when should abortion become illegal? (1 Viewer)

[FallingPianos]

I hear a lot of debate about whether abortion should be legal or not, where a lot of pro-choicers refere to a clump of cells when debating, and pro-lifers usually refer to fetus's in much later stages of development.

so, im just curious about what point you think the fetus gains the right to life. to be more specific, when do they gain the natural right to life, as opposed to the legal one?

if you normally make exceptions for the life or heath of the mother, or in the case of rape or incest, than do so here as well.

here is some information about fetal development from wikepedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development

Week 1 (3rd week of pregnancy)
o Fertilization of the ovum to form a zygote which undergoes mitotic cellular division, but does not increase in size. A hollow cavity forms marking the blastocyst stage.
o The blastocyst contains only a thin rim of trophoblast cells and a clump of cells at one end known as the "embryonic pole" which include embryonic stem cells.
o The blastocyst hatches from its protein shell (zona pellucida) and implants onto the endometrial lining of the mother's uterus.

Week 7 (9th week of pregnancy)
o The embryo measures 18 mm (3/4 inch) in length.
o Nipples and hair follicles begin to form.
o Location of the elbows and toes are visible.
o Spontaneous limb movements may be detected by ultrasound.
o All essential organs have at least begun formation.

this is also the latest that the abortion pill is approved for

Weeks 23 to 26 (25th to 28th week of pregnancy)
o The fetus reaches a length of 38 cm (15 inches).
o The fetus weighs about 1.2 kg (2 lb 11 oz).
o The brain develops rapidly.
o The nervous system develops enough to control some body functions.
o The eyelids open and close.
o The respiratory system, while immature, has developed to the point where gas exchange is possible.
o A baby born prematurely at this time may survive, but the possibilities for complications and death remain high.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain

Most scientists now believe that a fetus is able to feel physical pain [1] sometime during the pregnancy. The question of exactly when this ability develops is disputed. Some academics argue that it appears as early as seven weeks after conception. Others claim that pain cannot be felt until the third trimester of pregnancy.

Multiple nerve systems are involved in the sensation of pain. When the brain and nervous system are fully developed, the sensation is triggered by nociceptors reacting to some stimulus. The resulting signal travels via the peripheral nervous system to nociceptors associated with the spinal column. It then travels up the spinal column to the thalamus, and onward to the cerebral cortex, where it is finally interpreted as a painful sensation.

The different systems involved in pain develop at different stages of gestation. Nociceptors are present as early as seven weeks post-conception. The spinal column and the thalamus are functional at about thirteen weeks. However, the final necessary connections within the cerebral cortex are not developed until about the twenty-sixth week. Whether pain is possible before all the systems are developed and all the connections are made is the question at the heart of the fetal pain controversy.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Today would be fine. Tomorrow isn't as good, but it's better than the day after tomorrow.

Yesterday would be best.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Some further thoughts:

The reality of the situation is that the person becomes a person the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg. It's unique in time and space, never to be repeated. If it has a twin, or quintuplets, read what I said about time and space. That unique individual doesn't deserve to be destroyed for the false convenience of an incubator, ever.

The sole rational exception to this is when the fetus presents a true and imminent threat to the incubator's life, an ectopic pregnany, for example, where the choice is plainly between sacrificing the child or watching both child and mother die. I know of no one that argues against this. But please note that I said true and imminent.

Now comes the real world...most contraceptive "birth control" pills do not, as I was taught in high school biology decades ago, prevent ovulation. Doses used in modern pills are safer for the mother but they act to prevent implantation. Think about that.

For every baby created in a fertility clinic's petry dish, there are several, I don't know how many, more fertilized but not implanted. They just sort of hang around waiting. Dr. Dimento used to play a tune about "I'm Just a Frozen Embryo". What to do with them?

And there's the so-called "Morniing After Pill", which is really a cocktail of hormones to incite mentruation and flush out any implanted embryos.

From the absolutist position I always assume for argument's sake, birth control pills and "Morning After" treatments violate the basic assumption that the individual should not be suffered to be murdered without cause. I've always been aware of this.

The reality of the culture is that birth control pills aren't going away, even the majority of the most ardent pro-lifers would refuse to throw them away. So abortifacient medicine will be a permanent feature of the human condition for the foreseeable future. No point arguing about that.

