After thinking about this and conversing with some other people about it for a few days, I have concluded that the only reasonable stance for me to take is full-bore pro-choice. Up to the point of birth. This is based on 2 moral imperatives for me.

1)We should never force a woman to give birth to a child no matter what the circumstances of her fertilization.
I can't morally justify trumping the rights of a woman by the rights of an unborn child. A person should have total control over her body, regardless of the potential sentience of the unborn child. Whether she was raped is irrelevant.

2)The aggregate suffering is far less than what will probably be suffered by the unwanted child, the mother, and everyone else affected.
This is less important to me than point 1), but from a purely consequentialist point of view, this point stands. Unwanted children undoubtedly suffer on average more than children that are nurtured by loving support systems. Not to mention the suffering for the parent(s) of unwanted children, and everyone else that unwanted child affects. Call it euthanasia if you want, but it is most likely the more humane choice given the circumstances.
----------------------------------------------
I do not support infanticide. At the point of birth, if the child is unwanted, there should be social structures in place to foster those children. I just can't see forcing a woman to go through with birth to get to that point if she doesn't want to.

Finally a pragmatic point. Abortions, even late term abortions, will happen even if you outlaw them, or blow up every abortion clinic, or kill every late term abortion doctor. Just like drugs and prostitution, outlawing it will simply make it dangerous. Whether you're for or against abortion philosophically, this will always be the case. I think it's better for society if we have safe methods for women to abort their fetuses if they so choose.

7/12/2010 8:57:06 AM

i think you have a clear opinion, which i can respect. at least you have a reasoned stance. however, it is completely devoid of tying the would-be mother to any form of responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place...almost like it happens out of thin air. i do not agree with basically alleviating total responsibility for creating the life from the woman or the man.


further, what possible argument can be made to waiting until late (third trimester) into a pregnancy to terminate it?

7/12/2010 9:32:57 AM

well didnt you hear, 95% of abortions are because of brutal gang rapes

7/12/2010 10:03:31 AM

It's not that it happens out of thin air, it's just impossible to make exceptions for intent. Was a person really raped? Has their circumstances changed where when they got pregnant they could feasibly support the child, but now cannot? Has the father died and the woman simply isn't emotionally or financially able to support a child? Who knows? That's why for me it's important to not restrict it.

I don't think getting pregnant under any circumstance obligates you to go through the birthing process and certainly we should not force a woman to.

I can't imagine any woman would intentionally wait until the third trimester, but it will happen. Maybe they were out of the country and did not want to risk the procedure in Uganda. Maybe their husband was killed and she was critically injured in a car accident. Maybe doctors failed to diagnose a serious congenital defect until that late.

7/12/2010 10:06:29 AM

Quote :

"i think you have a clear opinion, which i can respect. at least you have a reasoned stance. however, it is completely devoid of tying the would-be mother to any form of responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place...almost like it happens out of thin air. i do not agree with basically alleviating total responsibility for creating the life from the woman or the man. "

So we use the birth of a child as a form of punishment? That will certainly make for a healthy family.

7/12/2010 10:39:58 AM

the bible says that children are a blessing so i don't know how you could infer that they are actually a punishment

7/12/2010 11:06:47 AM

The Bible says a lot of things. Are you certain you want to go down that road?

7/12/2010 11:07:47 AM

yes

7/12/2010 11:08:07 AM

Quote :

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23"

Quote :

"And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6"

Quote :

"Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16"

Quote :

"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17 (Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.) Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14 Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16"

Quote :

"Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14"

Quote :

"The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ... And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28"

Quote :

"Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24"

NOTE All this shows is how internally and externally inconsistent the Bible is. Luckily most people (even most Christians) don't *actually* base their morality on scripture.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 11:15 AM. Reason : *]

7/12/2010 11:12:04 AM

I agree with all of those verses. The bible is the unerring holy Word of God. Why are you questioning it?


[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 11:16 AM. Reason : ]

7/12/2010 11:15:27 AM

<-----looks for his troll spray.

