80 replies to this topic

[sUper GeNius]

Americans usually get guns at an early age.

Come on, be realistic here. Most anti-gunners wouldn't consider that a picture of an American. That's simply a lump of tissue, (albeit with a completely unique genetic code, go figure.) that is to excised at will or whim.

And not all pro-gunners would consider that people should be prevented from controlling what goes on in their own bodies, either. It seems that most people have their own favorites amongst rights that should and should not be protected, instead of allowing maximum freedom to all.

Luckily, probably neither right will be taken anytime in the forseeable future, since both sides need the groups of people with their various oppositions to freedom to keep getting elected. Republicans will never get rid of abortion and lose that carrot to lead their followers; same with Democrats and guns. You never know tho; stranger things have happened. But really you can't ever get rid of either, even with laws; it just makes them both much more dangerous, and increases the already huge number of people criminalized in our society by the restriction of basic freedoms.

Republicans won't lose grasp of the abortion issue because most of the anti-abortion sentiment is fueled by religious sentiment, not politics. When the Pope talks, people listen. My personal opinion regarding abortion has nothing to do with religion. I simply feel the *fetus* is the one whose personal freedom should trump the woman's. Not sure if it's a human being? Perhaps it should be given the benefit of the doubt. Abortion is rarely a medical necessity. It's a convenience, a solution to a "problem" that a responsible person could have prevented in the first place. IMO "pro-choice" sentiment was the result of this nation having the equivalent of an epileptic fit in the 70's. In the tug of war for and against women's rights and the ERA, somehow the gestation method of the human species became a woman's privacy issue. Too bad we didn't evolve from marsupials. If that baby gestated(a word?) on the *outside* in a woman's pouch, I don't think abortion would be an issue, do you?

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 16 November 2008 - 05:14 PM.

[Moonbeam]

Republicans won't lose grasp of the abortion issue because most of the anti-abortion sentiment is fueled by religious sentiment, not politics.

In that case it depends on high much of a grip the fundies have on the Republicans, which may be slipping. To most Republican politicians, it is only politics; a lot of them become much more anti-abortion if it becomes a political necessity, which it does if they move up high enough. If the Republicans really are imploding, it will be interesting to see what happens. I think you're right that the vast majority of the oppostion is within the religious crowd.

When the Pope talks, people listen.

If it's convenient. We haven't gotten rid of the death penalty. Most Catholics in this country use birth control. The evangelicals are much more pushy about other people following their rules in this country, it seems.

I simply feel the *fetus* is the one whose personal freedom should trump the woman's. Not sure if it's a human being? Perhaps it should be given the benefit of the doubt. Abortion is rarely a medical necessity. It's a convenience, a solution to a "problem" that a responsible person could have prevented in the first place.

The fetus is does well or not at the discretion of the mother, that will always be the case, whether abortion is outlawed or not. If somebody wants to get rid of it badly enough, she will find a way, maybe injuring herself in the process. It is much easier now, with access to certain drugs, but in the same way that not everybody has access to infallible birth control, not everybody will have access to those drugs. Not yet, but that day isn't far off, I don't think. Not everybody is always in a situation to be responsible enough to prevent the problem, whatever the reason, whether due to their own failings or something outside their control. And it when it comes to teenagers, that's pretty much the same thing, isn't it?

In the tug of war for and against women's rights and the ERA, somehow the gestation method of the human species became a woman's privacy issue.

It's a freedom issue. If you own yourself and your body, you should have the right to control what goes on in it. I'm not sure why you say "somehow", what else could it be?

Too bad we didn't evolve from marsupials. If that baby gestated(a word?) on the *outside* in a woman's pouch, I don't think abortion would be an issue, do you?

Lol, interesting thought. In that case it would be a lot easier to just "lose" your fetus. "Whoops! It must have fallen off!" Actually that happens now, in a way; lots of embroyos left over from in-vitro fertilization are destroyed all the time, many more than are implanted. Clusters of cells just don't cause that much sentiment in most people. Lots of pregnancies are aborted naturally within the first few months (a huge percentage, actually, most before the woman even knows she's pregnant.)

If people really care that much about saving every product of conception after the fact, they should support things that prevent conception in the first place. Next best solution is morning-after type drugs that get rid of it right away. Anybody who argues against those things is contributing to more abortions when the fetus is more developed, and unless you think that every genetic combination is sacred, I would think would be a better thing to avoid.