Again, prescribing the Morning After stuff immediately after a rape is routine, I believe, but that doesn't alter the fact of the child's innocence. No one's going to get that practice stopped. Never gonna happen. But the stuff shouldn't be taken just because a bimbette forget her pill and can't remember if of one her six lovers the night before said he didn't get a vasectomy. It's not the kid's fault the mom's a moron.

And the petry dish kids....I could imagine a legal incentive to limiting the number of fertilized embryos to the number of implanted embryos, but I also suspect the existence of technical challenges preventing this goal. In the meantime, what else can be done except flush them?

It's not moral to create people solely to experiment on their bodies or harvest their tissues for any other use, so I do object to using them for embryonic stem cell research.

So much for early development. Once the woman is knocked up, it's because she either volunteered to take a risk on the old in-n-out and lost, or she got raped. I already covered the Morning After stuff, so we'll assume she either declined the Morning After stuff, or she never reported her rape. Regardless, the child inside is blameless, and should not be killed for it's mother's convenience. As far as I'm concerned, once the woman knows she's pregnant she'd already made her choice to have a baby or she's enduring a crime that can last up to nine months. Remember - it's not the baby's fault. it shouldn't be punished for it's father's crime.

(An aside - is it rape if the accused rapist is acquitted? - if you're going to chase that notion, I'd recommend a separate thread.)

And now we come to the Mother of All Abortions, the Partial Birth Abortion horror. Of course that should never be done under any circumstances.

 

[F41]

Some further thoughts:

The reality of the situation is that the person becomes a person the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg.

I except the reasoning of the above statement. I voted first option although, if it threatens the life of the mother, I could understand the option of abortion.

 

[Stace]

Some further thoughts:

The reality of the situation is that the person becomes a person the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg. It's unique in time and space, never to be repeated. If it has a twin, or quintuplets, read what I said about time and space. That unique individual doesn't deserve to be destroyed for the false convenience of an incubator, ever.

That is simply a matter of opinion. It hasn't been proven.

The sole rational exception to this is when the fetus presents a true and imminent threat to the incubator's life, an ectopic pregnany, for example, where the choice is plainly between sacrificing the child or watching both child and mother die. I know of no one that argues against this. But please note that I said true and imminent.

Well, I have to give you credit for making at least some exceptions.

Now comes the real world...most contraceptive "birth control" pills do not, as I was taught in high school biology decades ago, prevent ovulation. Doses used in modern pills are safer for the mother but they act to prevent implantation. Think about that.

How much do you really know about birth control? There are many other options available besides the Pill nowadays. I was on Depo Provera, commonly known as "the shot". I can tell you with absolute certainty that it completely stopped me from ovulating, and it also prevented me from having any menstrual cycles while I was on it. All hormonal birth control methods ARE designed to prevent ovulation; they basically try to trick your body into thinking it's already pregnant, especially the methods that use a combination of hormones. They also change the uterine environment to prevent fertilization; if fertilization does somehow still occur, they then work to prevent implantation.

Even if you're not on birth control, the embryo cannot survive without implantation. The mother will miscarry, but she'll never know it. That's more or less what we would call a chemical pregnancy.

For every baby created in a fertility clinic's petry dish, there are several, I don't know how many, more fertilized but not implanted. They just sort of hang around waiting. Dr. Dimento used to play a tune about "I'm Just a Frozen Embryo". What to do with them?

The obvious answer would be stem cell research.

And there's the so-called "Morniing After Pill", which is really a cocktail of hormones to incite mentruation and flush out any implanted embryos.

From the Plan B website (Plan B is the more technical name of the Morning After Pill)

Plan B® works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy.

From the absolutist position I always assume for argument's sake, birth control pills and "Morning After" treatments violate the basic assumption that the individual should not be suffered to be murdered without cause. I've always been aware of this.

The reality of the culture is that birth control pills aren't going away, even the majority of the most ardent pro-lifers would refuse to throw them away. So abortifacient medicine will be a permanent feature of the human condition for the foreseeable future. No point arguing about that.

Well, if it does indeed prevent even one unwanted pregnancy, therefore, prevents one abortion, isn't that a good thing?

Again, prescribing the Morning After stuff immediately after a rape is routine, I believe, but that doesn't alter the fact of the child's innocence. No one's going to get that practice stopped. Never gonna happen. But the stuff shouldn't be taken just because a bimbette forget her pill and can't remember if of one her six lovers the night before said he didn't get a vasectomy. It's not the kid's fault the mom's a moron.

