new abortion topic

[Dezaad]

I tend to drift towards a pro-choice stance, but recently arguments have arisen as to when the time is a fetus can exist outside its mother.

I like the earlier proposed definition of human life, which was related to "personhood". Personhood was there defined as "Ability to think". Even if a fetus could be grown into a baby in a vat, I wouldn't consider the disposal of a 6 week old vat grown fetus as murder.

 

[jpwright]

Drinking while pregnant ABSOLUTELY should be illegal. Fetal Alcohal Syndrom is a result of abuse that harms a child for life, and not only should women who use alcohal during pregnancy be held accountable, but establishments that serve drinks to pregnant women should be shut down and boarded up.

"These people aren't criminals, they're just stupid." House M.D., in reference to a couple that fed their child nuts and grains in the hopes the baby would become healthier.

 

[Plain old me]

I like the earlier proposed definition of human life, which was related to "personhood". Personhood was there defined as "Ability to think". Even if a fetus could be grown into a baby in a vat, I wouldn't consider the disposal of a 6 week old vat grown fetus as murder.

But for me that raises essentially the same problem....when does a fetus have the "ability to think"? There are too many unknowns for me to judge for myself when a fetus becomes a discernably seperate life, transforming abortion into murder.

 

[Dezaad]

But for me that raises essentially the same problem....when does a fetus have the "ability to think"? There are too many unknowns for me to judge for myself when a fetus becomes a discernably seperate life, transforming abortion into murder.

However, ability to think would not be as squishy as the ability to survive outside the womb. The ability to survive keeps getting moved back, because of new technology. The ability to think, if it could be determined, would have the advantage of being a moment with a limited range.

Aside from "too many unknowns", it just makes more sense. I think we'd almost all agree that if we cannot think, then we are nothing more than a vegetable. Even a "baby" born at 6 weeks who was unable to think would be a vegetable, whether or not survival was possible.

 

[Dezaad]

One way or another it will be a human being. In 9 months.

What you are saying is that Thing A with potential to become Thing B ought to be accorded the deference that Thing B has. Thing A is to be treated as if it IS already Thing B. I cannot see how this is a viable argument.

I could possibly see how an unborn might be accorded special moral consideration based on its potential, but not legislative consideration. But in any case that moral consideration would fall far short of treating it as if it was already a baby.

 

[Plain old me]

However, ability to think would not be as squishy as the ability to survive outside the womb. The ability to survive keeps getting moved back, because of new technology. The ability to think, if it could be determined, would have the advantage of being a moment with a limited range.

Aside from "too many unknowns", it just makes more sense. I think we'd almost all agree that if we cannot think, then we are nothing more than a vegetable. Even a "baby" born at 6 weeks who was unable to think would be a vegetable, whether or not survival was possible.

But how do we decide what "ability to think" is? Is this simply a brain developed enough so as to begin sending involuntary impulses, or is it when the fetus/baby/child in question can start making actual 'conscious' responses? And again, how can we be sure of when this is?

 

[DannPM31]

No, abortion is not illegal and is not murder.

My entire belief for when abortion is okay rests on when personhood begins. I realize several things-1.) The tissue that is growing in the woman is human DNA, 2.) The mother has the legal right to do with her body what she wants up until 6 months when the states then receive that right, 3.) It is okay for others to have different views of abortion than me.

With that being said, I believe that abortion is fine and dandy up until the time the fetus can conciously think, at which point it stops being a fetus and becomes a being. That point has been known to happen as early as 5 months but usually happens in the beginning to middle of the 6th month. At this point, I believe that it becomes a human being and thus is entitled to the same rights as any other being.

On the flip side of that, abortion is legal and I will do all I can to ensure that that legality is held up in accordance with Roe v. Wade which I believe is on firm judicial standing. I believe that a woman's right to be secure in her own body is a paramount right and one that men would want if they were in the same situation. I don't see abortion as murder, but merely a woman exercising her right to be secure (privacy which was granted in accordance with the 1st, 5th, 9th and 15th-forgive me if I am off on one of those-amms.). Before you say it, I will say it for you-I believe that even after the fetus becomes a being the woman still has the legal right to have an abortion. As Justice Kennedy once said, "It is not my place to impose my moral views on anyone else."