[eternaltraveler]

~60% of conceptions do not result birth. Abortion is the rule, not the exception. [PMID]7117572 *

61.9% of conceptuses will be lost prior to 12 weeks. Most of these losses (91.7%) occur subclinically, without the knowledge of the mother.

God evidently doesn't care very much about zygotes at that stage of development. Why should we?

*some studies have found higher incidence of early term miscarriages, some lower.

Edited by elrond, 17 November 2008 - 06:05 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

~60% of conceptions do not result birth. Abortion is the rule, not the exception. [PMID]7117572 *

61.9% of conceptuses will be lost prior to 12 weeks. Most of these losses (91.7%) occur subclinically, without the knowledge of the mother.

God evidently doesn't care very much about zygotes at that stage of development. Why should we?

*some studies have found higher incidence of early term miscarriages, some lower.

Great argument. And since the vast majority of born humans die "at God's hands," (a natural death,) why should we care about them? Goofy.

[eternaltraveler]

~60% of conceptions do not result birth. Abortion is the rule, not the exception. [PMID]7117572 *

61.9% of conceptuses will be lost prior to 12 weeks. Most of these losses (91.7%) occur subclinically, without the knowledge of the mother.

God evidently doesn't care very much about zygotes at that stage of development. Why should we?

*some studies have found higher incidence of early term miscarriages, some lower.

Great argument. And since the vast majority of born humans die "at God's hands," (a natural death,) why should we care about them? Goofy.

I was being sarcastic. Since their is no scientific argument to be made that can give a reason why we should give a damn about killing a small cluster of cells (well maybe it would work for a buddhist who makes sure he doesn't step on a fly), one has to rely on religious arguments. The above information makes that argument immediately fail the smell test.

Edited by elrond, 17 November 2008 - 09:43 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

~60% of conceptions do not result birth. Abortion is the rule, not the exception. [PMID]7117572 *

61.9% of conceptuses will be lost prior to 12 weeks. Most of these losses (91.7%) occur subclinically, without the knowledge of the mother.

God evidently doesn't care very much about zygotes at that stage of development. Why should we?

*some studies have found higher incidence of early term miscarriages, some lower.

Great argument. And since the vast majority of born humans die "at God's hands," (a natural death,) why should we care about them? Goofy.

I was being sarcastic. Since their is no scientific argument to be made that can give a reason why we should give a damn about killing a small cluster of cells (well maybe it would work for a buddhist who makes sure he doesn't step on a fly), one has to rely on religious arguments. The above information makes that argument immediately fail the smell test.

I don't think I understand. There is no scientific argument against killing a full-grown human. Science doesn't enter into it. It's ethics, morality, and for some, religion.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 18 November 2008 - 01:42 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

I don't think I understand. There is no scientific argument against killing a full-grown human. Science doesn't enter into it. It's ethics, morality, and for some, religion.

Of course you understand, you are being deliberately difficult.

Since their is no scientific argument to be made that can give a reason why we should give a damn about killing a small cluster of cells

A reason would be something like this morula is in fact a conscious thinking being because of X(give scientific reasoning). It would then fall into the ethical framework we use for other conscious thinking beings. Ethics do not exist in a vacuum. They must be biased on something. You don't just arbitrarily assign value to things do you? Since our society condones killing flies and rats when they are a bothersome too us, also we don't loose much sleep over the billions of skin cells we slough off (each one being capable developing into a human with adequate technology as IPS cells demonstrate to us), and killing a conseptsus at an early stage of development is essentially equivalent to killing something of that complexity, therefore there is nothing in rational ethics that would not condone it. The only thing in our society that arbitrarily picks this issue to be inflamed about is religion. Thats because it is based on schizophrenic delusions, tied together with people who use it to control other people.

[sUper GeNius]

I don't think I understand. There is no scientific argument against killing a full-grown human. Science doesn't enter into it. It's ethics, morality, and for some, religion.

Of course you understand, you are being deliberately difficult.

Since their is no scientific argument to be made that can give a reason why we should give a damn about killing a small cluster of cells

A reason would be something like this morula is in fact a conscious thinking being because of X(give scientific reasoning). It would then fall into the ethical framework we use for other conscious thinking beings. Ethics do not exist in a vacuum. They must be biased on something. You don't just arbitrarily assign value to things do you? Since our society condones killing flies and rats when they are a bothersome too us, also we don't loose much sleep over the billions of skin cells we slough off (each one being capable developing into a human with adequate technology as IPS cells demonstrate to us), and killing a conseptsus at an early stage of development is essentially equivalent to killing something of that complexity, therefore there is nothing in rational ethics that would not condone it. The only thing in our society that arbitrarily picks this issue to be inflamed about is religion. Thats because it is based on schizophrenic delusions, tied together with people who use it to control other people.

