Hi, Jaime. It's great to be here.

Now that I think about it, the Constitution is probably not relevant, since it is unlikely that the framers were thinking about humans who are not sentient.

Speaking of which, I want to hear what people think of patients with severe brain damage in relation to abortion.
Like fetuses, these patients are often fully dependant, and probably not sentient.
Also like fetuses, it is lawful to allow them to die in some cases.

Thoughts, anyone?

I think euthanasia should probably be a separate thread.

But, in general, euthanasia is a slippery slope and I'm against it.

Again, the law must determine it's standard for truth, if it is science, abortion is the killing of a human being. One should not be allowed to "choose" to murder, unless their life is threatened.

What I'd like to know is why isn't science the standard of truth for the legal system (where it can be applied)? DNA is causing it to lean that way but it's catching on slowly.

Science is not exact. Once upon time blood-letting was promoted under the guise of modern-science as a means of curing sickness. The turn of the 20th century saw electroshock therapy as a great scientific means of "curing" homosexuality. Let's not forget the all important "science" of nephrology (reading the bumps and shape of your head to determine your personality type and predisposition to crime) that has since went the way of the an old jalopy or a Ziegfield dancer.

This is why I have to narrow the broad category of science to a much smaller idea, and in this case it is sentience.

True, science is not exact. But certainly no less likely to be reasonable that public opinion which is the driving force behind the lack of laws against abortion. As for sentience, one must examine the law to see whether of not that plays a part (I have no idea). Most "pro-choice" voters however don't even know a fetus is an individual living organism, there has been a lot of misinformation spread regarding this issue.

Well the ban on partial-birth abortions was passed. Step in the right direction...

The ÒAbortion IssueÓ has raged on and on ad nauseam and, being an issue which seems to evoke powerful emotions, will never be resolved to everyoneÕs satisfaction.

The real problem is, what aspect of ÒabortionÓ should be debated? As I see it, the conflict is over the term ÒPro-Choice.Ó That does not mean Pro-Abortion, it simply means what it says: PRO Ð Choice. (I donÕt think I have ever met anyone who was pro-abortion.)

Considering all of the circumstances under which a female could or may find herself pregnant not by her choice or indeed, even by choice, but with medical complications, should not this woman have the RIGHT to make an intelligent and informed decision as to the happenings inside her own body?

Abortion should not be taken lightly or with an ÒOh wellÉÓ attitude, but as a grave and final last resort.

Even very responsible women practicing proper birth control come up with the occasional totally unexpected pregnancy Ð and a very nasty surprise that can be. Oh yes, the baby ÒcanÓ be carried to full term and given over for adoption, but that may be far easier said than done.

This is indeed a question of basic HUMAN RIGHTS. Once born, a child has all the rights to which any human is endowed. However the rights of the mother must be considered as well.

I am NOT Pro-Abortion, but I sure am PRO-Choice. May I add, that this pro-choice attitude extends well beyond the subject of abortion --- but then, we would have to get into the subject of ÒThe Land of the FreeÓ (Free?).

Bob Miller

Hey! Please read the other post about abortion I posted. I think you all will like it!!

The problem is that the fetus is a human being as well. In this country we should not have the "choice" to murder. Even if the victim is inside the womans body, it has a body of it's own which should be protected. The fetus has a RIGHT to life. It's all about preserving human life whenever possible.

One of the problems with the abortion debate is the introduction of choice as an argument.

I believe that choice is irrelevant in the issue of abortion. Let me explain. I am all for freedom of personal choice. As a matter of fact, I'm all for "pro-choice". People should have the freedom to do whatever they want and nobody should "force" someone to do anything. If someone wants to do something illegal, that's their choice, they'll have to face the judicial system.

If someone wants to have an abortion, I also believe that's their choice. But, I also believe it should be illegal.

Well, RA Miller, making abortion illegal does not exclude consideration of the mother's rights because the mother does not have the right to kill an innocent human being in any situation. However, giving any person the "right" to kill an unborn infant involves definite disregard of the infant's human rights.

I encourage you to look over turnea's quotes over the past four pages. I do not believe you will doubt that unborn humans are still human after consideration of the facts.

So, to wrap up so far.
1. A fetus is alive.

2. A fetus is human.

3. A fetus is an individual organism.

From there I would draw the conclusion that abortion is murder. However, there is the matter of concerns about setiency and viability. I doubt that they are part of the legal definition of personhood.