This makes me sick (no offense to you) that the pro-abortion adviocates can't use ethical grounds to support the case for abortion but leagal loopholes such as when tissue develops into a human, its a human the second the sperm crosses barrier into the egg, because if you would leave it alone, it will in all likelyhood develop into a nice healthy baby. The fact that you can leagally disrupt and destroy this baby from developing is absurd. A woman has the legal right to have sex if she wants to, but what she should have is the legal responsibility to take responsibility for her actions, aka, the baby. With rights come responsibilities.The case Roe vs. Wade was the decission thus far, but one thing about the supreme court is they can revist cases after so many years. I'd say within our lifetime it will be reversed.


Dann

 

[ShamMol]

It isn't an offense to me because of what my views are. You have yours which will likely never change, and I have mine which will likely never change.

My view that a fetus is not a human being until it can conciously think, and this applies elesewhere besides abortion. It is a philosophical belief, just as yours is a deeply religious and most likely scientific belief. I acknowledge that life begins at contraception, but it is insignificant until it can consciously think. But again, just my opinion. And feel free to be disgusted.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

What you are saying is that Thing A with potential to become Thing B ought to be accorded the deference that Thing B has. Thing A is to be treated as if it IS already Thing B. I cannot see how this is a viable argument.

I could possibly see how an unborn might be accorded special moral consideration based on its potential, but not legislative consideration. But in any case that moral consideration would fall far short of treating it as if it was already a baby.

"Thing" A(we'll call "Thing" A a fetus from now on...) has just about sure thing of making it to "Thing" B(we'll call "Thing" B a BABY from now on...) if you leave it alone. A fetus will almost definetly become a baby given time.

 

[Dezaad]

"Thing" A(we'll call "Thing" A a fetus from now on...) has just about sure thing of making it to "Thing" B(we'll call "Thing" B a BABY from now on...) if you leave it alone. A fetus will almost definetly become a baby given time.

You've said absolutely nothing here that you didn't already say before. Well, except to try to take a cheap shot at my use of the word "Thing". You may insert whatever you wish into the blanks provided, I will continue using the blanks when I deem necessary. So "we" (how quaint in such a context) will not be in agreement on the efficient use of language. Do you have anything else to add?

Lots of Things A become other Things B given time, yet we don't treat those Things A as if they were Things B. Why should we in the case where Thing A is a fetus and Thing B is a Baby?



side notes: I have observed that it is quite common to use "Thing" to refer neutrally to a person, creature or object when generalizing a concept from the specific. By neutrally, I mean to detach the reader from the possibly irrelevant (usually emotionally charged) items referred to in a notion. The reason for doing so is to invite the "other side" to either A: Defend the more general notion as defensible. OR B: Explain why the specific is a special case.

To define my use of terms:

thing n.
An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence. THING

en·ti·ty n. pl. en·ti·ties
Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: "Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law." ENTITY

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Lots of Things A become other Things B given time, yet we don't treat those Things A as if they were Things B. Why should we in the case where Thing A is a fetus and Thing B is a Baby?

Like what?

 

[Kelzie]

Like what?

An acorn becomes an oak, yet an acorn is not an oak.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

An oak's potential is in no way comparable to that of a human being's. An oak does not have feelings. An acorn is eaten by animals as a part of the natural cycle of life(or so Disney and other cartoon chipmunks would lead me to believe).

 

[Kelzie]

An oak's potential is in no way comparable to that of a human being's. An oak does not have feelings. An acorn is eaten by animals as a part of the natural cycle of life(or so Disney and other cartoon chipmunks would lead me to believe).

I never said it was comparable. You asked for an example of a "Thing A" that will become a "Thing B" if given time, and yet we don't consider Thing A as equivalent to Thing B. An acorn is a perfect example. And often a fetus is flushed out of the body naturally (well, probably zygotes are more likely). So what if it's the cycle of life? A fetus doesn't equal a human just like an acorn doesn't equal an oak tree.

 

[Dezaad]

An oak's potential is in no way comparable to that of a human being's. An oak does not have feelings. ...

Don't you mean to say, an acorn's potential is in no way comparable to a fetus'? The reason I ask is because it is the potential of the fetus we were looking at, so it would be the potential of the acorn.

