[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

From the outset, I'll state that my position is one that is staunchly pro-life. I approach this issue ultimately from a human rights perspective.

This is good. This gives us a starting point for discussion. You wish to approach this from the human rights perspective, so let's look at the human rights perspective and what is considered the most comprehensive statement on human rights in history - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 1 states:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Two important things there. Humans are born. This entails the action of live birth. Until such time, the embryo is part of the host, or the mother and all rights belong to her. Second part is the component of reason and conscience. Humans do not have these faculties at birth and develop these capacities later on in their cognitive development. So there is some ambiguity here as to when a human being achieves some individual rights. I believe that human being is not a person until they have the faculties to make decisions on their own and are responsible for those actions. But looking at the declaration, human rights are not bestowed until the very earliest point of when an individual is born.

Scientifically speaking, human life begins at conception. At this point, the embryo--while not a fully grown human being--is a unique individual with its own unique DNA.

While this is wrong, it is at least another point of discussion. "Life" begins at conception. What that life is is wide open for discussion. In the early stages of development the zygote is not yet distinguishable from a lot of species at the same point. It is a lump of goo that has some coding in the cells. Yes, the blueprints to a human being are there, but blueprints do not make a pile of lumber of home. There are months of development to go before the components begin to look like something resembling the blueprint, let alone it being a sustainable entity.

Interestingly enough, cancer cells also meet this same standard. They have unique encoding too, so by your standard we should not be allowed to excise those cells and allow them to grow to the point where they kill the patient? Cancer cells are live cells and have the same rights by the standard you have set forth. No?

If undisturbed, the embryo possesses all the genetic material necessary to move through the stages of development and eventually into a fully developed human. However, regardless of the stage of development, after conception, there is a human life that is present in the womb.

Someone didn't pass their Human Sexuality class! Conception does not take place in the "womb" or what is more commonly refereed to as the uterus. Fertilization takes place in the Fallopian tubes and the zygote must then travel to the uterus where implantation takes place. Considering that 66% of embryos do not develop properly and spontaneously abort, it nukes the idea of "if undisturbed."

As such, I see the abortion issue as one that does not only affect the mother but also the life inside the womb. Recognizing that the life in the womb is human, I believe that it deserves full protection. All humans have a right to life. When addressing any human rights issue, I believe this is always the starting point for no other rights can follow if one does not have a right to life.

There is nothing to support your claim though. This is a philosophical argument more so than a pragmatic one. Science does not support your claim. US and Canadian law does not support your claim. International law does not support your claim, and neither does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I suspect you are making your claims on a theological belief more so than anything else, because it is a based on a "belief" more so than any fact.

Many pro-choicers present a false dichotomy of the rights of the baby vs the rights of the mother. Why can't we value both? I agree with many pro-choicers that our society does not do a good job of supporting women through pregnancies. I sympathize with those who have faced the prospect of their life plans being turned upside down or their honest concerns at the quality of life that the child might face. These are important concerns and ones that nobody takes lightly. However, are they enough to justify the killing of a life? The killing of the life in the womb does not address the direct causes of lack of support, poverty, rape etc, it merely creates another victim. Instead of viewing abortions as solutions to these problems, why not foster a culture that values every life and one that strives to better support women, fights against poverty, fights rape etc?

I think we can agree on this point. Without the appropriate social safety net in place to assist women with being forced to carry a child to term, and then care for it until adulthood, we have no right to tell them what they can or cannot do with their bodies. Not unless you think the Handmaiden's Tale is blueprint for a good and functioning society.

Originally Posted by driveway

My 70-year-old, biology-teacher father posted this to Facebook today:

"With all the anti-abortion laws being passed by states south of the border I want to correct a misconception that is prevalent in almost all the arguments both for and against. That is "when does life begin?" The answer is: several billion years ago, and we still don't know how.

Many of my ex students will remember the second part of the modern cell theory: all cells arise from pre-existing cells. Any new individual is the continuation of the lives of its parents (or parent in the case of asexual reproduction). Eggs and sperm are living cells, as is the zygote that their fusion can produce. There is no "gap".

Whether that zygote will go on to produce a healthy baby 9 months later is not guaranteed. Turning one diploid cell into a viable infant made up of about 26,000,000,000 vastly different cells is an amazingly complex process that often goes wrong.

Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20%, while rates among all fertilisation is around 30% to 50%.

Think about that - 30% to 50% of all conceptions end in the death of the baby without any active interventions. For those that believe that babies are a gift from God, your God is the greatest abortionist ever."

Your father is a wise man. I said something similar in another thread a few months ago, but this was much more concise and articulate. Thank your father for being a voice of reason and allowing science to inform his thinking.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's still arbitrary, though. Why should the moment of birth be the point to draw this bright line? What's the justification for that conclusion? It's always going to be a moral question with an answer that's based on moral principles, whether codified in law or not - you can't escape that.

The moment of birth is that line, because that is when the baby draws its first breath and ultimately becomes an entity unto itself. Prior to that, it is a parasite of the host, requiring that umbilical cord to provide oxygen and nutrients for its survival. Without that link, the fetus dies. Only once the fetus achieves maturity and is born into the work where it is detached from the umbilical is that fetus considered a life living on its own. Prior to that, it is still an extension of the host and reliant on the products of that host in every shape and fashion.