Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[gakroeger]

Yesterday I attended a presentation by Scott Klusendorf one of the leading pro life speakers in the Country today. Scott has debated many pro choice people and his speech yesterday was centered on the differences in thought between the opposing sides in this ongoing controversy.

Scott’s explanation as to why this debate continues to rage is because of our society’s indifference to truth. We tend to accept relativism instead of a definite truth. Instead of seeking what is true, we accept some middle ground that allows us to do what we would not do if we knew the truth.

If we truly believed that an embryo was human, we would not permit it to be destroyed.

Scott started his talk by outlining a few of the points his opponents make in their argument for a woman’s right to choose abortion.

1. Pro life people do not have the right to impose their opinion on others
2. Every person has the right to “choose”
3. Abortion is a choice between a woman and her doctor. No one else’s business.
4. Restricting abortion for the poor who cannot afford more children is unfair.
5. Women should have the right to abort their pregnancy at any time though out the nine months of pregnancy.
6. Women should not be required to give birth to an unwanted child that may be subjected to abuse, poverty, or illness.
7. Abortion should be permitted in all cases of rape or incest.

Scott surprises his opponent and his audience by agreeing with these arguments. He agrees with every aspect of their arguments; IF, the fetus is not human.

Scott’s point is that the whole controversy boils down to “is the fetus human?” Virtually no one would use any of these arguments to kill a 2 year old toddler. So, the question really is, “is the fetus human?” If the fetus is not human then all of the pro choice people are correct and we pro life people concede the right of a woman to have an abortion. The reason however, that we continue to oppose abortion is that all scientific evidence supports the fact that the fetus is human. If we were however, to concede for arguments sake that we do not know when the fetus becomes human; does that alone permit us to morally kill the fetus? If there is a doubt should we assume the fetus is human or assume it is not human? To illustrate this point, Scott uses the analogy of hunting with a friend and you see a bush rustling, and you are not sure if it is the deer you have been pursuing or your hunting partner, do shoot hoping it is the deer, or do you not shoot until you know it is a deer?

The pro choice people seem to take the position that since they do not know if the fetus is human or not, It is okay to accept this as an unknown and an excuse to do what is convenient. The fact that they do not know does not mean there is no truth or correct answer. There was a time when people were not sure if slavery was right or if the world was flat or round, but there always was a correct answer, as there is for this question. We should always error on the side of morality.

Some pro choice people like to make this an argument about religion. Religion has nothing to do with if we have the right to kill another human being. The most devout atheist does not believe we have the right to kill another human being. The religion argument is nothing but an attempt to change the subject and not face the real issue.

Some pro choice people like to use the argument that the fetus is not fully human by using the well known argument of the laboratory fire. This argument goes like this; you are in a laboratory that is on fire, in one corner are several frozen embryos, in another corner is a 2 year old toddler, you have time to save only the embryos or the toddler, which do you save? Because most people would choose the toddler, the pro choice argument is that even you pro life people do not believe that the embryos are human. Scott’s rebuttal is that emotional feelings do not change the fact of what is human and what is not. His example was if his 8 year old daughter was in the auditorium with us and a fire broke out and he had the choice of saving his daughter or all of us, we would all be “toast”; this does not prove that none of us were human.

Over the years of dialog I have had with those supporting the right to “choose” I have always been intrigued by the fact that they, almost without exception, have not watched, and refuse to watch any picture, video, or image of an actual abortion. Of course the excuse is always, “I refuse to watch such gory pictures” because they are offensive to me. Interestingly, these same individuals will pay good money to go to a movie which contains more graphic images then the abortion images. So, what is the real reason they do not want to see the images of an abortion; maybe, because they don’t want to subject themselves to the reality of abortion?

This link will take you to a short video of not an actual abortion but the after math; if you have not seen these images, you need to see them at least once, once will be enough. If these images do not convince you that the fetus was human, I don’t think anything will.

Abortion after math Video

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die
so that you may live as you wish.

~Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

 

[Mark77]

God Bless!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[sauce]

When one of the choices is death, it doesn’t say much for them.
Also, would a child choose death?

What you posted is good information.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I know The problem is that the majority that subscribe to Pro Choice do not see the unborn child as “alive” until different opinionated periods of the pregnancy. It is a matter so much of choice but rather of ignorance where most Pro Choice to not recognize “Life” until after the first 90 days.