Is there even a such thing as a legal definition of personhood?

Should there be?

I've put off replying to any of the abortion threads because, as a male, I don't believe that it is any of my business (and I'll post seperately to the thread dealing with that specific issue). However, there is a serious flaw in Turnea's wrap-up. Granted, a foetus is technically alive and technically an individual organism (whether it could survive outside the host body or not). But a foetus is most definitely not "human" - at least not until very late in the pregnancy.

The notion of "abortion as murder" has nothing to do with biological fact. The phylogeny of the species is reiterated in foetal development and until that little mass of protoplasm has passed through the phases of the multi-celled creature, the fish, the amphibian, the reptile, and the lower mammal, there is no justification - none - for considering it "a person". Biologically speaking, a developing foetus has no semblance of "humanity" until the start of the third trimester, by which stage it has lost its gills, developed simian features, and begun forming a neocortex.

To me, specifically, a foetus can be considered "human" when it reaches the stage in its ontological development of that of primates - after the second trimester. I do not deny that terminating a late pregnancy could conceivably be taking a "human" life and I would not personally support late-term abortion. But again, I feel that what I, as a male, would support or not is irrelevant. Regarding the first six months of a pregnancy, though, all the nonsense about "murder" is purely a matter of faith. And matters of faith should never, in this country, be matters of law.

Regarding the faith-based "humanity" of the foetus, it is currently the Catholic Church which is the main source the notion that life begins at conception. It should be pointed out, though, that it Catholic thought on the subject of abortion has changed many times over the years.

The Augustinian concept of ensoulment proposed that the "soul" itself grew with the maturation of the individual. As is obvious to anyone old enough to remember the now defunct concept of limbo, "soul" was not a given: the carnal manifestation of an individual itself offered no assurance of "soul". The unbaptized infant, never mind the embryo, could in no way be construed a "person".

Some of the early Church Fathers didn't believe that human beings had a "soul" - and were not, therefore, "human" - until after they were confirmed, sometime around puberty; others argued that we acquire "human" status once we are baptized, not too long after live birth. There was no argument whatsoever regarding the notion of a foetus being considered "human" until very, very recently - within the past century.

It's also worth noting that the "sin" attributed to both abortion and infantacide was not murder; it was either theft (in that the would-be child was the husband's property - along with his wife, his ox, and his *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***) or an attempt to avoid the punishment attendent on sexual licentiousness (the birthing and rearing of a child being the just dessert - the same punishment doled out to Eve).

That such beliefs expessed an astonishingly narrow and patriarchic view goes without saying. The more modern idea that the unborn are themselves "angelic" and "innocent" may equally be perceived as the same mysogeny in a different costume. I do not defend either position but merely attempt to show that both the reasoning and the implied "sin" have changed significantly.

At present, the Church's stance points to a profound moral issue of which abortion, genetic manipulation, and cloning are all (perhaps erroneously) perceived to be a part. The loss of individuation in its crude biological randomness is not solely about the "murder of innocents" nor is that the sin to which Catholic teaching points. In fact, it attempts to warn us of the appalling dangers that arise when humankind adorns itself with the mantle of God.

The Roman Church is as outspoken in both its condemnation of the death penalty and in its demand for human rights and justice without regard to ethnicity or creed, as it is on the issue of abortion. The crypto-fascists (of whom there are no doubt many within the Church herself) obsess about abortion but are quick to ignore the larger teachings of which that view is but a part. How many "pro-life" advocates are as concerned about the lives and rights of those who have actually been born as they are about about developing embryos?

Apart from the religious argument (which should have no part whatsoever in legislation), it has also been argued that terminations of pregnancies are simply a matter of convenience. I will grant that, in some cases, this is true - but most certainly not in all cases. This is one of the reasons that many pro-choice advocates make distinctions - and, apparently, one of the reasons that anti-abortion lobbyists don't. To face facts, women with unwanted pregnancies are going to get abortions whether they're legal or not. Frankly, I don't see the point in compounding such a social ill with the ills attendant on backroom abortion clinics. And, one more time, I do not believe that it should be up to anyone - especially any man - to leave any woman with no option but a twisted coat-hanger.