Are you comparing a person's dead skin cells with a human fetus, with it's own individual human genetic code? A skin cell will not develop into a talking, thinking, rational person, but a fetus, with simply nourishment and oxygen, becomes something very different than a dead skin cell dusting up my coffee table. At a very early stage teh fetus has the physical appearance of a human as well as a brain and organs.

Since you disagree, at what point does this lump of cells go from being like skin cells to being a human? Where is the cutoff?

See, I look at it like this. Either the fetus is simply a worthless lump of tissue and the woman can do whatever she pleases with it, or the fetus is a human being, deserving of all rights given humans. If we make a decision either way, what are the consequences of an incorrect decision? If the fetus is a human, and the woman chooses abortion, then a human being is killed. If the fetus is no more than ordinary tissue, yet we require that the woman bring it to term against her will, then the woman is inconvenienced for nine months. Which is the better(or worse) mistake to make?

Rational ethics? If I kill a rich man, I steal his money, now I am rich. Quite rational.

p.s. It seems that almost half of the US thinks abortion should be illegal.

http://www.pollingre...om/abortion.htm

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 18 November 2008 - 05:41 AM.

[Moonbeam]

yet we require that the woman bring it to term against her will, then the woman is inconvenienced for nine months.

Surely you know there is a lot more to having a baby than being inconvenienced for nine months. Life is a little more complicated than that for most people. A lot of women who get pregnant accidentally are probably not going to be in ideal circumcstances for pregnancy to be just an "inconvenience". Not to mention twelve year olds, rape, incest, drug abuse, inability to support oneself or continue to work while pregnant, possible violent repercussions, etc.?

Would you make any exceptions besides the life of the mother? If so, aren't you making a decision based on something other than the fact that a genetically unique person is involved? If you think it's OK for you can make that decision, then why shouldn't the person who is much more involved in the situation than you decide if it is a good idea to continue the pregnancy or not?

Should society support the women while they are pregnant, then take care of them and the offspring afterwards? How about in cases where the fetus is found to be deformed or genetically messed up? Should the mother be forced to carry them, possibly to reject them after they are born? I guess we should get rid of prenatal testing, because the point of that is to discover these things in time to do an abortion.

Should all those embroyos discarded during IVF be implanted into women without their consent, if necessary? I would think according to your reasoning that would be necessary. Those embryos have unique genetics and and would develop into people if given a place to grow, and the women will just be a little inconvenienced.

I could go on but I guess I won't. My point is that it's a more complex issue than "it's bad to destroy unique genetic codes", but I know some people are not bothered by the details or the implications. It's an unenforceable law anyway, and like all unenforcable laws, having them on the books weakens all the necessary laws.

p.s. It seems that almost half of the US thinks abortion should be illegal.

Should the majority should be able to vote away the rights of the minority? How about if the majority wants to take away gun rights?

[eternaltraveler]

Are you comparing a person's dead skin cells with a human fetus, with it's own individual human genetic code?

yes I am. With very near the technology we have this moment (indeed, with the technology we have this moment if it were applied to this purpose), somatic cells can be induced to become whatever you want them to be. Including another person. Therefore every cell in your body has this nebulous "potential". As far as individual genetic code.... please. I suppose you don't think of monozygotic twins as individual beings?

Since you disagree, at what point does this lump of cells go from being like skin cells to being a human? Where is the cutoff?

Once there is enough neural complexity that there is a chance that a human being could be there. I can't give you exact dates. But I can say with near absolute certainty that it would be somewhere between sometime in the third trimester (as a absolute earliest possible stage), and sometime well after birth. Birth seems a good cutoff. But by far the vast majority of abortions by far take place in the first trimester.

See, I look at it like this. Either the fetus is simply a worthless lump of tissue and the woman can do whatever she pleases with it, or the fetus is a human being, deserving of all rights given humans. If we make a decision either way, what are the consequences of an incorrect decision? If the fetus is a human, and the woman chooses abortion, then a human being is killed. If the fetus is no more than ordinary tissue, yet we require that the woman bring it to term against her will, then the woman is inconvenienced for nine months. Which is the better(or worse) mistake to make?