The way to attack this is to educate people on what science has taught us and then even the atheist will see the worth and value of a child at day 1. That is because it is no longer the stance of “Choice” but one of the knowledge that there is life at day 1 and not at as commonly believed until day 90. This ignorance and opinion is based on the physical development of the child and it’s recognition as a human child with all it’s outward charaterisitcs.

I know from personal experience with family and friends that life is believed to occur when the brain is developed enough to have consciousness and that it is not common knowledge that abortions happen after the brain has developed enough to run the body. We need to educate so we can then use the Constitution to uphold the right to life by showing the unborn child is an individual of this country too.

But i do enjoy hearing a Pro Lifer’s debate tactics even though I think they are approaching it from the wrong direction at times.

 

[Christopher68]

I suspect that this is a never-ending debate.

 

[Arwen037]

What’s worse is when they conceded that it is alive, but deny that is is a human life. One of my friends claims that you are not human without higher thinking and life experiences, ergo not a human life, although it is alive.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

What’s worse is when they conceded that it is alive, but deny that is is a human life. One of my friends claims that you are not human without higher thinking and life experiences, ergo not a human life, although it is alive.

I actually saw someone compare a baby to a tumor. They stated “Both are a living, growing, developing clump of genetically unique cells. But no one calls a cancer patient a murder for cutting out an infectious growth. Same can be said for a child. An unwanted child is an infectious unwelcome growth.”

I almost threw up. It’s just so sad to me what “pro-choice” is doing to women and children. It devalues women into sex objects, and turns children into malignant tumors.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think a lot of people are very fuzzy when it comes to thinking about what life is, what a human life is, what consciousness is. It is hard for people to see the very early stages of a pregnancy as being a person - a few undifferentiated cells does not seem person-like in any way. So the personal connection isn’t there. And it can be hard to think of something you can’t see as real - even many happy fathers say they do not feel really connected to a pregnancy until there is outward evidence of a living baby, and they are emotionally invested.

And as far as the theological ideas go - what is a soul, when does the soul appear - most people are totally clueless. And to be honest, I find that most Catholics haven’t got a very in depth knowledge about what the CC teaches about the soul either. For example, the fact that the soul and body in all living things are equivalent to form and matter in all non-living things. Without that kind of understanding, it is hard to make people understand why even those few cells have a soul. And if a person doesn’t believe in the soul then the whole ground of the discussion is really shifted. (If it were true, I am honestly not sure that abortion would be immoral, so the disagreement in that case is very fundamental indeed.)

But I think there is more variety in those who to some extent or another support pro-choice than has been indicated in the OPs list.

For example, one group which is very large would like abortion only to be legally available if it was a very serious health matter for the mother - a situation of one life against another. They may even feel that the moral thing would be for the mother to choose to bear the child, but that self-sacrifice should not be legislated. Now, Catholic doctrine disagrees with abortion in essentially all cases, but such people often consider themselves essentially pro-life and would like much tighter abortion laws.

And then there are others who feel the same way but also think that there is no way, or effective way, for the law to make the distinction between those cases with a legitimate call for abortion and those without. And indeed that seems to be a very tricky part of creating abortion laws. So these people are left with the idea that only the people involved have the information and insight to actually make the decision - though they may have a clear idea themselves what they think the right decision would be.

 

[gakroeger]

I think a lot of people are very fuzzy when it comes to thinking about what life is, what a human life is, what consciousness is. It is hard for people to see the very early stages of a pregnancy as being a person - a few undifferentiated cells does not seem person-like in any way. So the personal connection isn’t there. And it can be hard to think of something you can’t see as real - even many happy fathers say they do not feel really connected to a pregnancy until there is outward evidence of a living baby, and they are emotionally invested.

A person being tortured in China does not seem like a person to many people far removed from the situation either. What everyone needs to understand is that those “cells” at the very early stages of pregnancy were once every one of us; and left to develop under God’s plan will become a person just like us.

And as far as the theological ideas go - what is a soul, when does the soul appear - most people are totally clueless. And to be honest, I find that most Catholics haven’t got a very in depth knowledge about what the CC teaches about the soul either. For example, the fact that the soul and body in all living things are equivalent to form and matter in all non-living things. Without that kind of understanding, it is hard to make people understand why even those few cells have a soul. And if a person doesn’t believe in the soul then the whole ground of the discussion is really shifted. (If it were true, I am honestly not sure that abortion would be immoral, so the disagreement in that case is very fundamental indeed.)