Whoa there, your science is based on appereances. Biologist don't do that anymore. Genetics my friend, that's the ticket
I'm defining human as of the species Homo sapiens, which a fetus is. This has nothing to do with faith. The law doesn't protect "souls", there no definition which everyone would accept. The law should protect human life, period. Furthurmore, abortion is not merely a female issue.All human being are former fetuses and as as you know it take two (male and female) to create a life. As for that last point, how about the option to let the child live?
So to define person= living human. A fetus is a living human, so a fetus is a person (I think that's syllogism, but I could be wrong )

If you are referring to embryonic recapitulation (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny), it has long been disproved. In 1876, Ernst Haeckel, who postulated the theory, made up drawings in order to support his theory.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny_rec...lates_phylogeny

More quotes:

Life: An Introduction to Biology, George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck (1965, p. 241)
“Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny. ” Footnote: “You may well ask why we bother you with the principles that turned out to be wrong. There are two reasons. In the first place, belief in recapitulation became so widespread that it is still evident in some writings about biology and evolution. You should know therefore what recapitulation is supposed to be, and you should know that it does not really occur”

The Human Body, Keith, Sir Arthur (1932, p. 94)
"It was expected that the embryo would recapitulate the features of its ancestors from the lowest to the highest forms in the animal kingdom. Now that the appearance of the embryo at all stages is known, the general feeling is one of disappointment; the human embryo at no stage is anthropoid in appearance. The embryo of the mammal never resembles the worm, the fish, or the reptile. Embryology provides no support whatsoever for the evolutionary hypothesis"

Turnea/Otseng: While I realize that Haeckel's specific theory of recapitulation was discredited around the turn of the last century (believe it or not, I've read a few books since then), "modern biology recognizes numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, explains them using evolutionary theory, and views them as supporting evidence for that theory" - according to the Wikipedia which Otseng cites. I was personally thinking more along the lines of Stephen Jay Gould's discussion of heterochrony in Phylogeny and Ontogeny and his expanded discussion of recapitulation theory in the context of Lamarkian evolutionary thought in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.

In any event, connections between phylogeny and ontogeny are observed and are, to me, a reasonable gauge for judging the stage of development of a foetal organism. The reptilian portion of the human brain does develop first in an embryo (just as all higher vertebrates have gill pouches at one stage of their embryonic development) - and the cerebrum is the last part of the brain to emerge. While a complete discussion of ontogeny and phylogeny is probably the stuff of another thread, it seems to me that any organism which has not yet evolved a neocortex cannot be considered human. In the foetal development of homo sap, this does not occur till the end of the second trimester or later. The notion of recapitulation, while largely discredited in fact, is still a useful metaphor for embryonic development and, for me at least, a good way of biologically determining the "humanity" of an evolving zygote. My apologies for originally having shorthanded my point.

Turnea: Regarding abortion as a gender-specific issue, my argument, for what it's worth, is in the Women's Issues thread on the topic. Perhaps that discussion should be pursued there, if necessary.

Again, science does not define humananity by any developmental standard. "Human" is a description of our species and is dependant upon DNA. This has nothing to do with development...

Uh, yes, Turnea, it does. Humans, like every other species, go through stages of development during their ontogeny. None of us have, like Athena, sprung fully formed from the foreheads of our fathers. I hate to be indelicate, but a human embryo during the first month of pregnancy is the rough equivalent of a slug, at best. DNA only determines the ultimate form of an organism once it has reached maturity. As you're so keen on defining us as a species, homo spaiens are not sapient until well after birth. You may believe that we are sentient beings from conception if you like - that is your right. But there is no science to back you up. And there is no science - or even rigorous thought - to support the notion of early abortion as murder.

Wertz, thank you for your clarification.

If you use phylogeny and ontogeny simply as a gauge of embryonic devlopment, I can accept that. But, just wanted to clarify (to other readers) that at no time is an embryo any other species than a human. Since the moment of conception, as turnea points out, it's genetic makeup is entirely human. This is the basis of our argument that at the moment of conception is when human life begins.

Does the presence of DNA constitute humanity, though? I think the key to my argument is that an embryo is only potentially human. You are, of course, familiar with cloning. Every cell of the human body contains the DNA to constitute another human being. Every cell is, therefore, also potentially an individual life. Should the shedding of hair or skin cells, the donation of blood, spitting, urinating, and defecating all be considered acts of murder? Each of those acts results in the loss of DNA - hence, according to your argument (if taken to its logical extreme), the loss of human life. As your argument seems to be based solely on the presence of DNA in the human zygote, then you should also accept that having dandruff is the moral equivalent of genocide.