Well, as I've already pointed out, if the embryo has indeed already implanted, Plan B won't work.

And the petry dish kids....I could imagine a legal incentive to limiting the number of fertilized embryos to the number of implanted embryos, but I also suspect the existence of technical challenges preventing this goal. In the meantime, what else can be done except flush them?

Stem cell research, first and foremost.

It's not moral to create people solely to experiment on their bodies or harvest their tissues for any other use, so I do object to using them for embryonic stem cell research.

Well, in the example you've provided, they WEREN'T created just for experimentation purposes. They were created in the hopes that they would be successfully implanted into a woman's uterus.

So much for early development. Once the woman is knocked up, it's because she either volunteered to take a risk on the old in-n-out and lost, or she got raped. I already covered the Morning After stuff, so we'll assume she either declined the Morning After stuff, or she never reported her rape. Regardless, the child inside is blameless, and should not be killed for it's mother's convenience. As far as I'm concerned, once the woman knows she's pregnant she'd already made her choice to have a baby or she's enduring a crime that can last up to nine months. Remember - it's not the baby's fault. it shouldn't be punished for it's father's crime.

The mother shouldn't be punished, either.

(An aside - is it rape if the accused rapist is acquitted? - if you're going to chase that notion, I'd recommend a separate thread.)

And now we come to the Mother of All Abortions, the Partial Birth Abortion horror. Of course that should never be done under any circumstances.

Only, there ARE circumstances where it is necessary.



Star, to answer your original question, I think that except for cases where the mother's life is in danger, or the fetus would have no chance of surviving outside of the womb, abortion should not be legal after the first trimester. I didn't vote in the poll since there's not an option for that. I figure it this way: Some women really don't pay that much attention to their bodies and won't realize that they're pregnant right away, so that gives them a little leeway. But if you haven't figured out that you're pregnant by the end of the first trimester, you're either really ignorant or you've had absolutely no clues whatsoever, which is extremely rare. You shouldn't need more than a couple of weeks to make the decision on what to do about the pregnancy.....there's just no sense in women just up and deciding when they're 26 weeks pregnant that "oops! I don't want this kid after all!"....well, in that case sweetheart, give it up for adoption!

 

[Deegan]

Two months, and absolutely no more then three, that is my position, as I have done my homework, I hope we can get this in place, and soon!

 

[LeftyHenry]

I personnally think that third term abortions should be illegal. By this point it just becomes inhumain.

 

[FallingPianos]

Star, to answer your original question, I think that except for cases where the mother's life is in danger, or the fetus would have no chance of surviving outside of the womb, abortion should not be legal after the first trimester. I didn't vote in the poll since there's not an option for that. I figure it this way: Some women really don't pay that much attention to their bodies and won't realize that they're pregnant right away, so that gives them a little leeway. But if you haven't figured out that you're pregnant by the end of the first trimester, you're either really ignorant or you've had absolutely no clues whatsoever, which is extremely rare. You shouldn't need more than a couple of weeks to make the decision on what to do about the pregnancy.....there's just no sense in women just up and deciding when they're 26 weeks pregnant that "oops! I don't want this kid after all!"....well, in that case sweetheart, give it up for adoption!

I figure that 7 weeks into the pregnancy is plenty of time for a woman to figure out she's pregnant. Thats 9 weeks sinse her last period. a woman with a regular cycle would be about a month late, and I figure that women that are irregular probably ought to take pregnancy tests rutinely.

 

[FallingPianos]

That is simply a matter of opinion. It hasn't been proven.

depends on how you define person, really. It is a scientific fact that a zygote is a human being that is completely without sentience. if you use the first definition here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=person

per·son Pronunciation (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.

a zygote is indeed a person.

the matter of opinion comes in, when trying to decide whether that person has intrinsic value, and absolutly all answers to that question are a matter of opinion. science cant place value, it can only describe.

Well, if it does indeed prevent even one unwanted pregnancy, therefore, prevents one abortion, isn't that a good thing?

well, by his own definition, a lot of birth control actually causes abortion. though I disagree that a zygote has any sort of intrinsic value, if I thought they did, I certainly would not think that BC that prevents implantation would be the solution, but it would be part of the problem.