This is the whole basis of our faith. If we all understood God’s creation to the last detail, why would faith be required? The problem with people taking this approach is that they believe themselves capable of complete understanding of creation. This arrogance is what causes people to believe that they can understand something that the human mind cannot comprehend. People tend to take their limited knowledge of a situation and attempt to second guess what has been handed to us in holy scripture.

But I think there is more variety in those who to some extent or another support pro-choice than has been indicated in the OPs list.

This list of examples was not presented as all inclusive of the arguments fabricated by those attempting to justify abortion. However, the conclusion is the same for every argument for abortion. If the embryo is human (which most certainly it is) killing the embryo is no different than killing a new born according to God’s law, “thou shalt not kill”.

And then there are others who feel the same way but also think that there is no way, or effective way, for the law to make the distinction between those cases with a legitimate call for abortion and those without. And indeed that seems to be a very tricky part of creating abortion laws. So these people are left with the idea that only the people involved have the information and insight to actually make the decision - though they may have a clear idea themselves what they think the right decision would be.

Morally speaking, creating laws against abortion is no different than creating laws against murder and that certainly has not been a problem. The reason that abortion laws and now the coming laws on euthanasia and assisted suicide are controversial in our society is because we have crossed the line on protection of human life at all stages when we elected to defy God’s plan by delinking human sexuality and reproduction.

It began when we accepted contraception as a moral alternative for birth control. Once we did this, we immediately began thinking that sex was not just for married couples, it was a right of all people without any obligation to their partners, society, or unwanted pregnancies. Hence, prolific sex heterosexual and homosexual, with all of the consequences of unwanted pregnancies, STD’s, divorces, etc, etc.

Pope Paul the VI clearly predicted all of this in his Humane Vitae in the sixties. But society instead of learning this lesson of Pope Paul 40 years ago, continues down the road of destruction, still blind to the truth in front of us.

 

[Bluegoat]

A person being tortured in China does not seem like a person to many people far removed from the situation either. What everyone needs to understand is that those “cells” at the very early stages of pregnancy were once every one of us; and left to develop under God’s plan will become a person just like us.

This is the whole basis of our faith. If we all understood God’s creation to the last detail, why would faith be required? The problem with people taking this approach is that they believe themselves capable of complete understanding of creation. This arrogance is what causes people to believe that they can understand something that the human mind cannot comprehend. People tend to take their limited knowledge of a situation and attempt to second guess what has been handed to us in holy scripture.

This list of examples was not presented as all inclusive of the arguments fabricated by those attempting to justify abortion. However, the conclusion is the same for every argument for abortion. If the embryo is human (which most certainly it is) killing the embryo is no different than killing a new born according to God’s law, “thou shalt not kill”.

Morally speaking, creating laws against abortion is no different than creating laws against murder and that certainly has not been a problem. The reason that abortion laws and now the coming laws on euthanasia and assisted suicide are controversial in our society is because we have crossed the line on protection of human life at all stages when we elected to defy God’s plan by delinking human sexuality and reproduction.

It began when we accepted contraception as a moral alternative for birth control. Once we did this, we immediately began thinking that sex was not just for married couples, it was a right of all people without any obligation to their partners, society, or unwanted pregnancies. Hence, prolific sex heterosexual and homosexual, with all of the consequences of unwanted pregnancies, STD’s, divorces, etc, etc.

Pope Paul the VI clearly predicted all of this in his Humane Vitae in the sixties. But society instead of learning this lesson of Pope Paul 40 years ago, continues down the road of destruction still blind to the truth in front of us.

Well, I have to say I don’t think you are going to get very far in convincing people that abortion is wrong. It seems like you are simply demanding that they accept Catholisism, and then they will know abortion is wrong. That might be largely true, but it is entirely unlikely. Telling a person who is not Catholic that they should accept the CCs position on abortion as a matter of authority is not going to change their minds.

I think you are also quite wrong to assume that people can’t understand the reasoning behind the Church’s position on abortion. It is not actually that difficult, and it isn’t exclusive to Catholicism either - it has it’s origins in pre-Christian philosophy. It could be very effective in reaching people.

And finally, you don’t seem to make any effort to understand why people have difficulty seeing it your way, why it doesn’t resonate for them. That doesn’t mean you have to agree or think it is sensible - though it would be good to realize that it is human. In teaching you always have to start with what the student knows and the limitations of their knowledge and experience, and move on from there.

I am sure you are dedicated to this issue, but it seems like you are more interested in pointing out how wrong or selfish people are than actually helping them understand the kind of problem that abortion is. In fact, it seems like you assume they don’t honestly hold the views they do on abortions and are just trying to be perverse, so there is no point having a discussion with them at all.