7/12/2010 11:15:59 AM

7/12/2010 11:17:05 AM

Quote :

"So we use the birth of a child as a form of punishment? That will certainly make for a healthy family."

not punishment, cause and effect.

do you consider being fat punishment for eating?

7/12/2010 5:26:39 PM

do you consider being fat the same as being pregnant?

7/12/2010 5:29:21 PM

^^ Yes, obesity is the punishment people get for eating shitty food, along with heart disease and airplane discomfort.

What is your point?

7/12/2010 5:37:00 PM

my point is how dumb your metaphor is.

again, I am not pro life. but you cannot completely remove the responsibility for creating a life from this equation. that is a dangerous concept. there has to be middle ground.

7/13/2010 9:35:14 AM

I'm still on the fence.

Pragmatically speaking, legalized and cheap abortions will reduce crime, poverty, and the number of screaming, obnoxious feminists.

On the other hand, I have a hard time justifying a distinction between a fetus a week before birth and a baby a week after birth. Aside from some minor cosmetic changes there's very little difference. So why do I think it's OK to kill one and not the other? We could reduce crime and poverty by euthanizing poor people, too.

One thing I can't understand is how this always becomes a discussion of women's rights. If the thing is a person then you don't get to kill it for inconveniencing you. If the thing is not a person then I don't give two shits what you do to it. Nobody cares what you're doing to YOUR body, they care what you are doing to (presumably) another person's body.

7/13/2010 6:11:20 PM

Quote :

"We could reduce crime and poverty by euthanizing poor people, too."

This is functionally what a lot of conservatives advocate. What do you think they mean when they say "survival of the fittest" when they push regressive tax structures, and reducing anti-poverty programs?

Huckabee, to his credit, recognized this and was generally in support of social programs. He was anti-abortion, but was also a supporter of providing proper assistance to young mothers and families. I can't take issue with people who hold this viewpoint.

IMO though abortion is a WAY overblown issue, that is very insignificant to the flow of society, far beneath bigger issues I think that even how much funding NASA deserves. It just so happens to cause an emotional reaction (that I believed has been conditioned in some people by the religious right).

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 6:24 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2010 6:18:19 PM

Quote :

"This is functionally what a lot of conservatives advocate. What do you think they mean when they say "survival of the fittest" when they push regressive tax structures, and reducing anti-poverty programs?"

These are, I think, two different statements that should not be tied together. While I'll allow for the possibility that conservative policies may have functionally the same effect, I disagree with regards to what you seem to imply is their intent. There are very few conservatives whose goal is to kill off poor or nonwhite people. There are a a good many more who feel that they should not be forced (at gunpoint, mind) to pay to keep strangers alive or above a certain standard of living.

I think it's a common misunderstanding. If I walked up to you with a revolver and demanded money to keep a crack-addicted shithead alive, you'd probably do it but not be happy. If, however, I came up and asked for a donation to help those whose lives have been seriously disrupted somehow, there's at least a reasonable chance that you'd hand me a buck or two. Both sides have a pretty shitty view of the world and how the other side would like to deal with it.

7/14/2010 3:58:44 AM

Quote :

"If the thing is a person then you don't get to kill it for inconveniencing you."

That's where my problem is. I don't consider an unwilling birthing process an "inconvenience." It's a painful, potentially dangerous process. I mean, there are expenses and inconveniences sure, but that's not the point. There's no way I could justify forcing a woman to go through with it if she didn't want to. What are we to do? Strap her down for 9 months and make sure she doesn't get hold of a clothes hanger?

7/14/2010 9:16:49 AM

is it murder if it's an ectopic pregnancy

7/14/2010 9:17:56 AM

Well it would definitely be killing. If you feel that all killing is murder then I guess so.

7/14/2010 9:25:30 AM

Quote :

"I don't consider an unwilling birthing process an "inconvenience." It's a painful, potentially dangerous process."

If I hit you in the face and you shoot me to death, you're probably going to go to jail for it -- point being that in other circumstances we don't feel like you get to kill people for causing you pain or potential danger.