The mother shouldn't be punished, either.

yeah, it sucks.

Only, there ARE circumstances where it is necessary.

can you point me to any reputable sources on that?

 

[Stace]

I figure that 7 weeks into the pregnancy is plenty of time for a woman to figure out she's pregnant. Thats 9 weeks sinse her last period. a woman with a regular cycle would be about a month late, and I figure that women that are irregular probably ought to take pregnancy tests rutinely.

No, if she's seven weeks pregnant, it has been seven weeks since the beginning of her last menstrual cycle (typically, if she has a regular cycle). That's how doctors calculate the whole forty weeks thing. I had a very irregular cycle, I could go 30 days between cycles one month, and then 45 the next...I certainly didn't test all of the time. The only reason I found out that I was pregnant as early as I did is because I started getting some of the other pregnancy symptoms and bought a test on a hunch. Besides, a woman can miss her period for many other reasons, so there are plenty of women out there that don't suspect a thing. I have friends that are pregnant right now and they didn't even find out until they were 8 or 9 weeks along. I got lucky and found out when I was five weeks.

Regardless, I still think the end of the first trimester is a good idea...not only does it give those women that may not suspect that they're pregnant at first more time to figure it out, it also gives the women considering an abortion more time to think things through and make a good, educated decision about whether or not they want to keep the baby, abort it, or put it up for adoption.

 

[cherokee]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
Some further thoughts:
The reality of the situation is that the person becomes a person the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg.

What does that line imply?

If in a court of law it would mean each year
women across the globe are guilty of
Manslaughter. Its a known fact that sometimes fertilizes eggs do not implant.

“When death ensues from the performance of a lawful act, it may, in consequence of the negligence of the offender, amount to manslaughter. For instance, if the death has been occasioned by negligent driving. Again, when death ensues, from the gross negligence of a medical or surgical practitioner, it is manslaughter.”

Factor of negligence could include: stress, diet, age, smoking, drinking or even having a cold.....

 

[FallingPianos]

No, if she's seven weeks pregnant, it has been seven weeks since the beginning of her last menstrual cycle (typically, if she has a regular cycle). That's how doctors calculate the whole forty weeks thing.

ah, I wasn't very clear. I was refering to the 7th week after conception, which is the 9th week of pregnancy as its normally calculated.

The only reason I found out that I was pregnant as early as I did is because I started getting some of the other pregnancy symptoms and bought a test on a hunch. Besides, a woman can miss her period for many other reasons, so there are plenty of women out there that don't suspect a thing. I have friends that are pregnant right now and they didn't even find out until they were 8 or 9 weeks along. I got lucky and found out when I was five weeks.

I simply think its the womans responsibility to find out if she's pregnant early enough if she wants to get an abortion. women who have regular cycles certainly have it easier, but taking pregnancy test once a month that can be bought at a grocery store isnt that difficult either.

but your right, 7 weeks would be more difficult than 9.

Regardless, I still think the end of the first trimester is a good idea...not only does it give those women that may not suspect that they're pregnant at first more time to figure it out, it also gives the women considering an abortion more time to think things through and make a good, educated decision about whether or not they want to keep the baby, abort it, or put it up for adoption.

to me, it has nothing to do with the woman, and everything to do with whether or not the fetus has the right to live. I certainly do not think an embryo that attached to the womb a week ago has any rights, and I certainly do think that a full term fetus does. the question is where to draw the line, which should have nothing to do with the mothers convenience.

 

[FallingPianos]

What does that line imply?

If in a court of law it would mean each year
women across the globe are guilty of
Manslaughter. Its a known fact that sometimes fertilizes eggs do not implant.

“When death ensues from the performance of a lawful act, it may, in consequence of the negligence of the offender, amount to manslaughter. For instance, if the death has been occasioned by negligent driving. Again, when death ensues, from the gross negligence of a medical or surgical practitioner, it is manslaughter.”

Factor of negligence could include: stress, diet, age, smoking, drinking or even having a cold.....

stress, age, and illness are all beyond the mothers control, so I dont those could possibly be considered manslaughter.

but it certainly is possible with diet, smoking, and drinking.

of course, if you are only talking about fertilized eggs that dont implant, the cases would never come to trial because no one would ever know that conception took place.