As for abortion laws - they are indeed more difficult when places try to implement them. Consider the law we used to have in Canada, which was meant to restrict abortion only to life and death situations. Not only was it very unpleasant for all concerned even in a legitimate situation, it was not very effective in really preventing abortions, and it was struck down because it was not compatible with other laws relating to medical information. Asking for perfect laws is not very realistic and some situations will always be difficult, but one would like them to be at least somewhat effective and compatible with other principles we hold as important as Christians.

 

[gearhead]

Some pro choice people like to make this an argument about religion. Religion has nothing to do with if we have the right to kill another human being. The most devout atheist does not believe we have the right to kill another human being. The religion argument is nothing but an attempt to change the subject and not face the real issue.

I disagree.

We can use science to ascertain the level of development of an embryo/fetus or measure the activity in it, but the question of when that level reaches a point where it should be recognized as a “person” is a question that’s likely beyond the purview of science. At that point, we turn to questions like “does the fetus have a ‘soul’?” and what the basis of our beliefs about the fetus are. And the answers to these questions are often rooted in religion.

 

[gearhead]

Morally speaking, creating laws against abortion is no different than creating laws against murder and that certainly has not been a problem.

Actually, I think that a blanket prohibition on abortion would be like having a blanket prohibition on killing… i.e. eradicating war.

Distinguishing between “immoral” forms of killing like murder and “moral” forms of killing like just war is a lot like having “acceptable” and “unacceptable” classes of abortion.

 

[CWBetts]

Actually, I think that a blanket prohibition on abortion would be like having a blanket prohibition on killing… i.e. eradicating war.

Distinguishing between “immoral” forms of killing like murder and “moral” forms of killing like just war is a lot like having “acceptable” and “unacceptable” classes of abortion.

unfortunately, there are no circumstances when taking the life of a person that you are wholly responsible for is acceptable. If pro-death people would be consistent, not only would they be pro-abortion, but also pro-euthanasia and pro-infanticide

 

[Bluegoat]

unfortunately, there are no circumstances when taking the life of a person that you are wholly responsible for is acceptable. If pro-death people would be consistent, not only would they be pro-abortion, but also pro-euthanasia and pro-infanticide

Infanticide is a fairly good comparison, because there is really little difference between an infant and older fetus. And there are a lot of people who have serious problems with late abortions on that basis. The question of early abortion really depends on what people think it means to be human - a complex question by all accounts, and there are a wide variety of views on it, some less thoughtful than others.

Now, one difficulty is that the Catholic Church - most Christian groups really - say that we are to give up everything for another, including our life, if required. However, to say the same thing legally is a different problem. How much of a person’s body/time/money or whatever can we legally oblige them to give up for the life of another? Can we oblige them to give up their health or their life?

If you look at the laws we have, we actually don’t insists that people give up their life, shatter their health, or even give up money (except through taxes) to help others, although we celebrate those that do such things as heroes - partly because they have done more than is required.

What is the difference between passively letting a person starve, drown or die because you won’t give blood, and actively causing someone to die to avoid these things? Or if we are in the water and a drowning victim tries to drag us down - what actions are we justified in taking, morally and legally? Legally we can’t take the active rout but we can take the passive rout. I remember once while serving overseas, my husband was not only allowed to, but required to use lethal force if necessary against someone who was going to steal his helmet. Morally I would argue both are difficult. In the drowning scenario I don’t think we would consider it a sin if the swimmer was unable to save the fellow who grabbed him. I guess I don’t see that it is always as simple as some make it out to be - not when you get down to the practical level of telling people what they ought to do in various real situations and what they are legally obliged to do.

I think it is important to differentiate what we think is right morally, and what we would like to see as a legal solution. Otherwise it becomes very difficult to move forward, people just complain about the lack of action among politicians without offering those politicians possible actions to take.

 

[gakroeger]

Well, I have to say I don’t think you are going to get very far in convincing people that abortion is wrong. It seems like you are simply demanding that they accept Catholisism, and then they will know abortion is wrong. That might be largely true, but it is entirely unlikely. Telling a person who is not Catholic that they should accept the CCs position on abortion as a matter of authority is not going to change their minds.

First of all I stated in the very first post that abortion has nothing to do with religion whether Catholic, Muslim, or whatever. Abortion is wrong morally under any religion or atheism if this embryo is human. The only question that merits discussion is if the embryo is human. If it is not human what is it? Don’t tell me it is only a collection of cells, biologically we are all just a collection of cells.
This is in fact a Catholic forum and the main target for my post is Catholics who use this forum and profess to be pro choice. Others are certainly welcome to read and comment; however, when you state that I am “demanding?” that they accept Catholicism, you are partially correct because I am speaking to Catholics when I quote Pope Paul VI.