As for feelings, we haven't established that a fetus has feelings, much less human feelings, at that. Person's have human feelings, and even if a fetus had feelings they might be more comparable to a mouse's, then perhaps a cat's , then maybe a chimpanzee's before becoming human feelings.

After all, Isn't it probable that becoming a person doesn't happen in an instant? That it is a process at the beginning of which we know the thing is not a person, and at the end of which we know the thing is definitely a person? Intuitively, this seems to me the way that nature works.

Let me couch the question this way: Is there a reason why we must treat potential persons as persons?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I never said it was comparable. You asked for an example of a "Thing A" that will become a "Thing B" if given time, and yet we don't consider Thing A as equivalent to Thing B. An acorn is a perfect example. And often a fetus is flushed out of the body naturally (well, probably zygotes are more likely).

Yes you are right, but for one when zygote(not a fetus) is "flushed out" it happens naturally and it isn't an "often" kind of thing. More often than not the female gets pregnant.

So what if it's the cycle of life?

Another animals survival is dependent on eating the baby oak trees. In very few cases is aborting a fetus a matter of survival for the mother.

A fetus doesn't equal a human just like an acorn doesn't equal an oak tree.

I'm concerned with the end product. An oak tree is an inaminate object that does very little. A human being has nearly unlimited potential. Therefore, given time the acorn may in fact become a big and beautiful tree that will stay a big and beautiful tree for the rest of it's existence. Given time a fetus will become a human which could be a scientist or a garbage man or a mass murderer or a fireman and the list goes on.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

As for feelings, we haven't established that a fetus has feelings, much less human feelings, at that. Person's have human feelings, and even if a fetus had feelings they might be more comparable to a mouse's, then perhaps a cat's , then maybe a chimpanzee's before becoming human feelings.

No matter. They will become human feelings.

After all, Isn't it probable that becoming a person doesn't happen in an instant? That it is a process at the beginning of which we know the thing is not a person, and at the end of which we know the thing is definitely a person? Intuitively, this seems to me the way that nature works.

I agree with this. It's ending nature's process that I disagree with.

Let me couch the question this way: Is there a reason why we must treat potential persons as persons?

Simply because it will become a person.

 

[Stinger]

What about if the woman smoked or drank?

What about women who chain smoke in thier homes and cars around their born children?
What about women who are pregnent and are doing crack, or heroin?

What about what about what about?

Do you think there should be a law about everything? Of course women should be told to quit smoking and to quit drinking if they become pregnent. Of course women should be forced to stop using drugs if they become pregnent. The medical community should be and probably is doing a very good job of doing just that. Perhaps the law has to step in in the most abusive of cases, the law does protect young children including those in the womb. But as a last resort.

Where do you draw the lines on those issues and why?

But lets not forget when we are talking abortion we are talking the PURPOSEFUL killing of that baby.

 

[debate_junkie]

This makes me sick (no offense to you) that the pro-abortion adviocates can't use ethical grounds to support the case for abortion but leagal loopholes such as when tissue develops into a human, its a human the second the sperm crosses barrier into the egg, because if you would leave it alone, it will in all likelyhood develop into a nice healthy baby. The fact that you can leagally disrupt and destroy this baby from developing is absurd. A woman has the legal right to have sex if she wants to, but what she should have is the legal responsibility to take responsibility for her actions, aka, the baby. With rights come responsibilities.The case Roe vs. Wade was the decission thus far, but one thing about the supreme court is they can revist cases after so many years. I'd say within our lifetime it will be reversed.


Dann

Dann, sweeping generalizations won't win you points. An abortion has rare, but necessary uses in our society. A women should NOT be forced to continue in a pregnancy if the lives of either her, the baby, or both are in jeopardy. Before a tangent is started.. notice I said RARE but necessary.

I agree with you completely that with having sex, comes responsibility for one's sexuality, including protecting themselves, their partner, or simply abstaining until the time one wishes to become pregnant. And yes, I am not naive enough to believe that contraception will not fail. My second child was conceived while I was on the pill, and my husband used a condom!

