I'm a Christian, You're not. So what?

[Jack]

...The only question the USSC has the power to answer is whether or not the unborn are to be counted as people...

Should that determination be based on scientific standards or religious belief?

[JimmyNic]

To consider abortion the "right of the woman" requires that you deny the humanity of the unborn, thus eliminating their right to life. I do not deny their humanity and therefore seek to protect their right to life. Not all agree. All do not agree on many a question concerning what a free people in a civil society can or cannot do. Thus abortion, like everything else, is up for discussion and decision.

As the constitution does not address the unborn and what rights they do or do not have, inventing a right in the "penumbras and emanations" of the constitution (see Roe v Wade) is not the right way for this question to be answered. The only question the USSC has the power to answer is whether or not the unborn are to be counted as people, having the same protections as all other people under the constitution.

Thus the question of the legality of abortion belongs to the individual states to determine.

Agreed. It has nothing to do with the convenience of the women unless you can support the assertion that embryos/foetuses/fertilised eggs are equivalent of a human being. If I thought insentient embryos were "human" in a meaningful sense I would be horrified by the idea of abortion, and I can quite understand that somebody of that opinion does all they can do prevent, as they term it, murder. It is not the resultant behaviour that is unreasonable but the assertion of humanity in embryos.

[Yarn]

A being by definition is conscious. Of course they are human, but are they human beings, and if not can they still be said to be in any morally meaningful sense to be individuals?

[Apeman81]

I speciffically wanted to adress the point
"...requires that you deny the humanity of the unborn, thus eliminating their right to life."
The fetus in questioning is unborn because it cannot sustain it's own life. By that definition, it is a parasite. It steals the energy and nutrients from a woman, even takes over her body (in the more advanced stages of pregnancy the body will take care of the baby over the mother in the event of a potientally fatal accident).
How can something with no capability whatsoever to sustain itself have an undeniable right to live over that of an already established, capable member of society?
Not to mention the rediculous amount of financial and emotional stress having a child will cause. The average american parent spends over $180,000 a year on their child. That figure doesn't even account for college, which parents are now expected to help their kids pay for. Children force a person to truely grow up. you can't sleep in anymore; you have kids. you have to cook a proper breakfast; you have kids. you can't swear, can't ditch work. you have to be constantly thinking of what your child needs and must always be sensitive twards them. Kids are an enormous responsability.
As for adoption, with a world population of 7,029,800,000, is it really justafiable to have a child just to dump it into the foster care system? If it is against your personal beliefs to abort a child, then fine, but guess where your tax dollars will be going.
And even so, what right do you have to keep others from making that decision for themselves?

The same reasoning negates the humanity and associated right to life to an infant up to several years old. A quadriplegic. Alzheimer's patients. Multiple sclerosis patients. You get the point

[finder]

Should that determination be based on scientific standards or religious belief?

Am I missing something? Does science say that the point of conception of life from human sperm and egg results in life that is NOT human offspring?

[Apeman81]

Should that determination be based on scientific standards or religious belief?

Can you provide substantial evidence that dictates the only choice other than scientific standards in use or advanced by citizens is based solely on religious belief?

False dichotomies are not worth arguing.

[sulh-i-kul]

What the hell would those scientific standards be anyway?

[minorwork]

Breathing independently seems a reliable sign of life scientifically and biblically.

[LostInThought]

Should that determination be based on scientific standards or religious belief?

I would argue scientific standards, because we are a secular society, but more often than not religion gets their way because they have an association with morality.

[LostInThought]

Am I missing something? Does science say that the point of conception of life from human sperm and egg results in life that is NOT human offspring?

no, but that result takes months to occur. Also, I believe the debate goes around weather incomplete human life deserves full human rights.


But I must admit, I do love the way you've worded that response. It made me crack up a bit.

[LostInThought]

The same reasoning negates the humanity and associated right to life to an infant up to several years old. A quadriplegic. Alzheimer's patients. Multiple sclerosis patients. You get the point

Yes, but the difference between that of the Alzhiemer's patient is that there would amlost never (I can not think of a situation where it would happen, but if i say it's impossible im sure someone will come up with one and post it. actually, i;d love to see an example if someone can think of one) be a case where one would have the descision between life for the Alzheimer's patient and ending the stunning the progress of a perfectly physically and psychologically healthy woman.

Do they allow perfectly healthy persons to donate vital organs to patients? Besides kidneys, never. And kidneys are only an exception because healthy people have two, and it is physically possible to survive on one. (You can't drink, play conact sports, or take certian medicines.)

[finder]

Breathing independently seems a reliable sign of life scientifically and biblically.

A twenty year old patient from a car accident has to be put on a respirator to breath until the doctors can stabilize him, is that human life even though he can't breath?

In Jerimiah 1:5 Jerimah describes how God called and knew him and ordained him in the womb. So biblically was Jerimiah human or not according to your statement above?