You haven’t stated your motivation for this definition. Typically such a definition is religiously motivated, but I will make no assumption until you clarify.

Your equation of all abortion to murder and robbery is interesting. Let us explore that if we may, particularly the murder issue since they are more equivalent. In the case of murder, there is an almost universal agreement that from newborn on one is “fully human.” Therefore there is almost universal agreement that “murder” is the ending of a fully human life. Of course there is general recognition of varying levels of “murder”, ranging from the accidental manslaughter, to crimes of passion, to premeditated acts. Interestingly killing another in self defense is largely seen as acceptable. It is generally viewed as acceptable to “murder” another if the other person is set upon seriously harming you and yours. Likewise, the “murder” of the enemy in war is seen as acceptable.

None of these really equate to abortion, which (taking your definition) is a premeditated act of murder which is done upon a human who does not willfully threaten others. The closest equivalent to this for a born human would be the death penalty. I would be curious to know if you are in favor of the death penalty.

There are still differences, however. With the death penalty no one argues whether or not a criminal is “fully human.” The debate over the death penalty seems to center on whether a person can lose their right to live by committing horrific acts, and whether the risk of killing an innocent person is worth the benefit of ending the lives of violent criminals. With abortion, however, there is no general consensus on when a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus becomes “fully human.” You define it at conception, others do not. So we have inconsistent definitions of human origins to complicate the issue.

So for further questions:

Do you believe your definition of human life should trump those of others? Why or why not?

Do you feel abortion is always wrong, or do you see the life of the mother/rape/incest etc. as extenuating circumstances?

and…if the male doesnt have a say in it…so be it. he isnt the one risking his life to have the child.

TMS:  And the laws against murder and robbery have nothing to do with morals or values?  Aren’t you just a fountain of wisdom.  So if I believe it’s okay to kill someone, I can do that.  It’s nobody else’s business and no one else should try to tell me what to believe!  So there!  Your argument is as pathetic as it is shallow.

TMS:  AMEN!   It’s human.  It’s living.

 

It is indeed a complex issue, which is why I asked the questions. In her post, TMS called Pelosi’s stock answer shallow. I don’t think I would call it shallow, but it is the easiest pro-choice position to take. Put it all in the hands of individual women, and you bypass the complexities. Of course the problem with such a position is that most people don’t entirely buy that argument. They may agree with the idea of a woman’s choice, but only a few would agree ending a pregnancy two days before term without some very extenuating circumstances is anything short of murder.

On the other end of the spectrum, the easiest anti-abortion stance is to argue that the instant of sperm touches egg a fully human creature is formed, and should have full human rights, thus all abortions are murder. I wouldn’t call that a shallow argument either, just the easiest one. And most Americans don’t buy into that argument either.

The real complexity of issues such as this is that they strike at the heart of what it means to be human. How do we define ourselves, and how do we quantify the value we place on human lives. As our technological prowess increases, these types of issues present themselves more and more. And yet we still struggle with the easy issues like health care and education.

To address another of your points: Speaking as a male, I personally find the “fathers should have a say” a rather weak argument. I do see your point, but as males we have a say from the get go. If we aren’t prepared to take the risk of fatherhood, then we shouldn’t be playing the field. On one level the same can be said of women, but to a much lesser degree due to a range of other issues which rarely (if ever) apply to males.

TMS:  That’s hilarious, Mushy!

Brian - it’s a very complicated issue, isn’t it? A couple of the main aspects of the issue that particularly complicate it is that there is no way we can know at what point human life actually starts. We just don’t know that. So how can we make that decision.

We do know that a fetus can survive outside the womb at approximately 5 months into the pregnancy. By that standard, it would certainly put into question late term abortions and partial-birth abortions.

Fetuses are viable from the get-go … so how do you know there is not human life.

One of the options you left out as to what Carol’s opinion might be based on is morality. Our Judeo-Christian culture values human life and therefore struggles with being able to justify abortion without abandoning that most basic moral value.

I can’t speak for Carol, but for myself, I don’t have the urge to force my opinion on anyone else. I do feel I have the right to verbalize and express my opinion. I know there are many reasons people get abortions. Using abortions for birth control, in my opinion is amoral and unfortunatly many people use it that way.

I agree with Carol, the fathers should have a say, it’s not just about a woman’s choice about her own body.

I write all that knowing that were abortions to be outlawed again it would go back to how it was before. I remember when girls who could afford it flew to New York to get abortions and the others paid for back-alley abortions. People get what they want one way or the other.

So, I don’t know what the answer is except that much of this needs to be dealt with in the family and not legislated by people like Nancy Pelosi.

1. Where do you personally feel human life begins? At conception? At organogenesis? Formation of the notochord? Initiation of the heartbeat? External viability? Is there a gradual process of becoming “fully human”, or is there an instantaneous change from non-human to human?

2. What motivates your thoughts on this issue? Is it religious? Emotional “gut feeling”? Scientific?

3. Do you feel your view should trump differing opinions? If so, or if not, why?

I ask these questions because you argue that the abortion issue is about the rights of the unborn child, so in order to discuss this issue honestly I would like to understand your definition of an unborn child.