I cannot understand, however, how one person thinks that THEY have the power over another to decide what THEY should do with their body. That is a troubling argument for me. As much I would like to say... Abortions cannot be obtained unless it is a health issue... I, as a woman, would NOT want a government entity having the power to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body. Was one of the reasons I left the Catholic Church. Their idea that birth control is immoral because it impedes a woman from getting pregnant. Well, the Catholic Church wasn't going to take care of any children I had, so their theory had to go.

But I do notice one thing Dan, in your argument, you constantly mention the woman? What about the man? What about HIS responsibilities when it comes to sex? He has just as much a responsibility to use a condom as she does to use the pill, right? What about a man, who suddenly disappears, when he finds his girlfriend/wife/whoever to be pregnant? Where are your advocations for his responsibilities to take care of the baby he helped create? Your arguments are so one-sided. Perhaps a lesson.. it takes 2 to have sex, 2 to create a baby, and takes 2 to care for said baby as well.

And this, ladies and gentleman, is why alot of men think they're off the hook when it comes to pregnancy. They know that abortion is readily available, and our society, in many way, still holds the women alone responsible for what happens when 2 people have sex. But alas, that is a whole nother ball game for a whole nother thread.

 

[Fantasea]

Let me couch the question this way: Is there a reason why we must treat potential persons as persons?

First, fetus, which is the Latin term for "little one" came into use only when the abortion advocates decided that the term for the occupant of a womb, "baby" was just too specific to be involved in a procedure which was intended to kill it.

Think about it. Abort a fetus. Abort a baby. Considering the relative ignorance of people, you can see the logic.

Second, simple biology tells us that the occupant of the womb is not a potential anything. It is, pure and simple, a person. From the moment of conception, when the 23 chromosomes in the sperm unite with the 23 chromosomes in the egg, a new, unique, human life, different from every other life that ever existed, is created. This person is separate and distinct from its mother, having its own DNA, blood type, and personality characteristics.

Third, there is a symptom of a common misconception about the source of human rights. If we aren't clear about how we came to possess them, we won't be able to effectively preserve our own rights, or champion the rights of others.

What did the Founders of our nation believe about rights? Our Declaration of Independence contains perhaps the strongest official statement of their opinion: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

Our rights are endowed by whom? They are endowed by our Creator; that is, by God. Who has these rights? All men have them; not just Americans, or any other group of people who live under a particular form of government. What is government's role with respect to these rights? It is merely to "secure" or protect them, not to grant them or take them away.

Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision in that it is not an interpretation of a law, but a sop to a small but exceedingly vocal and emotional group who pleaded for an alternative to the 'back alley butchers' who were all that available to the small number of victims of rape and incest. The door, initially opened a crack, was soon thrown wide open and a new industry emerged which soon was performing a million and a half abortions a year. The total, today, is approaching fifty million. Think of the economics involved.

There was an earlier Supreme Court decision involving humans. The Dred Scott decision said that Negroes were not persons and could be owned, bought, and sold. What do you think of that one?

So, it seems that all men (women, too) are created equal and entitled to life. No human has the power of life or death over another human.

Fourth, all I have read from the the preceding posts is a plethora of "in my opinion", "I think", "I believe", and the like. Not a single fact was cited. Why not?

Fifth, here's an excerpt from someone with a far better understanding of the question than I.

CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST
By Dr. Bernard Nathanson​

I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimizes my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968.

A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to issue the decision which legalized abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth.

How did we do this? It is important to understand the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

The rest of the story quite interesting and is found here: http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

 

[Baxter]

I am new to this forum and i dont want to jump into a thread that has many posts, so I am going to start a new thread in the hopes of a decent intelligent debate with people who are pro-choice. I dont want to spin off topic or have any really sarcastic posts so i want to bring this back to a basic pro-choice/pro-life debate with every one voicing thier opinions in a sensible non-inflamitory way. Now for my first commennts to start this debate going

