tied to our right to life.The right to live is the freedom to. Murder would be contradicting that freedom, that right, then.
What we are trying to figure out is if having an abortion violates the babies rights, or if preventing the abortion violates the mothers rights. Either it's an offense to the mother to prevent her from doing so, or it's an offense to the fetus to accept her doing so.
All arguments about population, and rape and circumstance are beside the point of a right, or not a right. If a woman has the right to then she can do it for any reason she pleases becuase it's her right. If she doesn't, then what does it matter what her wishes are? It would violate someone elses rights, the fetus.
So the question is only wether legal prevention violates the right to life, that is the mothers freedom, or the practice of abortion violates the right to life of the unborn.
The resolution for this, I believe, can be found in an examination of what constitutes violence.
Anti-abortionists call abortion murder. I've even seen pro-choicers on this thread refer to it as "killing".
I think the answer is in the distinction between "killing" someone, and simply withdrawing ones support from them. "Abortion", in principle, is the decision to "abort", to abandon a course of action. It's not a violation against something or someone. It's simply withdrawing ones life from theirs. This isn't "murder". An individual certainly has the right not to be a parent, or they should in any case, IMO.
A fetus perhaps can be said to have right to exist, but this right is contingent, since it's existence is conditional. It's life is dependent upon the mothers life, and so too then are it's rights.
Abortion can't be "murder" because there is no way to separate it's rights out from the mothers, since it's verylife is conditional upon hers. So it's impossible for a woman to violate rights whaich are entirely dependent upon her rights. In fact, isn't the whole process of pregnancy, the creation of independent rights, that is the life of a child? If so, then how can these rights be treated as independent prior to that independence? They can't, and where there is no independent life, there are no independent rights, and so there is no "murder", which would imply a violation of this independence.
Withdrawing the sustenance of ones independent life from something entirely dependent upon the choice to give such sustenence to it, is not a "violation" of it's rights. It's "rights", like itself, are not formed yet. And nobody can claim a right to somebody elses consent anyway. The only right you have to someone elses nurturance is the right to accept it when it's freely given. A woman has the right to choose wether she gives it or not.


BTW I feel that if a woman has a right to choose to be a parent or not, then her choice should be independent of the choice of the male invloved. He should have the same choice. That is, her choice to fullfill or terminate a pregnancy, should not determine wether he is legally obliged to be a parent or not. His rights should not be contingent upon how she excercises hers. If a woman has a right to an abortion, then the man should have the equal right to make up his mind to father the child or not, when she decides to have it. Just as he has no right to force her to have it, she should have no right to force him to support it if she does. That's a violation of his free-choice, the Maury Povich show notwithstanding. A male should have the equal right to withdraw himself (no pun intended) from a womans preganancy.

Sasquach, you can edit your post, instead of posting another entry to add to your first. The admins prefer you don't double post unless you've exceeded 12 hours and don't have the option to edit.

So I think a fetus has a right to life, but only as contingent upon the mothers right to life, that is that nobody has the right to make the decision for her wether to carry out the pregnancy or not. For her to undergo forced abortion would be violating the right to life of the fetus, because it's rights are conditional upon hers. Same as if she were to undergo a forced pregnancy.
So there is no debate in my mind that the unborn have a right to life, but it's the right to have the nurturance if it's mother, contingent upon her choice to give it. It's not a right to that nurturance irregardless of her choice to provide it. It's a right to life that essentially means ,like, the right to accept support from another. It's the right to take something freely offered. It's not the right to take something irregardless of the choice of who must provide it. So there is no dichotomy between the right to life of a fetus, and the right of choice of it's mother.
Saying abortion is "murder" is like saying the refusal to give something asked of you is stealing. The principle is like not lending sombody money vs. taking their wallet. A refusal to give something of oneself is not a violation of anyones rights, although it may be a choice to forgo something that may be enriching.
We have a right to the love of others when it's offered. We can take it or not. Having a right to the love of others does not mean the right to decide for them to love us, and so too then no one can force anyone to make this choice on the behalf of someone else. A woman has to make it for herself.

I myself believe that the spirit of a person chooses the baby body he/she will enter into. I don't believe the spirit chooses to enter a fetus, but rather a real baby body.

I happen to share the exact same view, Flute. Many people
do not share this view, however, and that is what makes it
a difficult subject to debate.

You will probably find that a lot of people will try to negate this
claim, because you do not have physical proof that your assertion
is correct. Yet, they don't have proof that it is NOT correct.

And I personally believe there is a giant pink bunny, invisible to all others, sitting beside me at this moment. The giant pink bunny has just told me that abortion is a bad thing.