Well it does make sense from the pro life stance.   Not shooting pregnant women though.

The largest issue in the abortion debate is that neither side is even having the same arguement.  It's really a two part arugement.

You don't see many pro choice advocates with a clear cut definition of when they think human life begins.

(I'd say when the brain develops brain waives myself.)

Then once a pretty solid consensus on when human life begins is established, there needs to be the woman's choice arguement.  At that point that it is human, does it make sense for a woman to be forced to keep the child?  Afterall, we are still talking about forcing someone to take care of another person against their will.

Is there a point where it's probably a person but it's still, it's parasitic nature an nonviability makes it to where it can be ethically aborted?

There are a LOT of intersting arguments that never get had because people are trying to argue two completely different arguements.

Well, it's not really two arguments, it's just that one preempts the other. And pro-lifers are doing everything they can to prevent any and all discussion about science, because the science sides with the women's rights.

1Actually as far as I can tell the science doesn't actully side with anyone... afterall, the current abortion precedent isn't set by researched science, but applied sciecne.

At the moment, abortion is legal until "A baby has a chance to survive on it's own."  Which is just a peculiar situation.   A woman shouldn't be forced to have a kid, unless it gets to the point where the kid has a chance to survive by itself?  Doesn't that sound... backwords if anything?

2Additionally, if anything i'd think the "When is a fetus considered human life" the arguement that would hold the most importance.

Well, it's not really two arguments, it's just that one preempts the other. And pro-lifers are doing everything they can to prevent any and all discussion about science, because the science sides with the women's rights.

No, it is actually two entirely different arguments. "Fetuses are humans, too!" vs. "Whatever! It's my hot body, I'll do what I want!" Neither of those really answers the concerns of the other. If you can successfully argue that fetuses are not actually human beings until a certain point, whether that is when it becomes viable or it magically becomes human when it passes through the birth canal or whatever, then that is actually addressing the pro-life concern. Just shouting about women's rights and handwaving it all away doesn't accomplish anything.

I don't know where you get the idea that pro-lifers don't want a discussion on scientific grounds, either. Sure, they have some flakes like Akin who pass along wives tales about how reproduction works, but they have plenty of reason to look at the science for rhetorical ammo, say, to try and convince people that the fetus is a genetically and psychologically distinct entity and therefore a person. Plenty of them make just that argument. Where exactly does "science side with women's rights"? This sounds like one of those lazy pseudo-arguments where, since the right is comprised of creationists who think Jesus rode a dinosaur, the left just plays the SCIENCE card without even knowing what the science says. But if you take the extreme pro-choice position, like the president has for instance, then you believe in abortion on demand no matter how far along the fetus is - right up to (and probably including) the moment of birth. (Some take it even further than that.) You don't even care about the science in that case. So it really isn't even really a scientific argument at all, but a philosophical one.

It's too bad every argument about abortion instantly devolves into kneejerk stupidity, because there really is a genuinely fascinating argument to be had about the subject.

I feel like yours is the kneejerk.

The idea that they are avoiding the science is evidenced by the decision 'to arbitrarily decide when life begins when it isn't written out specifically in the Bible'.

It's not two arguments from where I'm standing. It is an argument over who has rights. Myself, I believe that BOTH have rights. But how can that be? They have overlapping rights! Who is MORE right. Well, the mother always has rights by the idea that life confers rights. So the question within the argument of "who has rights" is "do both fetus and mother have rights concurrently". I would again, say no, because an egg to me is not life.

But isn't that the argument?  Many anti-abortionists think the egg is living, so that wouldn't really be an overlapping of the two arguments.

There are plenty of instances within those 9 months, according to some studies up to 30% rate of miscarriage with an average of 15% in meta, in the first 12 weeks.

So, giving the fetus full rights despite a 15 to 30% chance to miscarry anyway, seems faulty. I would argue that these first 12 weeks at the very least, the fetus has no rights. Afterwards it does, until the point where a woman's life is under threat of death, then the woman's rights supercede once again.

As per my reasoning, I draw upon the ideas of both military and medical, that the provider must ensure their own ability to function before all else. If the mother believes that delivering would substantially destroy the family, then she has the right to abort. A medic's job is to protect and save the wounded, but if they cannot guarantee the safety of both, they are generally not allowed to attempt action. Unless that person wants to risk their own life and be called "a hero under fire", they should hold back. In the same vein, women who decide to deliver despite all odds is also a hero, and should not be the standard, in my opinion.

Furthermore, I say they shy away from the science because science would say "heartbeat" or "live on it's own" or "brainwave" or something similar. HOWEVER, all of those things occur after conception, and would therefore prvide for abortion up to a point. The pro-lifers cannot allow ANY abortion, and so decide that it is specifically at conception. I would call this shying away from the science, because everything we've ever used to define life is being ignored JUST FOR THIS ONE INSTANCE. That seems odd...i mean, doesn't it?

Why would science conclude that?  I understand how one might argue that it is normal that we define life with these things all the other times, but that's not really a scientifically derived assessment.  Science can determine when any of these things happens, of course, but how does it get around to saying anything about them?

theprof00 said:

I feel like yours is the kneejerk.

The idea that they are avoiding the science is evidenced by the decision 'to arbitrarily decide when life begins when it isn't written out specifically in the Bible'.

It's not two arguments from where I'm standing. It is an argument over who has rights. Myself, I believe that BOTH have rights. But how can that be? They have overlapping rights! Who is MORE right. Well, the mother always has rights by the idea that life confers rights. So the question within the argument of "who has rights" is "do both fetus and mother have rights concurrently". I would again, say no, because an egg to me is not life. There are plenty of instances within those 9 months, according to some studies up to 30% rate of miscarriage with an average of 15% in meta, in the first 12 weeks.

So, giving the fetus full rights despite a 15 to 30% chance to miscarry anyway, seems faulty. I would argue that these first 12 weeks at the very least, the fetus has no rights. Afterwards it does, until the point where a woman's life is under threat of death, then the woman's rights supercede once again.

As per my reasoning, I draw upon the ideas of both military and medical, that the provider must ensure their own ability to function before all else. If the mother believes that delivering would substantially destroy the family, then she has the right to abort. A medic's job is to protect and save the wounded, but if they cannot guarantee the safety of both, they are generally not allowed to attempt action. Unless that person wants to risk their own life and be called "a hero under fire", they should hold back. In the same vein, women who decide to deliver despite all odds is also a hero, and should not be the standard, in my opinion.

Furthermore, I say they shy away from the science because science would say "heartbeat" or "live on it's own" or "brainwave" or something similar. HOWEVER, all of those things occur after conception, and would therefore prvide for abortion up to a point. The pro-lifers cannot allow ANY abortion, and so decide that it is specifically at conception. I would call this shying away from the science, because everything we've ever used to define life is being ignored JUST FOR THIS ONE INSTANCE. That seems odd...i mean, doesn't it?