I am a pro-life individual. I belive that abortion in all forms is murder and that it is one of the most low-down acts an individual can commit. An unborn child is the definition of innocence. It has never even seen the light of day. never had the chance to tell a lie or cheat or steal.
Pro-choice activists tell us that if we were to outlaw abortion the number of so called 'back-alley' abortions would rise and women who had these abortions are at high risk for complications from these illegal abortions. To this argument i have this analogus response; Every year hundreds of robberies take place in America. Now it is almost certian that many criminals are hurt in car accidents and such in an attempt to escape the scene. Does this mean we should make robbery legal to stop these injuries. Laws are not made for the convinence of the lawbreakers.
Pro-choice actavists also make this argument; Those who oppose abortion do so on religious grounds The goverment should not make laws that enforce religious doctrine. To this I offer another analogy, The Ten Commandments clearly states thou shalt not murder. Does this mean we cannot enforce our anti-homicide laws? Is that not a law that enforces religious doctrine?
Another argument of Pro-choice activists is that an abortion is a womans choice, if you are apposed to abortion dont have one but dont try to impose your morality on others, abortion is between a woman and her doctor. To this I offer yet another analogy, Rape is a mans choice, if you are apposed to rape dont do it but dont try to impose your morality on others. Rape is between a man and his sex therapist. Does this sound right to you? If not then why does the previous statement.

I welcome any argument on the side of pro-choice.

You are very intelligent. As the usual minority myself, it is good to welcome another pro-life to my side. Welcome to DP and I look forward to debating beside you for what we both mutually believe.

 

[ngdawg]

He's only very intelligent to your perspective because you're 14 and he's 16.
This is not to say you are dumb kids, just not worldly ones.....these arguments are throughout these forums, nothing new or original here.

 

[Baxter]

I'm intelligent for my age. At least, I'm alot higher than the majority of people at my school, even ones older than me. I too the ACT test in 7th grade. I got 19/35 points on the same test that a senior took and made a 17. He was an intelligent senior, despite even that. I know you don't mean to offend, but I hate my age being a factor used against me (and sometimes for me...) in debate.

 

[Stace]

I'm intelligent for my age. At least, I'm alot higher than the majority of people at my school, even ones older than me. I too the ACT test in 7th grade. I got 19/35 points on the same test that a senior took and made a 17. He was an intelligent senior, despite even that. I know you don't mean to offend, but I hate my age being a factor used against me (and sometimes for me...) in debate.

She's not trying to offend you. (I think) She is simply stating that because of your age, regardless of how book smart you are, there are many things in this world that you do not know. I'm only 7 years older than you (well, just about...I'll be 23 next month) and those seven years have given me a lot of worldly experience, but even I do not know things that someone seven years older than myself would.

I took the pre SAT's in 7th grade, and took the full blown SAT's in 8th grade. It doesn't mean much in this day and age, it's a fairly common occurence now. Even being in gifted programs and accelerated classes doesn't mean what it used to.

 

[doughgirl]

Comments to posts...

26XWorld Champs said “First let me start out by reminding you that people who are pro-choice are also pro-life!”

Let me inform you that millions who are pro-life and who are involved with this issue do not see it that way. Pro-choice is a vote for abortion. You condone abortion by doing nothing. But I know you have to think this way in order to live with yourselves.

“I'm not meaning to sound disrespectful, but I cannot take anyone seriously who thinks that we should send a woman to jail for drinking while pregnant and that we should arrest women who do not see a doctor when pregnant!”

And I don’t want to seem cruel but, it’s also as hard to take anyone seriously who is pro-abortion. Who is pro partial birth abortion. ….Someone who thinks that a woman has the right to dismember her child alive. Waht could be more barbaric then this?

Bluefire said, “Today's law doesn't see women undergoing abortions as a criminal, therefore this isn't really appropriate unless abortion was already banned, which it isn't.”

Because something is legal makes it right? Would you have thought slavery was right? That was once legal too. If slavery had been put to a vote, would you have voted pro-choice on this?

Euphonus said, “A couple of months ago Scott Peterson was convicted of the double murder of his wife and un-born son. How can we prosecute this man for double murder in which he will suffer the worst punishment our courts are able to carry out when Laci could have the very day of her murder gone down to a clinic and had an abortion.”

You make a lot of sense here. Are laws are wishy washy. We can’t prosecute someone for something our laws find acceptable. We have hospitals all over the country where in one room doctors are trying to save lives…….and in operating rooms down the hall doctors are dismembering the unborn. Our laws do not make sense. Based on the laws of this land Scott should have been tried for Laci’s death and that is it.

Kelzie said, “This is not a fact, this is an opinion. That is why this is so hard. Because there is no factual evidence that life begins at conception. So what it is, is two groups both trying to say that there opinions are right.”