You may dismiss this argument as specious, but it does follow on your argument (which, frankly, I consider specious). Where do you draw the line in your genetic argument? What's your position on mifepristone (RU-486), for example? On EBC pills? On contraception in general? On masturbation?? On nocturnal emission???

Since humanity is a term used to recognize species then, yes. However the difference between and embryo and say a skin cell is that the embryo is the WHOLE organism only a entire organism can be a "human." Again human is not a developmental term (check the dictionary if you'd like) human is merely a species name. If DNA is only used only to determine final form then until puberty we really can't call ourselves human can we?

A fetus has the unique DNA of a human and is a whole organism, therefore it's a ("a" implies one whole) person.

But an embryo is not a whole organism - at least not a whole human organism. Can an entity without a central nervous system (never mind a brain stem, never mind a cerebrum), without a four-chamber heart, without lungs, without an endocrine system, without limbs be considered human? Would you consider an organism with gills and a tail to be human? If so, that's the difference in our opinions.

In terms of not considering us human till we reach puberty, there would be some early Church Fathers who would agree with you. Perhaps, instead of maturity, I should have said viability. In either event, I suspect you know what I meant.

There is a difference between whole and fully developed. An embryo is whole, it is not fully developed. Whole means there is no more of the fetus elsewhere, the fetus is still human by species which is determine through genetics. As for viability I see no reason to add that constraint to a person's right to life...

Ah, sophistry! Where would some of us be without it? We could split hairs for years regarding definitions of "whole" (the difference between "discrete", as you seem to be using it, and "complete" or "containing all components" - including, say, a neocortex - as the dictionary and I would have it) - never mind "human", "life", "viable", or any of the other terms being bandied about here - and never reach agreement. This is one of the problems with promoting the legislation of something which is prone to so much subjectivity.


And there's the rub. Others would see plenty of reason to add that constraint to a "not fully developed" blob of protoplasm, whether there's more of it elsewhere or not - like, the fact that that blob may be the result of rape or incest, that it may threaten the life of the mother who bears it, even that it may be unwanted and destined for a life of misery. As it seems a foregone conclusion that you and I will never agree that a zygote is fully human from the moment of conception, there is as little point in pursuing this argument as there is in pursuing anti-choice legislation.

A fetus can't feel pain, can't think and therefore isn't human. A fetus is a potential child. Just like sperm or egg are potential children. Humanity isn't just arms and legs. Humanity is the ability to think, love, reason and understand! Once a fetus can do these things it is human. Also if it can survive outside the womb let's give the little fellow the benefit of the doubt!

Are you sure a fetus can't feel pain? I saw a film long time ago, that said otherwise, but I can't remember the fetus' state of development.

MT

Human is a term to decribe a species, if you mean sentient instead of human, then by all means say so.
The fact is a fetus is both human and alive.
Sperm and egg do not contain the full set of DNA an organism needs, a fetus has all of the DNA code it will have.

Question. At what point in time can a "potential human" start to "love, reason and understand"? I don't even think a newborn can do these things.

They definitely don't reason.

I'm interested in your thoughts on the morning-after pill? Do you consider a recently fertilized egg to be human? It does after all contain a full set of human DNA.

For that matter what about scientific methods of attempting to CREATE a human being. Such as implanting fertilized eggs into a mothers womb. There is a high number of eggs that fail to implant and are therefore lost. Is this to be considered murder, it does after all have a full set of human DNA? Should it deemed illegal as well.

The biggest issue with abortion will always be the disagreement or inability to conclude when a human becomes a human. Being alive by scientific terms does not make a human, bacteria is alive by scientific terms.

-Shawn

True, however a fetus is also human by scientific terms. It is still a member of our species and therefore a human being. We were all human beings from conception. Eggs that fail to implant aren't purposeful life-ending events (murders) so though I'm less inclined to be critical. However abortion ends an innocent human life, that is something our government should not allow.

Every single stage in the biological development of any organism is completely encoded in that organism's DNA. The DNA in a fetus is in complete control from the convergence of the sperm and egg DNA shortly after conception, and none of the afore mentioned phases would happen if this were not so.

Are you aware that many women's bodies self-abort within the first three months? What about miscarriages? Should these also be deemed murder?

