To say that it is death implies that there is life to begin with.
This argument doesn't stand for any of us that aren't buying your perspective of 'immediate personhood' (such as the medical community)
You aren't backing up these arguments with anything scientific at all. Just because you want it to be so doesn't mean that it is.
If you were to come across an embryo just sitting around (um.. as they usually do?) outside of a womb, would you even know what it was? Could you recognize it as anything human? Even if I were to use medical science to help you by giving you a microscope, would even know what you were looking at?
So something that cannot even be seen by the human eye, or identified by a non-medical trained brain carries just as much (if not more) weight as a free-thinking woman who has the ability to decide whether or not she is willing and able to carry it to full term, deliver it and then make a decision regarding it's life? How would you trust a woman to care for a child she's been forced to have, anyway? Or instead would you further infringe upon her rights by insisting upon adoption? "hmm... since abortion is illegal, you can't seek one out, but you don't seem very enthused about this pregnancy so we are going to take the resulting baby from you!"
Great idea! No wonder everyone is jumping on board with you!
Your argument seems to come down to your belief that all life is valuable. That the life of an unborn child is just as valuable as that of a women.
If it is a choice between the life of either because of a medical issue and only about survival then I go with the mother because of the hurt and harm her death can cause to so many others.
If her life is not in danger physically, but it is a case of emotional health and /or a radical change of circumstances to her life it becomes blurry, how much can we as a society ask a women to sacrifice to save the life of an unborn child. Her life is valuable and it is affected by carrying a child to term and giving birth. Even if she gives her child away it would be very difficult for all involved.
We still must compare the quality of life for the mother and those involved, with the loss of an unborn child's opportunity for life. This I suppose is where we part company because I value the mother's existing life and circumstances higher, particularly as there are so many cases where a child born would be very distressing for not just the mother but a chain of others.
I am asking myself these questions:
Is simply being alive a valuable thing?
If it is our brains that give us meaning is there any loss if we have not yet developed thoughts? And when do we begin to do this in a way that might experience loss?
Should we ensure survival at all cost? If so why do we let African children die?
If I could answer these I might have a better answer for the abortion debate. I am still thinking about this issue.
We kill people to make ourselves happier every single day, just by choosing to have when others have not.
But to developed thoughts; a 15 month old or even a newborn has already been born and we would not advocate killing them because at this point they can be given to someone else to raise. The mother has already gone through the trauma of pregnancy and birth.
Before this or let's say before they can survive outside the womb is another story and I would ask the question can you kill something that has no thoughts. Why not? I really want a clear idea why you think killing something is bad. I am not being cold, I of course have emotional reasons myself to feel this sounds bad, but why is it bad?
Why shouldn't the happiness of one person who is living and already linked to the emotions of others be more important than a bunch of cells with potential for life, a potential human that crucially will not have a physical, or emotional response to the situation at all?
Is it that LIFE is so valuable in your view? If so why? What is so special about living?
Ok... a fungus is a life, a bacteria is a life... and we kill those every time we blink, swallow, scratch an itch.. eat food, eat MEAT (which is a free thinking life) eat plants (which have been shown to have some awareness) and basically live, thereby killing lifeforms by the billions and billions.
So what is one more, especially when it isn't just for day to day life, but for survival/necessity/choice?
What gives an embryo special rights? Because it's a human embryo? Does that mean you are against any birth control that can potentially cause early term miscarriage? What about ectopic pregnancies? There have been huge leaps in relocating the embryo to the womb. Should a woman that has one of these have to attempt to have it relocated or face punishment?
Awareness or lack there of does not equal life. That was never my argument. My argument is that you cannot force a woman to go through a risky medical procedure such as childbirth. The decision is hers to make because there are multiple variables involved. Physical health, emotional health, future reproduction, ect....
To say 'she made her choice when she had sex' (discounting a rape argument, I'd assume) would be like saying that STDs should not be treated for either gender.
1: Am not against killing trees; I was just replying to "Saying that it dies implies there was life".
2: I am against birth control that causes a miscarriage.
3: STD can be treated because the treatment does not necessitate killing someone else.
4: If the embryo could be relocated, that would be the only acceptable option.
5: We do not kill by having when others do not. There is a HUGE difference between killing and not saving.