Can you prove that it does not begin at conception? Lets say you’re the doctor who will be performing the abortion on a woman. Wouldn’t you want to be damn sure that what you were doing was 100% correct? That in fact it wasn’t a life. There are many in the medical and scientific community that do believe life begins at conception. There are many who do not think so. If we knew for sure we would not be in this debate. We learn new things every day about fetal development. Can you imagine if you were the abortionist and you found out that what you thought was a fact wasn’t.

ShamMol said, “My entire belief for when abortion is okay rests on when personhood begins. I realize several things-1.) The tissue that is growing in the woman is human DNA, 2.) The mother has the legal right to do with her body what she wants up until 6 months when the states then receive that right, 3.) It is okay for others to have different views of abortion than me.”

So all of a sudden at 6 months personhood happens? Gee my niece who was born at 21 ½ weeks wasn’t a person? Gee at 13 years old today she sure looks like a person to me. SHE IS A SURVIVOR. You would have ABORTED HER. How pathetic.

ShamMol you also said, “ I believe that abortion is fine and dandy up until the time the fetus can conciously think, at which point it stops being a fetus and becomes a being. That point has been known to happen as early as 5 months but usually happens in the beginning to middle of the 6th month. At this point, I believe that it becomes a human being and thus is entitled to the same rights as any other being.”

So if it happens to become a person at 5 months……….then what? You said abort it, right? You said abortion is ok before 6 months. Now you say gee a 5 month old might survive. Doesn’t seem to me you really know how you feel.
So if it becomes a human being in the middle of the 6th month, it becomes a HUMAN BEING? May I be so polite as to ask what the heck it was before this? Dog, rat, elephant? OH PLEASE. So my niece born at 21 ½ weeks wasn’t human? You pro choicers can’t seem to know what you believe.

Plain Old Me said, “I would argue up to a point a fetus is not a distinct entity, it is a part of its mother and therefore shouldn't it be the mothers choice as to what to do with what is, essentially, a part of her body? I tend to drift towards a pro-choice stance, but recently arguments have arisen as to when the time is a fetus can exist outside its mother. So I would be fine with abortion up to that point, the problem is, when is it?”

First off…..The fetus is NOT part of the mother. Remember the first test tube baby, Louise Brown. Where was she conceived? In a Petri dish. Was she part of the dish? No. They then transferred her over into her mother. She was not a part of her mother. Other than donation of the egg the mother had nothing to do with her conception in the dish.
A baby is not an organ of a woman’s body. . The unborn child also has a genetic code, DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT FROM HIS MOTHERS. Every cell of his body is uniquely his, each different than every other cell of his mothers body.

“It is simply untrue that the unborn child is merely a “part of the womans body.” In addition to being genetically distinct from the time of conception, the unborn possesses separate circulatory, nervous and endocrine systems.” (Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life:The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, Mich 1983)”

I’ll post again what I have posted numerous times pointing out that the child is as individual person separate form the mother.

In July 2000 it was affirmed by the U.S. House of Representatives…. they unanimously passed a bill making it illegal to execute a pregnant woman. The logical reason for this decision is that a pre-born child is an individual person, distinct from his mother and with his own separate right to life.

A child is not part of the body in which he/she is carried.

Jpwright said in reference to woman who drink, “These people aren't criminals, they're just stupid."

If you’re pro-choice however a woman could really ingest anything into her body even if it damages the fetus. So they would be against any law that stipulates what a woman could do to her fetus. And I might make mention that many states hold woman accountable in this area.

Galenrox, said “It would seem more logical to be at birth. I mean, do people have a funeral after a miscarriage? Do they bury the fetus? No, they usually flush it down the toilet. But if a baby is born and then dies, or is still born, they do bury it in a graveyard. And I highly doubt that anyone would disagree that it is a child at birth. So then it would be more logical to set that date at birth.
I don't think that it should be drawn at birth, but I'm just pointing out the flaw in this black and white picture you've drawn.”

In one breath you say its more logical for personhood to be at birth,…………then you turn around and say, you don’t think this that the line shouldn’t be drawn there.………….What do you believe. REmember your dealing with lives here.... Lives you say are ok to abort.