Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am trying to find out primarily if those who consider abortion to be murder from conception on, might be open to discussing early fetal development, the lack of sentience, and the potential net positive of putting the needs/desires of an indisputably human pregnant woman over what truly is a small cluster of cells in the beginning.
I mean, I would like to even find a single non-religious person who wants abortion to be considered murder from the moment of fertilization, for any secular, non-religious, logical, rational, sensible reason. I've never heard of one, in my entire life. Maybe such a position exists... I've never seen it.
Again, we are talking about a marketing term, here. There is no such thing as "pro-life". There are people who want the US to be an authoritarian theocracy, where the government forces women to carry all pregnancies to term against their own will, regardless of all the horrific consequences of that, and then there's everybody else. The latter we call "pro-choice".
Life begins at conception according to science. A zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, teen, etc. are all human beings at various developmental stages. None are fully developed but all are humans and all are alive.
Abortion always ends a life. That is the whole point. I am pro choice up to the first trimester but I refuse to deny the reality of abortion which is the ending of a life.
According to science? That's the VAST majority of doctors, who understand the science, support at least some abortion (only 8% oppose in all circumstances.) See my other post in the thread for the link. An early embryo is fundamentally different. Fertilized embryos are frozen for later implantation. Are they a life? Can you free a toddler or a newborn?
At some point, yes, it's a life. Third trimester, by all means, it's a life. First trimester, no.
I mean, I would like to even find a single non-religious person who wants abortion to be considered murder from the moment of fertilization, for any secular, non-religious, logical, rational, sensible reason. I've never heard of one, in my entire life. Maybe such a position exists... I've never seen it.
Again, we are talking about a marketing term, here. There is no such thing as "pro-life". There are people who want the US to be an authoritarian theocracy, where the government forces women to carry all pregnancies to term against their own will, regardless of all the horrific consequences of that, and then there's everybody else. The latter we call "pro-choice".
I've met a few, but they are people who have gone down the rabbit hole of social conservatism and have been influenced by the religious voices. They are in the minority.
You're right, and I wish I had framed my question a little differently, rather than making it sound like I wanted to hear only from prolifers. What I'm really after here, is not so much hearing from prochoicers why abortion should be allowed *later.* (although I have appreciated all well-thought posts.)
I am trying to find out primarily if those who consider abortion to be murder from conception on, might be open to discussing early fetal development, the lack of sentience, and the potential net positive of putting the needs/desires of an indisputably human pregnant woman over what truly is a small cluster of cells in the beginning.
Someone upthread said that it is only religious people who believe a young embryo is a person. I don't know if that is true. I truly am interested to know *why* someone considers a tiny embryo to be fully human (beyond "because my church says so").
Scientifically speaking, nothing at all to do with religion, life begins at conception. Zygote, embryo, fetus, neonate, newborn, toddler, teenager, etc are all different developmental stages of the human life form and all are human beings. Development in the womb occurs rapidly. Sentience is thought to be able to begin as early as 18 weeks but very easily could be later. They really don’t know. The earliest survivor of pre term birth was a 21 week old fetus.
I support abortion rights for non medical reasons in the first trimester because it is a complicated issue and because there are reasons why an abortion might be a better decision overall. I cut off at the end of the first trimester because of the development that has occurred in the womb by that point in time. In addition, abortion after the first trimester is much more invasive requiring dilation and extraction using an instrument to crush and tear apart and pull the fetus out via the cervix in pieces. It’s riskier for mom and pretty barbaric overall.
When I was a young woman I was extremely pro choice without any restrictions. After speaking to someone I knew at the time who worked in an abortion clinic and hearing her observations and how she was struggling with some things that she had seen, it gave me pause and made me think deeper about abortion. After being pregnant and following the development of my own babies in the womb during y pregnancy, it made me think even deeper about abortion.
I mean, I would like to even find a single non-religious person who wants abortion to be considered murder from the moment of fertilization, for any secular, non-religious, logical, rational, sensible reason. I've never heard of one, in my entire life. Maybe such a position exists... I've never seen it.
You have heard those arguments in this thread. Science tells us that life begins at conception.
I've met a few, but they are people who have gone down the rabbit hole of social conservatism and have been influenced by the religious voices. They are in the minority.