Even when the mother's life is definitely at risk I don't know how one justifies picking one person to live over the other. (again, assuming that the fetus is a person, which is the crux of the whole thing)

Quote :

"What are we to do? Strap her down for 9 months and make sure she doesn't get hold of a clothes hanger?"

No no no, don't start with this crap. You can't oppose a law because people will violate it. People violate every law.

Quote :

"is it murder if it's an ectopic pregnancy"

Heh. My gut reaction is to say, "Well, if it's gonna die anyway, no problem," at which point it usually gets mentioned that we're all gonna die anyway.

But I do not equate murder and mercy killing, no.

7/14/2010 12:03:48 PM

^ wouldn't an ectopic pregnancy be necessary to abort due to it being a serious threat to the health of the mother (and no chance of successful outcome for the fetus, anyway)?

Quote :

"One thing I can't understand is how this always becomes a discussion of women's rights. If the thing is a person then you don't get to kill it for inconveniencing you. If the thing is not a person then I don't give two shits what you do to it. Nobody cares what you're doing to YOUR body, they care what you are doing to (presumably) another person's body."

Exactly. I don't know why this isn't overwhelming obvious. Nor do I understand why abortion is constantly framed as a religious issue. It is at most tangentially related to both religion and women's rights.

7/14/2010 12:27:39 PM

Quote :

"Even when the mother's life is definitely at risk I don't know how one justifies picking one person to live over the other. (again, assuming that the fetus is a person, which is the crux of the whole thing) "

So what do you do in those circumstances? My "gut" says we euthanize the fetus to give the mother a better chance (and theoretically an opportunity to try again). The problem for me is that there's an extremely gray area of "definitely at risk" that isn't legally definable.

What if she's only probably at risk? 10%? What if they diagnose very lately that the child will be born into a short painful life due to congenital defect? Too many what ifs in my opinion.

7/14/2010 12:50:49 PM

Wait, I thought you'd decided you were OK with allowing any and all abortions?

7/14/2010 12:52:55 PM

That's what I'm getting at. Too many what ifs to reasonably make exceptions. Better to err on the side of freedom of the mother, in my opinion. Then there's the aggregate suffering issue.

I don't think a mother giving birth is comparable to someone assaulting another. I think it's ok to treat birthing as an entirely unique process as it is.

7/14/2010 1:02:09 PM

Quote :

"What if they diagnose very lately that the child will be born into a short painful life due to congenital defect?"

If they make the determination five minutes after the thing's born, would you be OK with bashing its skull in? If not I can't figure out why it'd be OK to smash its skull in a week before it's born.

Quote :

"What if she's only probably at risk? 10%?"

Well...since I just said I can't even justify it when there's definite risk, it's pretty likely that I wouldn't be able to justify it at lowers levels of danger, at which point you're saying "We can either definitely kill somebody or run the chance of someone dying, and we're going to run with 'kill somebody'"

Quote :

"Better to err on the side of freedom of the mother, in my opinion."

Why? What justification do you have for making a blanket choice here? We've got two individuals here, one of whom has literally never done anything wrong and the other of whom made at least one bad choice along the way, or she wouldn't be trying to brutally murder the other. Why does the mom get a free pass and the other a death sentence?

Quote :

"I don't think a mother giving birth is comparable to someone assaulting another. I think it's ok to treat birthing as an entirely unique process as it is."

I'm sure you do, as it gives you all sorts of leeway and special circumstances that favor your argument. But I'm not buying it -- the relevant details are the same in an assault and a birth. You have one person who is going to inflict pain on another, and, in unusual circumstances, might inadvertently kill them. In one situation it's A-OK to casually kill the person causing the pain. In another you will get sent to jail. Indeed, the only relevant difference here is that someone who would assault you is a dick, and a fetus has absolutely no say in the matter and can't be held at fault.

---

Now I'm going to clarify here, again, that these aren't necessarily my opinions on abortion -- these are my opinions on abortion if the fetus is a human being, which I'm not convinced of either way.