This is a rational position to take. However we aren't exactly dealing with zero information. Assuming we aren't looking at this from a religious perspective it is impossible that a mind could be there before there is a brain. So you should not have a problem at least with early term abortions. Maybe you start to have one with later term ones.

p.s. It seems that almost half of the US thinks abortion should be illegal.

around the same number that believe in virgin birth. Not very impressive.

[eternaltraveler]

Are you comparing a person's dead skin cells with a human fetus, with it's own individual human genetic code?

a slight correction to what I said above. With near present tech we would need to get the cells while they are still living. IPS cells were made from fibroblasts.

[sUper GeNius]

Elrond wrote:

Once there is enough neural complexity that there is a chance that a human being could be there. I can't give you exact dates. But I can say with near absolute certainty that it would be somewhere between sometime in the third trimester (as a absolute earliest possible stage), and sometime well after birth. Birth seems a good cutoff. But by far the vast majority of abortions by far take place in the first trimester.

A thought experiment for you. If our species' gestation was like that of a marsupial, the fetus crawling from the mother and into a pouch for the gestation period, at what point would you consider an abortion okay, ethically?

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 18 November 2008 - 03:07 PM.

[inawe]

[eternaltraveler]

A thought experiment for you. If our species' gestation was like that of a marsupial, the fetus crawling from the mother and into a pouch for the gestation period, at what point would you consider an abortion okay, ethically?

there is no need for a thought experiment here. With present tech fetuses born after only 21 weeks gestation can survive outside the womb (that is the middle of the 2nd trimester), which is certainly well before the point it would cease to become ok ethically. Soon the tech will arrive where we will be able to grow a human straight from fertilized egg to full term baby in an artificial womb. This changes nothing in my mind. A human baby doesn't demonstrate anything like self awareness until sometime well after birth. There are of course deep seated biological reasons why our society would never consider anything post birth, and I'm not a woman, so I'm much more concerned how the anti abortion stance is holding back stem cell research which we all will need to survive, than I am about allowing abortion as late as possible.

In another abortion thread I found a good article on the neurological development of the fetus and early newborn, I'll see if I can find it (I think I'll split the abortion related posts in this topic to there own thread, it's strayed widely from gun control)

[eternaltraveler]

http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=195433

here is the link to the article I referred to above in the second post down. The first one relates to catholic theology regarding abortion.

Edited by elrond, 18 November 2008 - 07:38 PM.

[luv2increase]

Is not a baby in the womb going to be a person capable of chatting on Imminst someday? This shouldn't be a biological debate. This is and should always have been a philosophical debate. The point being is that life will one day become a person and member of society. There is no difference in killing life at 1 week, 1 year, 1 decade, 1 score, or 1 century. Of course that person will look and appear different at each of those biological ages, yet the fact remains is that it is still living.

[eternaltraveler]

Is not a baby in the womb going to be a person capable of chatting on Imminst someday? This shouldn't be a biological debate. This is and should always have been a philosophical debate. The point being is that life will one day become a person and member of society. There is no difference in killing life at 1 week, 1 year, 1 decade, 1 score, or 1 century. Of course that person will look and appear different at each of those biological ages, yet the fact remains is that it is still living.

Your religious position is well established. It has become abundantly clear there can be no meaningful discussion on any subject that goes against it. We must agree to disagree.

[Connor MacLeod]

I don't think I understand. There is no scientific argument against killing a full-grown human. Science doesn't enter into it. It's ethics, morality, and for some, religion.

Of course you understand, you are being deliberately difficult.

Since their is no scientific argument to be made that can give a reason why we should give a damn about killing a small cluster of cells

A reason would be something like this morula is in fact a conscious thinking being because of X(give scientific reasoning). It would then fall into the ethical framework we use for other conscious thinking beings. Ethics do not exist in a vacuum.

But at what point does a developing human being become a conscious thinking being?

Personally, I don't feel a strong emotional attachment to a small clump of several hundred cells, but when I'm start to see hands, feet, a face, etc. something inside me says "this is not just a clump of cells, this is a fellow human being" - regardless of whether the developing human being is able to read Greek or code up an efficient implementation of the quicksort algorithm in C++.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 19 November 2008 - 02:17 AM.

[sUper GeNius]

Is not a baby in the womb going to be a person capable of chatting on Imminst someday? This shouldn't be a biological debate. This is and should always have been a philosophical debate. The point being is that life will one day become a person and member of society. There is no difference in killing life at 1 week, 1 year, 1 decade, 1 score, or 1 century. Of course that person will look and appear different at each of those biological ages, yet the fact remains is that it is still living.

