Abortion

[Beet]

I believe that a life begins with human feeling, so I'm pro-choice for at least the 1st trimester.

[Beet]

Feminists are about treatment not based on gender. There is still a substantial gap in poverty, income, leadership, double standards, and visibility between the genders. Its good that feminists are trying to address these things.

[Beet]

What are mercy killings, and isn't sterilization already legal? I think you can get sterilized if you want to, I just haven't heard of anyone I know personally wanting to do that.

Also, look at it this way. You are getting your ass kicked in a battle and the general orders a withdrawal. On the way to regroup with your company, you see a soldier lying on the ground, the entire lower half of his body blown away, a gallon of blood pouring out. It is clear he is in great pain. He begs you to shoot him. Why don't you? Wouldn't you want the same favor?

[Beet]

Yeah because he already said legalized euthenasia in the same sentence so I thought mercy killings must be something different.

[Beet]

Hi, FLGOP, welcome to the message boards. Migrendel addresses this from a socioeconomic viewpoint, I look at it from a more philosophical viewpoint.

I would like to give my two cents.  First off, I am a pre-med student majoring in biochemistry.  
That said, biologist have a set of standards (seven) that must be fulfilled in order to classify something as living.  They include response to stimulus, growth, development, metabolism, and others.  The fetus, without a doubt, fulfills the requirements to be considered living.

I agree that it is living, but medical definitions were not designed to resolve the debate over at which point between pre-conception and birth a embryo/fetus actually becomes a human person that it would be wrong to kill. The dictionary defines human as a homo sapien per Linneaus, and an embryo has homo sapien DNA, but that does not mean it is a full person yet. Linneaus and the medical community created these definitions for other purposes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fetus is physically attached to the woman. The fact that there is a different DNA structure than the woman's does not mean the DNA structure itself is a human moral agent. The quality of the DNA structure lies simply in the information itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think this is the most interesting aspect of the issue, especially with regard to brain waves. The heartbeat I think is less interesting because a heart does not make a human-- a person can get a heart transplant and still be the same person. If a brain transplant were ever possible, even just the cerebral cortex, the person would not be the same.

According to this article in the Cornell Daily Sun (http://www.cornelldailysun.com/articles/3542/), EEG waves in the fetus begin to occur in a pattern that looks like adult brain waves at around 26-28 weeks. "Adult" is the word they used and I wonder if by "adult" they mean post-age-18 human brain waves or post-birth human (baby) brain waves. According to pro-life sources, the appearance of brain waves (though not in the "adult" pattern)  begins as early as 5-6 weeks. The article argues that "consciousness" does not begin until these advanced brain waves begin to occur in sporadic bursts that resemble "adult" brain waves.

I really think there are the main problem with the debate is its too emotional and polarizing; each side seems to be talking a different language. The pro-choice is woman-centered, the pro-life is child-centered. The issue itself I believe should be child-centered due to the gravity of defining the moral boundaries of "murder", but it's very sad that the people who are pro-life are usually also the people who dislike women's lib and want women to be submissive and stay in the home.

But if we accept the question of life as the premise of the debate, consciousness should be the criteria for determining life. A "birth" morally speaking happens when the mind comes into existence, because the mind allows for human subjectivity. Secular morality, especially with regard to murder, is built around preventing harm to a subjective human being. Morality is inherently subjective if you take the subject to be the human race. I believe there is a common thing called "morality" built into human psyche, even though it is not activated for all people in the same way. Whether the mind is born with the first EEG waves at 5-6 weeks or the first "adult" spasm at 26-28 weeks, I don't know enough about how these waves work to know. But I do think the debate should move away from the separate criteria of "conception" and "viability" which are irreconcilable and towards human consciousness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really think this is quite a poor argument-- you were probably thinking too hard. Not everyone can walk, so that doesn't have universal application. But does that mean walking shouldn't be a right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes but if you look at it purely from a legal perspective, Roe v Wade is now common law precedent and it has been challenged and reviewed by the Supreme Court, which upheld it. I don't think the moral issues here depend on the opinion of the court.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, I think this is a poor argument. There is no mandatory abortion with any racial policies saying that certain people must have abortions. That's not the issue. I will leave the rest of the social analysis to migrendel.

[Beet]

To Beet, thanks for your welcome.  However, I see things somewhat differently.  Members of one species may arise only from members of the same species.  It is impossible for two humans to mate and produce a calf, or any other animal, as an offspring.  If we are humans now, it is because we have been humans at every stage of our development.

Physical attachment in and of itself does not exclude individuality.  The best visual example of this would be Siamese twins.  Yes, they are physically attached, and sometimes separation may kill one or both of the twins.  As to the debate on whether it is one individual or two, the original Siamese twins had two different personalities, each one had a wife, and each one fathered children.

FLGOP, we agree on these issues. The taxonomy of homo sapien is quite clear. Also, I don't think viability is the main issue in determing what's a "life" and what's not. Although I'm not too familiar with the Supreme Court's reasoning on viability, I don't see how it could be the deciding criteria.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well this is a little tautological. If I don't believe a fetus before a certain point is a moral life, then a pregnant woman is one person with another heartbeat and EEG waves inside of her.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People misunderstand the consciousness-based criterion. Firstly, using the existence of a mind (something that "judges" value) does not mean the mind must be conscious at all times. A mind can be turned off (in a coma), but still have the capability of being revived, maybe after years. The point is that once a human mind is created, it is a life until it turns off for the last time. For abortion the question is when is the mind first created?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you want to generalize "walking" into freedom of mobility, you can also generalize "abortion" into controlling one's own body. The best argument against abortion is not that it's universally inapplicable; circumcism isn't either- but that it involves more than one moral life.