7/14/2010 1:24:11 PM

Quote :

"If they make the determination five minutes after the thing's born, would you be OK with bashing its skull in? If not I can't figure out why it'd be OK to smash its skull in a week before it's born."

Yes. If "bashing its skull in" = less suffering, then yes.

Quote :

"Why? What justification do you have for making a blanket choice here? We've got two individuals here, one of whom has literally never done anything wrong and the other of whom made at least one bad choice along the way, or she wouldn't be trying to brutally murder the other. Why does the mom get a free pass and the other a death sentence?"

"made a bad choice"? How do you figure? Raped? Husband died, lost all financial and mental capacity to care for the child? Doctor has given her a 20% chance of serious complications? There are infinite permutations that to me are all justifiable.

Call it euthanasia, I don't care. Any law restricting abortion will affect women who legitimately need them, in my opinion.

Quote :

"I'm sure you do, as it gives you all sorts of leeway and special circumstances that favor your argument. But I'm not buying it -- the relevant details are the same in an assault and a birth. You have one person who is going to inflict pain on another, and, in unusual circumstances, might inadvertently kill them. In one situation it's A-OK to casually kill the person causing the pain. In another you will get sent to jail. Indeed, the only relevant difference here is that someone who would assault you is a dick, and a fetus has absolutely no say in the matter and can't be held at fault."

But in the case of an unwanted child, the pain inflicted by bringing that child in the world is almost assuredly greater than the pain inflicted by euthanizing them, especially earlier in the pregnancy. It is almost assuredly the most humane decision. In the assault analogy all you are considering is the pain of the mother during childbirth as a singular action, and not the aggregate suffering of the mother, the child, and everyone else.

If you make an exception for children that will live short, painful, lives, then I say you should make an exception for children that will live long, painful lives. The benefit is that we don't have to force anyone to go through a medical procedure that they don't elect. I no longer feel that a fetus, even given sentience should be legally considered a person. Once they're out, they can be taken in by the state if needed. But up to that point, it is the most humane decision to terminate the pregnancy if the mother decides to.

If only there was a magical way to extract viable fetuses from women in a way that they wouldn't object to....

As an aside, I'm not against euthanasia in the case of suffering.

7/14/2010 1:51:55 PM

Quote :

""made a bad choice"? How do you figure?"

As has been pointed out in here, the large majority of abortions come from people having regular sex and getting knocked up when they did not want to be knocked up. You perplex me, because you're all about the aggregate elsewhere but here you choose to focus on a very narrow band.

Quote :

"Any law restricting abortion will affect women who legitimately need them, in my opinion. "

And any law allowing abortion will most certainly affect millions of people killed by it.

Quote :

"I no longer feel that a fetus, even given sentience should be legally considered a person."

I was about to say, "Why didn't you just say so? I've been arguing all of this on the assumption that we were both allowing for them to be a person." But then I saw something very, very disturbing: the word legally.

Your use of it implies that well, hell, maybe the fuckers are people but the law doesn't have to recognize that. The idea of the state denying human legal status to a human being is disturbing to say the least.

Quote :

"If only there was a magical way to extract viable fetuses from women in a way that they wouldn't object to...."

Also disturbing -- now you really are talking inconvenience. "Ehh...I don't really want a c-section scar, it'd really be a downer when I go to the club trolling for dick. Scramble the fucker's brains."

Quote :

"As an aside, I'm not against euthanasia in the case of suffering."

Neither am I, if the person getting euthanized asks for it.

Quote :

"But in the case of an unwanted child, the pain inflicted by bringing that child in the world is almost assuredly greater than the pain inflicted by euthanizing them, especially earlier in the pregnancy."

Bullshit. You can't see the goddamn future. Do you think every unwanted kid in the world inflicted net misery on it?