Your religious position is well established. It has become abundantly clear there can be no meaningful discussion on any subject that goes against it. We must agree to disagree.

Did you take the bit you quoted to be a religious argument? One could be an atheist and make that argument on ethical or moral grounds.

[eternaltraveler]

Is not a baby in the womb going to be a person capable of chatting on Imminst someday? This shouldn't be a biological debate. This is and should always have been a philosophical debate. The point being is that life will one day become a person and member of society. There is no difference in killing life at 1 week, 1 year, 1 decade, 1 score, or 1 century. Of course that person will look and appear different at each of those biological ages, yet the fact remains is that it is still living.

Your religious position is well established. It has become abundantly clear there can be no meaningful discussion on any subject that goes against it. We must agree to disagree.

Did you take the bit you quoted to be a religious argument? One could be an atheist and make that argument on ethical or moral grounds.

honestly at this point I take everything he says to be a religious argument.

Yours isn't; perhaps if I give you some new piece of information you can even change it. I can do the same if you provide me with some new piece of information or way about thinking about things. Therefore a discussion we have can have some meaning. I'm not hear because I want to win a debate. I want to learn.

[eternaltraveler]

I don't think I understand. There is no scientific argument against killing a full-grown human. Science doesn't enter into it. It's ethics, morality, and for some, religion.

Of course you understand, you are being deliberately difficult.

Since their is no scientific argument to be made that can give a reason why we should give a damn about killing a small cluster of cells

A reason would be something like this morula is in fact a conscious thinking being because of X(give scientific reasoning). It would then fall into the ethical framework we use for other conscious thinking beings. Ethics do not exist in a vacuum.

But at what point does a developing human being become a conscious thinking being?

Personally, I don't feel a strong emotional attachment to a small clump of several hundred cells, but when I'm start to see hands, feet, a face, etc. something inside me says "this is not just a clump of cells, this is a fellow human being" - regardless of whether the developing human being is able to read Greek or code up an efficient implementation of the quicksort algorithm in C++.

see this http://brainmind.com...evelopment.html for a review article on this very subject (re: when does it become a conscious thinking being). I linked to this in a post above, but not directly.

[luv2increase]

Is not a baby in the womb going to be a person capable of chatting on Imminst someday? This shouldn't be a biological debate. This is and should always have been a philosophical debate. The point being is that life will one day become a person and member of society. There is no difference in killing life at 1 week, 1 year, 1 decade, 1 score, or 1 century. Of course that person will look and appear different at each of those biological ages, yet the fact remains is that it is still living.

Your religious position is well established. It has become abundantly clear there can be no meaningful discussion on any subject that goes against it. We must agree to disagree.

This has nothing to do with religion. I need for you to be a little more open-minded and look past my religious views. I completely wrote the aforementioned in a philosophical way. You must not have noticed the absence of anything there related to God, the Bible, or religion.

Edited by luv2increase, 19 November 2008 - 03:10 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

you want me to play. fine.

Is not a baby in the womb going to be a person capable of chatting on Imminst someday? This shouldn't be a biological debate. This is and should always have been a philosophical debate. The point being is that life will one day become a person and member of society. There is no difference in killing life at 1 week, 1 year, 1 decade, 1 score, or 1 century. Of course that person will look and appear different at each of those biological ages, yet the fact remains is that it is still living.

First, a blastocyst is not a baby.

Does not every sperm and egg have the potential to become a person capable of chatting on imminst someday? Is that not true of every somatic cell in your body? Is that not true for every random collection of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus atoms if they were arranged properly? The potentiality argument fails the smell test just a surely as the god wants all fertilizations to result in babies argument. Or maybe we are being to human centric. In humans less than 40% of fertilizations result in births. In Guinea pigs 98% of ovulations result in births. Maybe humans were the test subject to design the guinea pig.

This has been a philosophical debate. Philosophy, like ethics, doesn't exist in vacuum. The biology is absolutely critical in having a philosophical debate on the subject. I know you would prefer we keep science out of the discussion so we be forced to draw all of our arguments from arbitrary sources, thereby giving yours a chance, but it ain't going to happen.