I think you are also quite wrong to assume that people can’t understand the reasoning behind the Church’s position on abortion. It is not actually that difficult, and it isn’t exclusive to Catholicism either - it has it’s origins in pre-Christian philosophy. It could be very effective in reaching people.

No, I quite disagree; even most Catholics do not understand Humane Vitae.

And finally, you don’t seem to make any effort to understand why people have difficulty seeing it your way, why it doesn’t resonate for them. That doesn’t mean you have to agree or think it is sensible - though it would be good to realize that it is human. In teaching you always have to start with what the student knows and the limitations of their knowledge and experience, and move on from there.

I am not sure where this comes from; I fail to understand how you come to the conclusion that I do not understand how others think. You, like most of the pro choice people I have conversed with, SEEM to want to complicate a basically simple understanding. This is not an uncommon approach. You write as though you are in the center and not taking a side, however, you responses pretty clearly state your position. I guess it is more “comfortable” for you to take that position.

I am sure you are dedicated to this issue, but it seems like you are more interested in pointing out how wrong or selfish people are than actually helping them understand the kind of problem that abortion is. In fact, it seems like you assume they don’t honestly hold the views they do on abortions and are just trying to be perverse, so there is no point having a discussion with them at all.

This does not even warrant a response……

As for abortion laws - they are indeed more difficult when places try to implement them. Consider the law we used to have in Canada, which was meant to restrict abortion only to life and death situations. Not only was it very unpleasant for all concerned even in a legitimate situation, it was not very effective in really preventing abortions, and it was struck down because it was not compatible with other laws relating to medical information. Asking for perfect laws is not very realistic and some situations will always be difficult, but one would like them to be at least somewhat effective and compatible with other principles we hold as important as Christians.

Is the law against murder complicated? You refute the point without addressing it…….

Again, if the embryo is human, there is no need for another law against murder; we already have that in virtually every country. You continually miss the point or you just choose to ignore it.

 

[gearhead]

Is the law against murder complicated? You refute the point without addressing it…….

Again, if the embryo is human, there is no need for another law against murder; we already have that in virtually every country. You continually miss the point or you just choose to ignore it.

Even if the embryo is human, virtually every jurisdiction recognizes the right of the average citizen to choose to not place themselves at even a minor risk, even if it means the certain death of another person.

We’ve made great strides in making pregnancy safer, but carrying a pregnancy to term still represents a significant risk to the mother. It’s perfectly legal in most other situations for a person to stand by and do nothing at all to help while a person dies; why should it not be legal in this case as well?

If we take as given (for the purposes of this discussion) that a fetus or embryo is a person, What’s the fundamental moral difference between these two cases?

• a pregnant woman in her first trimester decides that she doesn’t want the personal risk of pregnancy and gets an abortion.
• a mother decides that she doesn’t want the personal risk of minor smoke inhalation or first-degree burns and leaves her baby in its crib next to the curtains that have caught fire and runs out of the house alone.

Keep in mind that the second course of action is perfectly legal.

Even if you establish that a fetus is a person (which by itself is a massive leap to make), you still haven’t reached a rationale for prohibition of abortion.

 

[Bluegoat]

First of all I stated in the very first post that abortion has nothing to do with religion whether Catholic, Muslim, or whatever. Abortion is wrong morally under any religion or atheism if this embryo is human. The only question that merits discussion is if the embryo is human. If it is not human what is it? Don’t tell me it is only a collection of cells, biologically we are all just a collection of cells.
This is in fact a Catholic forum and the main target for my post is Catholics who use this forum and profess to be pro choice. Others are certainly welcome to read and comment; however, when you state that I am “demanding?” that they accept Catholicism, you are partially correct because I am speaking to Catholics when I quote Pope Paul VI.

No, I quite disagree; even most Catholics do not understand Humane Vitae.

I am not sure where this comes from; I fail to understand how you come to the conclusion that I do not understand how others think. You, like most of the pro choice people I have conversed with, SEEM to want to complicate a basically simple understanding. This is not an uncommon approach. You write as though you are in the center and not taking a side, however, you responses pretty clearly state your position. I guess it is more “comfortable” for you to take that position.

This does not even warrant a response……

Is the law against murder complicated? You refute the point without addressing it…….