And the last incredibly disturbing thing about your post that I'll reference is its blatant utilitarian bent, the tunnel vision on reducing "suffering." This opens a lovely of number doors. We could reduce suffering a number of ways, the most effective of which would be wiping out the human race. Absolutely no human suffering anywhere in the world. Not too shabby.

Or I guess we could replace depression patients' prozac with cyanide tablets and eliminate a lot of unhappiness.

At the very least we should send everyone below the poverty line to death camps.

7/14/2010 2:08:55 PM

I'm just not cool with forcing a woman to get a c-section or giving birth if she doesn't want to. Or punishing her legally if she chooses not to go through with a particular medical procedure versus another.

The word legally was unnecessary. They're not people until they're out of the mother's womb, one way or another.

Since people who are already here are people it's obvious that the rest of the slippery slope doesn't apply.

7/14/2010 2:16:53 PM

Quote :

"They're not people until they're out of the mother's womb, one way or another. "

OK, then the question is how you arrived at this particular decision. Why does passing through a vagina magically turn you into a person? And at what point exactly does it happen? Is it a cute little baby when its head makes it through the cervix, or is it still a gross nonhuman growth in the mother's coochie?

Quote :

"Since people who are already here are people it's obvious that the rest of the slippery slope doesn't apply."

The hell you say? You still can't see the future and have no idea what impact an unwanted child will have on the world, including its mother.

And the stuff about your utilitarian anti-suffering craziness still stands regardless of whether or not the fetus is human, because apparently you're down with killing "people who are already here," too, and without their consent:

Quote :

"Yes. If "bashing its skull in" = less suffering, then yes."

So you'll shoot a baby to reduce suffering, why not shoot everybody with diabetes?

7/14/2010 2:28:13 PM

Quote :

"The hell you say? You still can't see the future and have no idea what impact an unwanted child will have on the world, including its mother."

That's irrelevant. Possibilities about a child's future have no impact on the here and now. An unborn child's future isn't any sort of justification to continue an unwanted pregnancy. There are already a LOT of children without families. You should be focusing on their futures if you're concerned about that aspect.

7/14/2010 2:32:48 PM

Back up now, I wasn't saying what you seem to think I was. I was responding to a very specific comment from disco_stu:

Quote :

"But in the case of an unwanted child, the pain inflicted by bringing that child in the world is almost assuredly greater than the pain inflicted by euthanizing them"

He cannot possibly know this. He is partly basing his decision on his apparent belief that he can see the future. That's all I was saying.

7/14/2010 2:37:25 PM

^^^cuteness and grossness have nothing to do with it. It's not a scientific decision. It's a logical distinction based on the idea that a mother should have full control over her body, including the life that exists inside of her. The exact point could be argued. For me it's at whatever point that the baby can be physically separated from the mother without further harm to the mother.

NOTE THEN: a 7 month gestated prematurely birthed child IS A PERSON, but a 7 month gestated unborn is not a person. I'm fine with this.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 2:40 PM. Reason : ^]

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 2:40 PM. Reason : note]

7/14/2010 2:39:51 PM

whoa, whoa, whoa, this "euthanasia" argument is absurd. I don't have any problem with assisted suicide or whatever--if someone wants to be put out of his misery, go for it. An unborn baby is a fundamentally different scenario, as the baby has no say-so in the matter.

Quote :

"NOTE THEN: a 7 month gestated prematurely birthed child IS A PERSON, but a 7 month gestated unborn is not a person. I'm fine with this."

That is absurd. This might even be crazier than the idea that abortion is killing human beings, but it's OK because it's for the greater good.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ]

7/14/2010 2:42:46 PM

^^ Fair enough.

7/14/2010 2:43:06 PM

Quote :

"Why does passing through a vagina magically turn you into a person? And at what point exactly does it happen? Is it a cute little baby when its head makes it through the cervix, or is it still a gross nonhuman growth in the mother's coochie?"

Oh look, this sounds a lot like my argument on page 1 that pro-abortion arguments all boiled down to aesthetics.

7/14/2010 2:46:12 PM

Quote :

"An unborn baby is a fundamentally different scenario, as the baby has no say-so in the matter."