 

[jfuh]

Fortunately abortion is very very much legal today, much to the dismay of fundamentalists.
So to all those who are arguing against it? Got news for you, it's long since decided to be legal. Guess you just can't face the reality huh?

Now as for my take, I absolutely believe that should a woman choose to have an abortion it should be performed within the first trimester, no later.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

That is simply a matter of opinion. It hasn't been proven.

More importantly, it hasn't been disproven. Logically, you can't refute it.

On your reasoning, it's okay to execute convicted criminals because they haven't proven they didn't do the crime.

No? That's killing babies that haven't been proven aren't babies. Same thing.

How much do you really know about birth control? There are many other options available besides the Pill nowadays. I was on Depo Provera, commonly known as "the shot". I can tell you with absolute certainty that it completely stopped me from ovulating, and it also prevented me from having any menstrual cycles while I was on it. All hormonal birth control methods ARE designed to prevent ovulation; they basically try to trick your body into thinking it's already pregnant, especially the methods that use a combination of hormones. They also change the uterine environment to prevent fertilization; if fertilization does somehow still occur, they then work to prevent implantation.

The original pill worked that way. In the modern era, there are even pills the thicken the mucus plug of the cervix, creating a natural diaphragm. This doesnt' stop ovulation. You're mostly adding detail to my original statement. Fair enough.

Even if you're not on birth control, the embryo cannot survive without implantation. The mother will miscarry, but she'll never know it. That's more or less what we would call a chemical pregnancy.

Well, we're discussing deliberate abortions. Certainly miscarriages happen. That's not a moral issue at all.

The obvious answer would be stem cell research.

Why is that obvious? What kind of mentality does it take to percieve the unborn child as an involuntary human experimental subject, or worse, as a orchard to be used for growing fruit to be harvested later?

From the Plan B website (Plan B is the more technical name of the Morning After Pill)

Plan B is the politically sanitized name for an aboritfacient drug, it's clearly not a "technical" appellation at all. At best, it's a trade name, like Cotex or Charmin. (I assume "Plan A" doesn't include abstinence?)

The original descriptions of the drug that earned the nickname "Morning After" were violent enough to intitate menstruation, which clearly will have a negative impact on any implanted fetuses.

Well, if it does indeed prevent even one unwanted pregnancy, therefore, prevents one abortion, isn't that a good thing?

No, the key to understanding the concept of "abortifacient" is in the first five letters. A good thing is when an abortifacient isn't used, because the female didn't make a boo-boo and get knocked up. When she can do that, she's in true control of her own life and destiny.

That's a good thing.

Well, as I've already pointed out, if the embryo has indeed already implanted, Plan B won't work.

I corrected your mis-apprehension.

Stem cell research, first and foremost.

What next? Mandatory harvesting of spare kidneys from genetically compatible adults? There's no moral difference.

Well, in the example you've provided, they WEREN'T created just for experimentation purposes. They were created in the hopes that they would be successfully implanted into a woman's uterus.

If a market exist for the sale of embryos, the incentive exists to produce more to satisfy that market. Simple econ.

The mother shouldn't be punished, either.

She's not being punished. She's being prevented from killing an innocent life.

Also, I raised the question that should be answered:

If it's rape, how do we know it's rape? Her say so? Not when the concept of "date rape" roams the world to create havoc upon the English language.

I remember the case of one dumb broad when I was in college. She went out to the bars, got sotted, and was taken to a quarterback's frat house, where she serviced her date appropriately. A few hours later, he woke up and wanted more. He took it. The only "evidence" of any rape was her claim that she said no the second time. There was no reported marks or bruises on her body. If she'd gotten pregnant after that little adventure, should she be allowed to murder her unborn child?

That's the "rape exception" for ya.

Only, there ARE circumstances where it is necessary.

Name one in which a C-Section is more stressful.

Oh! You can't. Never mind. No one can. We'll just keep pretending there's a medical necessity to take a human baby out ***-backwards, putting a couple days of stress on the mother (who cares about the baby?), then stopping just when things would get easier, and jamming scissors in the kid's head to make sure it's dead before it comes out.

The only purpose for partial birth abortions is to make sure the kid is dead. There's no other medical necessity to so gruesomely dismantle a live child. It indicates a total lack of ethics and morals on the part of the medical staff, the incubator, and all the people defending the practice. The true fanatic shows their true colors when they defend this procedure. They make it absolutely clear that they don't care about anything except making sure the baby is dead, no matter what the circumstances.