6: I am entirely in support of free birth control for everyone, but I'm a communist so that's not saying much.
7: A lot of the arguments I'm seeing place emotions before rights and/or do not justify abortion after viability.
Um.. no. Even under Right to Rescue and other laws that apply to anyone that is trained in first aid, CPR, ect.....they are under no obligation to help any persons they see injured if they feel their own life might be in danger or that they might sustain injury.
I am a trained police diver. At any time, for any reason I can call off a dive. Even if I see someone clinging to a tree in the middle of a flooded river, I can shake my head and say "sorry, we aren't going in there. I'm not risking myself or my team in these conditions." I don't even have to give a reason for why I'm calling it off. I can say I 'had a bad feeling' and that is enough.
If my sister was going to die if I didn't give her a kidney, it is not murder for me to say no. Hell, it isn't even murder for me to say no, then sell the same kidney to someone else the next day.
When and where I endanger myself is my choice, no matter who or how many lives are involved, especially when your idea of 'life' isn't supported by anyone with medical knowledge.
I'm not sure how many times I can state this, but YOU have no legal grounds to ask anyone to risk themselves. Not for another human, not for an animal, sure as fuck not for something that can't think, breathe, feel pain, or have self awareness. There are laws to protect people from that way of thinking.
Outside of the argument, but on personal grounds, I'm even more insulted that you would demand such a risk from women when you are physically safe from the same thing. It's nothing you'll ever physically have to worry about, so sure, it is easy for you to cast judgment, as backwards and ungrounded as your reasoning may be.
lol....no, no you can't...you know...for someone who will never be able to give birth...you're pretty set in your ways and don't seem to believe in reason. you're kind of a nutbar of sorts...thinking for one minute that it is your right to tell others what to do with their bodies shows you may have some extreme control issues...socio-issues...worry about yourself and keep to yourself. you seem like the type to attack a clinic or something
Okay, here's my angle. I believe you're saying that at conception, a zygote should immediately have all of the rights of an adult human being. As an attorney and former criminal prosecutor, I see real problems with this.
As Dave G pointed out, this would mean that a miscarriage would be equal to the death of an adult human being under the law. If we are really and truly to enact and enforce laws that make it illegal to kill a fetus then we will have to deal with each and every miscarriage as a possible murder until the exact cause of death is established. Women would have to be required to report these "deaths" just as people are required to do with regard to deaths of adults. Police would have to investigate each and every death of a zygote or fetus. Some miscarriages are caused by hormone imbalances that could have been corrected, or consumption of alcohol or medications. We will have to decide as a society how to punish this negligence. Additional laws would have to be passed to regulate how pregnant women live so that they don't inflict harm upon the fetus - drinking, smoking, taking medications, all of these things would not be the choice of the pregnant woman, because the fetus would have its own rights that would have to be protected somehow.
Somehow, our society would have to pay for the increased police, guardians ad litem, prosecutors, judges, coroners, etc. Any abortion that is performed to save the mother's life would have to be reported and investigated. If the police disagree with the doctor and think that the mother's life wasn't in as much danger as the doctor thought, this would result in her arrest and prosecution for murder. A jury would then have to decide whether her life was in enough danger to allow an abortion. If they believe that it wasn't, it's off to prison for her and her doctor.
Other countries will not change their laws, and women who can afford it will go to Canada and get an abortion there. Will we have laws to prevent this? Though the "crime" is committed outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., would it be a crime to transport a fetus out of the country in order to kill it? If so, will pregnant women have restrictions on travel?
Then there are the fetuses developing without brains or who are missing vital organ and will not survive upon birth. Can the mother have this fetus aborted? Or does she have to go through to the end of the pregnancy, give birth, and then watch the baby die? Who will make this decision? The police?
It's my understanding that libertarian ideals promote greater freedom for all and less government control of people's lives. However, having an actual workable legal structure that affords fetuses the same rights as a human adult would be incredibly burdensome, with almost all of the burden being on women (with a good portion on doctors as well). This system would require huge public resources to enforce and it would turn our society into a place in which no self-respecting woman would want to live.
It's all well and good to have a personal opinion that a fetus should be treated as a human being and to live your own life accordingly, but to write this into law in such a way as to actually protect fetuses to the same extent that adults are protected would have incredible repercussions on society and the rights of women.