Edited by elrond, 19 November 2008 - 03:45 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

honestly at this point I take everything he says to be a religious argument.

he was kind enough to illustrate this once more in another thread.

see http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=278550

[inawe]

One can look at any issue from many different points of view. Even if it can be simplified one can try to complicate it to death.
Abortion, at least at the beginning of pregnancy, should be just about the choice of the mother or a medical issue. Elrond arguments should
be more than sufficient to lay that to rest.
People who call themselves conservatives claim the abortion issue is much more complicated. They would like to see all pregnancies to
result in births. They are against anti-conception measures (abstinence, abstinence,...). They are also against welfare mothers.
And they advocate for more efficient, cheaper schools. It's clear they don't know what's going on in the real world.
Many high schools have nurseries. Since anti-conceptives are not readily available and only abstinence is preached, 14-18 year old girls get
pregnant. A lot of school resources go into these nurseries. Resources that can be better used in improving education. Distracted by their
children it's harder for the young girls to learn.
Most of the young single mothers later on have to resort to welfare. Many of the unwanted children grow up to become criminals. This whole thing
represents a huge burden on society.
The best solution for everybody would be to counsel these pregnant school girls about the possibility of having an abortion. At the beginning of the
pregnancy an abortion is a much easier operation than the appendectomy I had a couple of years ago. My appendix was a living thing but I
didn't hesitate in having it removed.

[biknut]

Being the conservative that I am, if I were king of the world I still would not ban Abortion. I would try to make support and education available to all so less women would feel the need for an abortion, but I understand that after that, some will still feel it's what they have to do.

I don't really have a big problem with an abortion in the first trimester. After that it gets a little more complicated. I'm definitely against elective late term abortion, especially one minute before birth where the mother decides, " Oh, I don't want this baby after all", and they just toss the baby on a table to starve to death, or a nurse holds it in her arms till it dies.

If abortion is equal to gun control then to be fair, the way it is now minors should be allowed to walk into a gun store and buy a bazooka, or shoulder fired missile launcher without parental consent.

[niner]

If the state has the power to compel a woman to have a child, then what would stop them from compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will?

[inawe]

If the state has the power to compel a woman to have a child, then what would stop them from compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will?

In China some married couples would like to have more than one child. The state puts some pressure for women with one child already to have
an abortion if they get pregnant again.
The situation is different with unwanted pregnancies in the US. First, it should be easier for young girls to get birth control devices and
tutorials of how to use them.
If they do get pregnant they should be explained what would happen to them and the child, if they carry the pregnancy to term.
Safe abortions should be readily available.
People who call themselves conservatives put obstacles to each of these steps. These are social and/or fiscal conservatives, and some
other kinds.
So, this is to your fiscal conservative aspect:
What's the cost to society of an unwanted pregnancy in a young unmarried girl? Both for preventing the girl from continuing her
education and later on due to a child without a proper upbringing. On average these children will grow up to be a burden on society.
I'm sure somebody can figure out the cost. I'm too lazy to do it so I'll throw some figures. 1/4 million, 1/2 million? Multiply that for
all the unwanted pregnancies. Fiscal conservative: why are you forcing us to throw all that money down the drain?

[sUper GeNius]

If the state has the power to compel a woman to have a child, then what would stop them from compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will?

No one compelled her to have a child, because no one compelled her to conceive. The child existed long before its birth. As far as the government killing a child, the government does in fact have that right, through judicial process, to kill a person. They do it fairly often. I'm pretty sure though that we wouldn't see many unborn children convicted of capital crimes.

[Mind]

Wow, an amazingly civil abortion debate! Let us keep it that way because it is an important issue from an immortalist perspective.

I am agnostic but I still have a problem with some abortions similar to others mentioning the "squeamishness" of terminating a developing human with hands, feet, a beating heart, brain activity - doesn't feel right to me. Elrond mentioned the Buddhist philosophy earlier, which would be similar to the most strict religious stances on life - don't harm even the tiniest cell that has a chance at life. What I feel we need is a more rigorous definition of when life begins. Conception is the first possibility, but has problems. Women can become pregnant and not be aware about it for a month or more. Therefore, if they act carelessly and ingest harmful substances, and lose the developing human, would that be akin to negligent homicide? In the most strict interpretation of "human life begins at conception", then yes it would be a horrible crime and should be punished.

I am looking for some other definition of when a new person begins. Certain types of brain activity? A certain stage of organ development? The point where a fetus can survive outside the womb? It would be nice to have a more rigorous definition. With the blurry lines that exist today, there is no easy way to determine when a fetus was aborted and a when human was killed. It is a dilemma in my mind anyway.