Again if it's unintentional, it's not murder. Women have no control over miscarriages so they cannot be blamed for them.

Though I'm sure you know that.

Abortion is murder. As soon as it is concepted, it's human. It doesn't matter if it can't feel anything, it's growing, and eventually it will.

Although I agree, a woman can't help it if she has a miscarriage.

If we're going to think a fetus is human, even an "unintentional" murder is still murder. In court its called "involuntary man-slaughter" and people do go to jail over it. So using your logic, why should be not arrest and try all those women too?

The crime of manslaughter is committed when the defendant's actions (or negligence in "involuntary manslaughter") cause death (but they don't intend to kill). If a voluntary action of a woman causes a miscarriage that's manslaughter. If a miscarriage just happens, that a horrible accident but no one can be charged if no voluntary action is taken. I think you have your definition of manslaughter confused.

"Life" does begin at conception. Is life that important? The life has no consciousness. It can't think or feel. To me humanity is the issue. An unborn fetus doesn't have a human mind. Some people disagree with that but it opinion a reason to outlaw a medical procedure. Nobody can agree what humanity is and therefore abortion can't be outlawed. I find myself taking a libertarian stance and saying everyone should be able to make the Abortion decision for him or herself.

That a fetus is a living member of the Homo sapien species is a fact. The belief that a fetus' inability to think somehow keeps it from being human is the opinion.

A baby can't really reason (exception Super babies from Brazil). A baby can survive by itself (kind-sorta), outside the womb. Until the baby can be put in foster care the state shouldn't have laws about aborting it. America shouldn't give in to the lobbyists from big fetus.

Why not? Killing a dependant member of the human species is still killing a member of the human species.

The problem is that this is not just a scientific question, or a medical question. It is a philosophical question, an ethical question.

You may argue that a fetus, as a potential person, has right to life, but that does not give that fetus right of abode in a woman's body. One basic right we all have is what happens to our own body. If a woman is prevented from having an abortion, her rights over her body are being taken away.

She has lost the right to decide if she wants to endure a painful, possibly life threatening procedure. I don't think anyone should be compelled to use their body as an incubator for 9 1/2 months or forced to endure the risk of childbirth (it is not unknown for women to die in childbirth not to mention the excruciating pain or the changes it will forever put on her body).

These things may seem inconsequential to some of you, and you have the choice to endure all of the above if you wish. But you do not have the right to force it on another person.

Suppose a relative of yours needs a bone marrow or kidney transplant. You are the only match. If you refuse your relative dies. Should you legally be forced to submit to surgery and give up your kidney or bone marrow against your will or be tried for his murder if he dies?

Ask yourself honestly if the government should be able to compel you to use your body to sustain the life of another even against your will. Do you not own what is in your body? Isn't it your choice if you want to deal with the risk or pain of surgery? Even if you would gladly do this, wouldn't you expect to be the one that makes the final choice without seeking approval from your peers or society?

At the risk of sounding cruel, I maintain that fetal tissue has no intrinsic right to life, particularly if such right would give it precedence over my own. I'm already a completely developed, living, thinking, feeling person and should have precedence over fetal tissue that is in the early stages of gestation. It cannot exist and develop outside my body, it is not developed enough to be considered a person. I should be able to weigh the risks and make what I feel is the responsible choice, without seeking approval from my peers or society regardless of the reasons behind my choice.

That little tiny cluster of cells is NOT a complete human on it's own. If the woman died, it too would die. It depends on the woman's nutrients, blood, and body to eventually become a complete whole human. It is really no more than a blueprint of a child that still requires the actual construction.

True, but science based on facts, rather than philosophy based on opinion and feelings, should be the decision making authority.



The line between the fetus' body and the mother's body is clear and distinct. An abortion is not happening to a woman's body; it is happening to a fetus' body.



No one is forcing most women to get pregnant in the first place.

Also, women might die in childbirth, but fetuses will die in abortion.



All opinion. What the facts tell us is that a fetus is a living organism and a member of the human species, and the facts are what decisions should be based upon. Individual feelings about dependance and the lack of thought processes removing humanity are just fine, but it is best not to condemn millions of fetuses to death with no more basis than that.

By the way, a blueprint is the information which will eventually go into some projects construction, so the parallel in this situation would be DNA. A fetus would be the project before it has been completed.

