Pro-choice

I wonder how much the pro-life stance correlates with religion and male gender?

It's ad hominem, but it's still important.

Religion? Probably. Gender? Unlikely. Many pro-life groups are headed by women. I don't have any statistics concerning the argument, but it's likely to be split, or close to it.

And how is it scientific to claim that being a person begins at conception either? Thats the point - there is no scientific definition of personhood.

Where did you get your information that a baby can feel pain at 8 weeks? According to my source it is not until 29-30 weeks that a fetus is likely to be able to feel pain.

To be honest I think the current cut-off (around 23 weeks I think?) is about the right time for the cutoff for abortions, it gives plenty of time for the choice to be made.

Pro life.

For me its a lot harder to choose than the death sentence one.

Adoption should always be the choice if you have a baby that you cannot cater and love. But if you have a baby and your 15 then its your own fault. And you need to take full responsibility for your stupid actions.

There is a strong correlation between one's stance on abortion and one's religion. Typically, white evangelical protestants are pro-life, Catholics are split 50/50 (I should note, however, that trends show Catholics are becoming increasingly pro-life and are increasingly supporting pro-life candidates), and white mainstream protestants are pro-choice. Both genders tend to poll around the same percentage as the other in regards to support of and opposition to abortion. However, pro-choice women are more likely to select a candidate because of his stance on abortion than pro-choice men.

I am pro-choice.

The widely used medical textbook The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states at page 2 that "The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous .... This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being ...." At page 18 this theme is repeated: "Human development begins at fertilization [emphasis in original] ...."

As for the source you've given was proven to be published by a NARAL Lawyer, a Susan Lee, rather than an independant study. Here's a little info on said JAMA article: The paper was the focus of considerable controversy after its publication, in part because of revelations that the lead author, Susan J. Lee, had been employed as a lawyer for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and that one of the co-authors, Dr. Eleanor A. Drey, directs the largest abortion clinic in San Francisco.

If you want the opposing view to the JAMA article, which offers insight into fetus pain, feel free to look at my source.

So it's quite arguable about when fetuses feel pain. However, the Thalamus (a strong prequisite for a being to feel pain) begins to develop within 10 days of conception, with it being fully developed at 8 weeks, as per my argument.

The development begins at fertilization but that does mean that personhood begins at fertilization. There is a difference.

Also I agree it is arguable when pain begins to be felt, there are more requirements for feeling pain than a thalamus however.

@ Mrstickball: So then why don't we prosecute women for drinking alcohol and doing drugs while they are pregnant when there is tons of documented evidence that it causes severe harm to the babies? Why don't we prosecute women who genetic diseases that will transfer to their children and make the children's life miserable? Why don't we prosecute a women for not getting prenatal care if it results in a miscarriage?

Why shouldn't we prosecute parents for feeding their children unhealthy foods? Why shouldn't we prosecute parents for not giving their kids vitamins? Why shouldn't we prosecute parents for spanking their kids? That causes pain.

You can argue that based on our scientific knowledge we should abort children if we know they will have Down's syndrome or some other incurable condition. Using science on the abortion issue is a slippery slope, as it can lead to absurd results sometimes. It is as much a constitutional issue as a scientific one.

Why don't we prosecute women for harming their unborn children with drugs & alchohol? I don't know. May be a good idea, given the fact we already do that when the kids are born, and have parents that let them become malnourished & are negligent parents.

Also, your taking the rest of the argument to the level of being retarded. An abortion is a choice by the mother to destroy the fetus. Your bringing in retarded, baseless arguments into it, and you know it. There's a huge diffeence between a woman walking into a clinic and asking a doctor to rip apart an 8 week old fetus, and remove it from her, and her having a naturally occuring genetic defect given to the baby.

Parents are stupid, but in America, we do prosecute them when they do things far beyond the normal, including murder, which is a choice. Again, social services takes children every day away from unsafe homes of bad parents, and we see bad, incompotent parents punished for being dumb. But that doesn't mean that when we punish the parents, we kill the kids for living with unsafe parents, do we? But in this instance (abortion) it's approved of, and considered a right by the mother.

And I agree that it's a constitutional issue as much as a scientific one. And I'm on the side that when you have a fully healthy baby (again, in 90%+ of the abortions, this is the motivation/reasoning) and destroy it, your murdering a person. People should take more responsibility for their actions, even if it means carrying a baby to term. That doesn't mean that a retarded decision by that woman should force her to mother the child for the rest of her life, but it does mean there should be consequences - the same kind of you do something extreme such as drink and drive (having your license taken away).