Again, if the embryo is human, there is no need for another law against murder; we already have that in virtually every country. You continually miss the point or you just choose to ignore it.

Why do you think that I am pro-choice? I’m not actually, which seems to make the majority of your statements here look pretty silly.

I did address your point about murder. Our laws about killing are actually considerable more complex than that. We have murder, self-defense, killing in war, and in the US there is the death penalty, and people are even allowed in some circumstances in the US to use lethal force to protect their property. And we also do not demand, legally, much in the way of self-sacrifice from people; we do not compel people to give up their lives to save another.

If you actually managed to pass a bill that said there was no way to get an abortion, even for serious medical reasons, than the first time there was a serious medical reason the law would be struck down. Which doesn’t seem very useful if you actually want to prevent abortions.

In any case, unless you convince people that it is wrong, you won’t get it passed. And many people have reservations, honest ones, about what we can insist upon from woman, and especially with what an embryo is. To say it is alive isn’t enough, you have to show that it is human, and that it is meaningful that it is human. So you aren’t likely to get anywhere unless you address these things.

That is what I mean by it being more complicated.

 

[CWBetts]

Even if the embryo is human, virtually every jurisdiction recognizes the right of the average citizen to choose to not place themselves at even a minor risk, even if it means the certain death of another person.

We’ve made great strides in making pregnancy safer, but carrying a pregnancy to term still represents a significant risk to the mother. It’s perfectly legal in most other situations for a person to stand by and do nothing at all to help while a person dies; why should it not be legal in this case as well?

If we take as given (for the purposes of this discussion) that a fetus or embryo is a person, What’s the fundamental moral difference between these two cases?

• a pregnant woman in her first trimester decides that she doesn’t want the personal risk of pregnancy and gets an abortion.
• a mother decides that she doesn’t want the personal risk of minor smoke inhalation or first-degree burns and leaves her baby in its crib next to the curtains that have caught fire and runs out of the house alone.

Keep in mind that the second course of action is perfectly legal.

Even if you establish that a fetus is a person (which by itself is a massive leap to make), you still haven’t reached a rationale for prohibition of abortion.

At conception, the new life has its own DNA . The Zygote has 23 pairs of chromosomes, unique from either parent. This makes it an individual of the species Homo sapiens, and therefore, a person.

 

[gearhead]

At conception, the new life has its own DNA .

A sperm cell or unfertilized egg cell also has its own DNA, distinct from the parent.

The Zygote has 23 pairs of chromosomes, unique from either parent. This makes it an individual of the species Homo sapiens, and therefore, a person.

Exactly how do you get from the number of chromosomes to worth? The actual attributes of the thing in question don’t matter to you?

If some anomaly caused the zygote to have 24 pairs of chromosomes, would you then consider the abortion of that fetus to be acceptable?

I realize that trying to gauge “worth” is difficult, but when I try to decide whether to treat a thing as a person, I ask myself questions like “can it reason?” “can it feel?” “is it self-aware?” It wouldn’t even occur to me to ask myself “how many chromosomes does it have?” To me, it seems that question is irrelevant: it’s not the number of chromosomes; it’s how the information on those chromosomes are actually expressed as attributes of the organism.

 

[gakroeger]

Even if the embryo is human, virtually every jurisdiction recognizes the right of the average citizen to choose to not place themselves at even a minor risk, even if it means the certain death of another person.
We’ve made great strides in making pregnancy safer, but carrying a pregnancy to term still represents a significant risk to the mother. It’s perfectly legal in most other situations for a person to stand by and do nothing at all to help while a person dies; why should it not be legal in this case as well?
If we take as given (for the purposes of this discussion) that a fetus or embryo is a person, What’s the fundamental moral difference between these two cases?

I never cease to be amazed at the stretches one will go to to justify something that is so obviously wrong. I believe it is called relativism and it is the opposite of seeking truth. Even if we totally ignore moral law and go with this secular legal argument, it does not hold water. The laws you refer to say you do not have to do something to prevent a situation that you are merely observing. It certainly does not say you can take violent action against that person to cause his/her death unless you yourself are in eminent danger from that person. Your argument would make sense only if the pregnant woman was in danger of losing her life because of the pregnancy.

Even if you establish that a fetus is a person (which by itself is a massive leap to make), you still haven’t reached a rationale for prohibition of abortion.

Wow, I have to admit, I have not run into many people who will argue the case of killing the baby even if they admit it is a human being with rights under both moral and secular laws.