It has no say because it has nothing TO say. It's not properly human.

7/14/2010 2:48:25 PM

Dude, I'm not talking about a fetus that's a few weeks old. I'm talking about a fucking baby that just hasn't made the magical passage through the cervix and vagina that turns it into a person.

7/14/2010 2:51:54 PM

Quote :

"cuteness and grossness have nothing to do with it."

No they don't, but it's a free country and I'll use a little poetic license when it doesn't affect the substance of my argument.

Quote :

"It's a logical distinction based on the idea that a mother should have full control over her body, including the life that exists inside of her."

Huh? It sounds like you're putting the cart before the horse. Because you want the mother to have this control, you can't allow for the humanity of the fetus. That's not a logical process -- that's you making a decision about one subject so that it will be consistent with your other beliefs, not because it has any logical merit on its own.

7/14/2010 2:53:49 PM

It magically has something to say now? ^^

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2010 2:53:51 PM

And now McDanger's advocating infanticide. Alright, I gotta leave the computer for a while.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 2:55 PM. Reason : maybe I'm misunderstanding that last post though]

7/14/2010 2:55:11 PM

It's not magical. It's the physical separation of the child from the mother. If it comes out through cesarean, it never passes through the cervix or the vagina but it still becomes a person. If it falcon punches it's way out of the womb it's still a person.

There's nothing magical about it. Once it's no longer a part of the mama, it's own person. Up to that point, it has no rights, especially any rights that would force an actual person to go through a medical procedure that they would otherwise choose not to.

At the point where it no longer has this impact on the mother, it's a person.

7/14/2010 2:55:42 PM

.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 2:58 PM. Reason : nvm, not worth wading in atm]

7/14/2010 2:58:27 PM

^^You went from completely reasonable to off-the-charts absurd, dude. By that logic, partial birth abortion at the 9-month mark is OK.

OK, fine...if you don't think it's the magical cervix and vagina that bestow personhood upon a baby, it's the magical umbilical cord that, when severed, marks the establishment of human life?

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 3:02 PM. Reason : ^^]

7/14/2010 3:01:17 PM

I don't see what's so magical about a vagina anyway.

7/14/2010 3:10:21 PM

Human life != human personhood.

No, the umbilical cord is not the demarcation point since neither the mother nor child are using it at that point and neither feel pain when it's severed surgically or naturally. It's at whatever point the child is no longer physically affecting the mother.

It's a fucking shitty topic and I like thinking about it. I'm not saying I could not be convinced otherwise, I just have currently no way of trumping the rights of a woman to decide the fate of her body with the rights of an unborn child to live.

It's not OK. It's fucking horrible. I just think it shouldn't be illegal.

[Edited on July 14, 2010 at 3:11 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2010 3:10:36 PM

Quote :

"And now McDanger's advocating infanticide. Alright, I gotta leave the computer for a while."

Personhood is a spectrum. I'm not advocating infanticide, I'm advocating a realistic view of personhood. While we obviously shouldn't be killing babies, if you think a baby is as much of a person as you or I then you need a reality check.

7/14/2010 3:13:24 PM

^^^ haha. I think it's one of those things where "if you have to ask..."

^ I'll agree with elements of that. Specifically, the part about personhood being a spectrum. I think that should be obvious. However, I think you're a full-fledged person at some point before birth. The point at which you're "person-enough" to rate protection from abortion (i.e., your death represents killing of a person) is arguable, and that's been my point all along--this debate revolves not around religion, or women's rights, or anything else but what defines a "human life" (*unless you're someone like BridgetSPK or Solinari who says that willfully killing babies is fine, since it's for the greater good)

If a baby isn't as much of a person as you or I are, then what about a toddler? What about a 3rd grader? What about someone in a 3rd-world country who's never really experienced anything beyond his village, his fields, and his livestock? What about some of the dumbasses on here who are half-retarded? What about someone who is no-kidding clinically retarded?

7/14/2010 3:27:57 PM