I think that depends how far along development is. As I said before I don't know when life begins but I am pretty confident it isn't at the embryo stage. For a matter of debate I would be fine with a third trimester ban with the exception of endangering the life of the mother.
Just to add for both your and Mae since you both raised similar questions. You missed my other two criteria. Highly differentiated cells and displaying rational thought.
I meant aborted in terms of should they be killed...Should someone who has to be fed and taken care of be killed.
There is a sharp difference. One is broken and can't be repaired, one is only going to grow and learn. They are both human lives to me. One dying the other just beginning. You certainly see a lot of answers from pro-choice to when life begins. It isn't something that can be decided by anything other than opinion.
The flower and the rose hip are absolutely like a fetus. If I let them grow out they can become another plant. But the fact that, if I put in a whole lot of effort, the flower/rosehip has the potential to become a big flowering shrub in five years doesn't mean that the little rose hip in my hand is of the same value as that $60 shrub I bought down at Teas to plant in my garden. And If I snip off that proto-"shrub that could be" and throw it away before it has grown to be a big flowering shrub it is not the same thing as walking through the garden and killing my existing fully grown plants. And if I wear a condom and have sex with my wife and 6 million sperm die as a result, I'm not an international war criminal on par with Adolph Hitler's murder of 6 million Jews.
You are saying that cosmetic surgery is the same as aborting a fetus? Someone who has a breast augmentation is removing cells from their body, but again, it's cells that aren't going to eventually form a life of it's own. The tree guy. How often does that happen? The number of abortions to tree man has to be hugely different.
As much 75% of fertilzed embryos never successfully implant to the womb wall and even after then there still is many things that can go wrong and not lead to a fetus coming to term. In any given situation of a conception we can't say for sure that the result will be a coming to term and being born if not for abortion. That is exactly the point which is why the pro-choice position is to leave it to those most affected, the woman, to make that decision. That said I don't take an absolutist position and would be fine with making a third trimester ban.
We don't know for sure but from what we do know based on fetal brain development it wouldn't be until sometime into the second or third trimester. Until we develop an in-utero EEG we might never know.
Do you think it is possible to have a uniform definition of when life begins? Science wise it starts at a single cell, which I would agree doesn't make it human life by itself. Could we define it at brain function, or heart beat? Possibly.
As I said above if we could determine when consciousness begins, like through an in-utero EEG, I would be willing to support a ban at that point. With one exception regarding the safety of the mother. I don't think its fair to put the mother's safety secondary to the fetus.
You ignored the fact that if you cut the stems/leaves/buds/roses off of your plant it will continue growing. Ha. As far as you being Hitler, no. I'm not saying you have to agree with me Ottoman, but I do find it kind of heartless to think that a child that isn't born is not considered alive. The fact is that women go to get abortions at all stages of their pregnancy. We're not just talking about the mass of cells just beginning to reproduce. Things start to grow and develop at an exponential rate.
That's why the appropriate medical word is "fetus" not "child". And you are trying to fall back on the emotional argument. I know religious people love to believe in the power of emotions, but I find such arguments to be disingenuous at best.
We've had several threads on abortion in general....usually centered around the beginning of life debate. But the Supreme Court weighed in on this...and concluded abortion was legal, at least in the first trimester. So....are you all OK with politicians creating laws to specifically harass or create barriers to women who want a procedure that the supreme court said was OK? If it's abortion that you're against, shouldn't you (or your representatives) be challenging the supreme court ruling rather then trying to obstruct its intent?
Just out of curiosity, would you be satisfied with a ban on 3rd trimester abortions, except when the woman's life is in danger? That gives the woman plenty of time to get an abortion if pregnant because of rape, and to discover if the fetus has severe medical problems that threaten viability. How about it?
Ah, but they all happen at such different times. You can hear the heartbeat long before the third trimester. And if conscious thought begins somewhere in the second or third trimester you'd be killing "conscious" children if there was a third trimester ban and women were getting abortions late in their second.