Untrue. If the mother dies the fetus does not live on. It is dependent on her heart, her blood, her organs, her nutrition. It cannot sustain life independent of the woman. Therefore there is no clear distinct separation.



No, only forcing her to follow through with a life altering personal, family, and medical decision by withholding a safe medical solution.

Your tone also implies that every woman who get's pregnant deserves to pay for her actions regardless of whether someone forced her or not. If she's raped or molested or kept from being able to aquire birthcontrol or a million other scenerio's.

Agreeing to have sex is not the same as agreeing to produce offspring. You implying that it is shows only that you are also trying to impose your beliefs on others sexuality.

What if my husband and I take strict precautions to prevent pregnancy. If, for some reason, those precautions fail me, am I to be forced to bear a child against my will? You (for an example) cannot know my reasons for refusing motherhood. How can you (or such other person) presume to make such a decision for me? Or should my husband and I just never have sex, just in case we get pregnant without wanting to?

Each circumstance comes with unique facets that we are unlikely to be made aware of and frankly it’s no ones business but the woman’s, her partner (if applicable), her doctor and those she chooses to confide in. She has a right to rectify a bad situation. She has the right to take control of her future and her destiny. She has the right to terminate a pregnancy.


The fetus scientifically lacks the necessary hardware to live at all unless it is obtains them from a willing host. This is why it isn't an indepentant person.

FACT: I'm already a completely developed, living, thinking, feeling person.
FACT: It cannot exist and develop outside my body, it is not developed enough. FACT:If the woman died, it too would die. It depends on the woman's nutrients, blood, and body to eventually become a complete whole human. FACT: It is not fully constructed and will never be so without the body of the woman to allow that to happen.


I agree it is a living organism of human origin. No different than a human sperm or human kidney or a human tumor. Those things in and of themselves do not make it a person.


All opinion.



Because something has DNA in and of itself does not make it a human being. DNA is found in saliva, sperm, blood, etc. That does not make it more important than it's source.

It is not kind or responsible to condemn and coerce strangers into doing something that may be neither safe nor responsible, because it sounds superficially like a good idea. History is full of such disasters to remind us to have better sense.

I gotta say, I'm in agreement with Dayna here. I mean I look at a fetus, and I think larvae. Would you consider a catapillar a butterfly? Obviously not, it's a catapillar. IMHO, it's not whether or not morally it's the right thing to do, that's going to change with each person. Whether or not it should be illegal/legal is another story. This is basically forcing an opinion on others. It's saying, "In the governemnt's opinion, having an abortion is murder, so it shouldn't be allowed." It's taking away, once again, our rights as humans. now alot of you out there are thinking, "Yeah, but what about the rights of the child?" What can I say? You have to be born before you can be a citizen. This isn't about morals, because personally, I am prolife, I think adoption is a much better option. However, when iut comes to a law dictating a decision, I see it making this country less of a free land. For me it boils down to taking away rights, which I feel very strong against.

[QUOTE]No, only forcing her to follow through with a life altering personal, family, and medical decision by withholding a safe medical solution.

Your tone also implies that every woman who get's pregnant deserves to pay for her actions regardless of whether someone forced her or not. If she's raped or molested or kept from being able to aquire birthcontrol or a million other scenerio's.

If she wasn't raped, she should bear the consequences of opening her legs. And if she was raped, the baby didn't do it. Why not give it up for adoption and give it a chance at a healthy, happy life? I don't care where the line is that a fetus can survive out of the womb, what if your mother had decided to get rid of you, just because she wasn't ready for a baby? A real woman would take responsibility for her mistakes. Oh, and there are plenty of drugs to keep you comfortable during the labor process, believe me.

I cna't argue with that. Hehe.

apparently I can't spell either

1. The clear seperation Shild speaks of is a physical one. There is no physical link (blood vessels, nerves, etc. between the fetus and mother.

2. A fetus is dependent on the mother. This has no bearing on tha fact that a fetus is both human and alive. The fact is that a fetus is an individual organism, it is dependant but it has it's own body. An abortion is forcing the will of the mother upon the fetus with deadly results.

3. Pregnancy and childbirth cause pain, however it is more important to protect life than to prevent pain.

4. The difference between a fetus and an organ is that the fetus is a whole organism which is determined through genetics.

Things to remember:
The difference between individual and independent (infants aren't independant but they are individuals, the same goes for fetuses)

There is no "right" to kill. Killing is subject to stringent conditions, as it should be.