Star, to answer your original question, I think that except for cases where the mother's life is in danger, or the fetus would have no chance of surviving outside of the womb, abortion should not be legal after the first trimester.

Well, there ya go! A reasonable person, you are. I can disagree with you on this, but I can't call you a fanatic. Why the abitrary trimester boundary?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

a zygote is indeed a person.

the matter of opinion comes in, when trying to decide whether that person has intrinsic value, ...I disagree that a zygote has any sort of intrinsic value,

"intinsic value"? Only when discussing objects and animals can the concept of value arise, for those things lie in the realm of property. When you're discussing human life, the "intinsic value" is merely that emphasis the indivdual places upon his own self. It's not a quantifiable measurement available to others. A more correct term is "self-worth".

As far as a fetus is concerned, it's has plenty of "self-worth", since it's doing it's best to grow and survive.

 

[FallingPianos]

"intinsic value"? Only when discussing objects and animals can the concept of value arise, for those things lie in the realm of property. When you're discussing human life, the "intinsic value" is merely that emphasis the indivdual places upon his own self. It's not a quantifiable measurement available to others. A more correct term is "self-worth".

As far as a fetus is concerned, it's has plenty of "self-worth", since it's doing it's best to grow and survive.

meh. I dont really see any difference. "worth" and "value" are practically synonomous. I was using the word "intrinsic" to mean that its "self-worth" is inherent, rather than given by another person. which I think is exactly the same thing you are saying, when you say that "It's not a quantifiable measurement available to others"

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Voted Viability, but there's no single deadline for viability with advancing medical technology.

What I really think is necessary is to have a specific deadline which allows for sufficient time for deliberation on the mother's part-- and then for that deadline to be stuck to.

And, of course, I believe any such deadline should make exceptions for the mother's health or for the serious deformity of the child.

 

[cherokee]

stress, age, and illness are all beyond the mothers control, so I dont those could possibly be considered manslaughter.

but it certainly is possible with diet, smoking, and drinking.

of course, if you are only talking about fertilized eggs that dont implant, the cases would never come to trial because no one would ever know that conception took place.

But still you would be committing the act.

Maybe have a special branch of the police with what that implies...

You think I'm joking but I'm not..

Governments have done dumber things, made some really stupid laws...

 

[FallingPianos]

But still you would be committing the act.

Maybe have a special branch of the police with what that implies...

You think I'm joking but I'm not..

there's nothing negligent about one's age, getting stressed, and getting sick. those are all normal parts of life that the individual has almost no control over. the death also has to result from a lawful act. normal miscarriages are completely natural and have nothing to do with the actions of the mother.

and again, proving a miscarriage resulted from an action of the mother would be impossible to prove early on. if its really early, no one will even be aware that there was a miscarriage at all.

Governments have done dumber things, made some really stupid laws...

true, true, true...:doh

 

[DeeJayH]

this poll is flawed
abortion should not be outlawed
Abortion on Demand should be outlawed Immediately
repeal/overturn Rowe v Wade

 

[Navy Pride]

this poll is flawed
abortion should not be outlawed
Abortion on Demand should be outlawed Immediately
repeal/overturn Rowe v Wade

Either that or when conception takes place.............

 

[alphamale]

I personnally think that third term abortions should be illegal. By this point it just becomes inhumain.

How about third term minus one day? Why or why not? And why do you have a murderer as an avatar?

 

[Jerry]

I hear a lot of debate about whether abortion should be legal or not, where a lot of pro-choicers refere to a clump of cells when debating, and pro-lifers usually refer to fetus's in much later stages of development.

so, im just curious about what point you think the fetus gains the right to life. to be more specific, when do they gain the natural right to life, as opposed to the legal one?
if you normally make exceptions for the life or heath of the mother, or in the case of rape or incest, than do so here as well.

Premise of Natural Law is observed, having been established by the author of the thread.

"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."

It's as simple as that. Our Creator (note the capitol "C", indicating that "Creator" is a name) endowes us with the "self-evident" truth of our right to life upon our creation. This creation, as evidenced by both scientific fact and said Creator's word, happens at conseption. Not 22-24 weeks. Not birth. Conseption.

There is a biblical argument which could make a case for "creation" happening before conseption, but that argument does not include a fleshly body, so I don't think that it applies here.