I would be genuinely super curious to hear out a rational argument for that position. If anyone has any examples, please share.
Also because, I'm not even fully convinced that, even if we granted that a woman's fertilized ovum is a person, with the same rights as you or I- that abortion would still not be morally/legally permissible, even then.
I mean, if you required my body in order to survive, do you have a right to use my body, if I don't permit it?
According to science? That's the VAST majority of doctors, who understand the science, support at least some abortion (only 8% oppose in all circumstances.) See my other post in the thread for the link. An early embryo is fundamentally different. Fertilized embryos are frozen for later implantation. Are they a life? Can you free a toddler or a newborn?
At some point, yes, it's a life. Third trimester, by all means, it's a life. First trimester, no.
You can support abortion rights while still recognizing the scientific fact that life begins at conception. That’s not an opinion, it’s factual. Developmentally, it’s very different at week 4 vs week 8 vs week 12 vs week 20 and soon and so forth. But it’s indisputable fact that it is a life form at all stages from conception going onward.
You have heard those arguments in this thread. Science tells us that life begins at conception.
By the word 'life' here, we're talking about "someone's life". As in, "I've never laughed so hard in my life". "I've lived in this town all my life".
My life didn't begin when an egg was fertilized in my mother's body. My life began when I was a young child and starting to have my very first memories.
The reason murder is murder, is because it's a human life, with the richness of that. Not because it is an organism that is biologically living. We didn't need scientists to tell us that a zygote is alive. Of course it's a life, in that sense, but that's a different meaning of the same word.
By the word 'life' here, we're talking about "someone's life". As in, "I've never laughed so hard in my life". "I've lived in this town all my life".
My life didn't begin when an egg was fertilized in my mother's body. My life began when I was a young child and starting to have my very first memories.
The reason murder is murder, is because it's a human life, with the richness of that. Not because it is an organism that is biologically living. We didn't need scientists to tell us that a zygote is alive. Of course it's a life, in that sense, but that's a different meaning of the same word.
Your life, scientifically speaking began when your fathers sperm fertilized your mom’s egg. When you put life in quotes, you’re attempting to change the definition to something that is not scientifically based and is subjective and I don’t see how that is helpful to an honest discussion because it’s not based on facts but rather, feelings.
If you’re saying that your life didn’t begin until you formed memories than you’re basically making an argument that it’s ok to kill babies and toddlers up to the age of two or three because they aren’t really alive.
Murder is a legal term and is not necessarily defined in the same way as taking the life of an embryo or fetus but they all do involve the ending of a life.
Your life, scientifically speaking began when your fathers sperm fertilized your mom’s egg. When you put life in quotes, you’re attempting to change the definition to something that is not scientifically based and is subjective and I don’t see how that is helpful to an honest discussion because it’s not based on facts but rather, feelings.
If you’re saying that your life didn’t begin until you formed memories than you’re basically making an argument that it’s ok to kill babies and toddler up to the age of two or three because they aren’t alive.
Murder is a legal term and is not necessarily defined in the same way as taking the life of an embryo or fetus but they all do involve the ending of a life.
Life is the conscious experience that we have between birth and death. And murder is the deliberate ending, stealing of that remaining life from us, by another person. That's the meaning that I'm using the word.
In another definition of the word, life is the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter. That's the scientific end of the word.
You're saying that any type of separate or distinct organism, distinct from another organism, is "a life". It certainly is in the second, scientific definition of the word, sure, but not necessarily the first. And the first, is the reason that we have the concept of murder, or morality at all. Not because something is "alive", but because it's a life.
As far as when we do we draw the line from a legal/social/practical perspective, as to when we consider a baby to be a person, with the right to their life- well, we don't have a perfect option there, and I think birth or around that time, is clearly the best, at least sort of least arbitrary option. It's also social tradition, I mean we celebrate birth and birthdays, as the beginning of a person's journey.
If we draw the line at some other point before that (legally, life begins in the womb after x months), then that seems a little more strange and arbitrary to me, but, maybe that's workable at least. But what would be ridiculous would be to say that a person's life begins at a fertilization event that starts a fetal development process. Both because that is clearly not when a person's life experience begins, and also for all kinds of other practical reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