Finally, regarding stare decisis, I'm not saying the law can't be overturned but that it hasn't been overturned. Therefore based on CURRENT law, the decision stands. Of course it is always possible to argue contradictions in the myriad of cases that have been decided out there.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The blueprints for the mind are there, it simply hasn't grown. There isn't a period where the mind suddenly is created. THe mind is always growing, and if there is any period where the mind has reached "full growth" potential, it is far after birth. Sure, the zygote doesn't have a mind, but it is growing one, it has the blue prints.

If you have a function and at point x, f(x) is FALSE and at some later point y, f(y) is TRUE, then at some point between x and y, the function's value changed from FALSE to TRUE. Similarly, if the mind is not present at the moment of conception and at the moment immediately following conception, and it is present at the moment of birth and at the moment immediately following birth, it's a logical tautological that there is a point where the mind is created. Of course, there is no period where the mind suddenly pops into existence as mature... thats obviously not what we're talking about. Take an adult mind and shrink it to a child's mind... it is still a mind which we value the same way. Shrink that to a baby's mind. Same thing. How far can we shrink the dimensions of its mind and still have it exist? In other words, what is a mind's fundamental character that distinguishes it from the rest of the body? It seems to be in its having sustenained (or ability to sustain, I havent made up my mind which) of either physical or emotional feeling, with the potential to continue to sustain that feeling. As mentioned, when a mind goes into a permanent coma... no longer able to sustain such feelings, hospitals often pull the plug.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At some point a fetus is capable of having a mind, but this point is crossed at some point during the pregnancy. It is not present at conception.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Do you have a mind?

2. Did you have a mind before conception?

Looks like we're back to intermediate algebra. If you agree with statement 1, but disagree with statement 2, then it logically follows that at some point (or period) between the present and the moment before you were concieved, the status of reality changed from "you have a mind" to "you don't have a mind". If the status never changed, then you have no mind. Period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Permanent coma: "This means you would be permanently unconscious. Permanent coma is usually caused by decreased blood flow to the brain; for example, from the heart stopping. You would be unable to eat or drink and would need a feeding tube for nourishment. You would not have bowel or bladder control. You would need to be in bed, and you would never regain consciousness. You could live at home with someone caring for you all day and night; otherwise you would probably need to be cared for in a chronic care hospital."

-University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics

http://www.utoronto.ca/jcb/_lwdisclaimer/jcbchap3.htm#Permanent%20Coma

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you say it "will have a mind eventually," that means it has no mind presently. The mind only exists in potential. So if Jim and Sally are about to have sex, they will concieve eventually and their child will have a mind eventually. But if Sally's father comes home and breaks up their little soiree, the entire process is aborted; the potential is ended. Since that doesn't make Sally's father a killer, it follows that potential alone means nothing here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fetus is physically separate from the mother, yes, and it has a distinct DNA, and is a living organism. But before some stage, it has no mind. In this sense it is exactly the same as people in permanent comas, with the sole exception in its potential to have a mind. But as we already saw, potential does not equal existence. For substantive purposes then, a fetus at this stage is the same as a person in a permanent coma.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's true, but the fact that its mind has never come into existence does mean that it is not yet human. In the sense that a human has both a mind and body. A mind goes beyond mere knowing or feeling pain-- its the entire mental aspect of human existence. Without which aspect there would be no human when you are thinking in terms of moral philosophy. Permanent coma is the only parallel hypothetic situation here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In case of a permanent coma, it is the choice of a person's legal guardian of closest relative whether or not to pull the plug.

[Beet]

Brambilla, you left me hanging with our debate a couple days ago when I said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's funny how you're demanding an answer so badly yet arguments have already been presented answering your question which you never responded to.

Biogenesis isn't needed to prove that the embryo is a biologically living being, but that doesn't mean its a morally human being. It just proves that the body is present, but not the mind.

[Beet]

After about 3 months I think it is no longer considered an embryo. But as to the difference immediately before labor and after birth, it would probably be that after birth, a range of sensations and awarenesses identified with full consciousness will have already occured. Not that anyone supports abortions at that late stage.

[Beet]

Sorry, I didn't realize you said this. Somebody had said this before, and my response was: what about people in comas? The word "unconscious" literally means "without mind". People in comas don't have minds, just brainwaves (which alone do not make up a mind). So does this mean that people in recoverable comas can be killed?

Actually, here's what I found for the definition of unconscious:

"Lacking awareness and the capacity for sensory perception; not conscious."

But to answer you example, people in comas have been conscious before and they have the possibility of becoming conscious again. Just like people in sleep. Whereas a fetus has never been conscious before. A mind exists when
(1) it is currently conscious, OR
(2) it has been conscious before and is able to be conscious once again.

[Beet]

Mind: That which thinks, reasons, perceives, wills, and feels. The mind now appears in no way separate from the brain. In neuroscience, there is no duality between the mind and body. They are one.

Does a person in a (serious) coma think? No. Reason? No. Percieve? No. Will? No. Feels? No.

Sure, the fetus has no past consciousness, but that isn't the point. The point is that he or she will have consciousness, just like a person in a coma may regain consciousness. It doesn't matter if it doesn't have brainwaves or very little- there have been people who have died for minutes, and even the brainwaves have died, and the person was able to regain consciousness, and live a fairly normal life. Have you seen the show Chasing Evil (I think that's what it's called)- his situation is completely possible and does happen.

A person in a coma does not will, think, or feel, but has willed, thought and felt in the past. His brain waves may completely die, but they were active in the past. To end a human's life is to deny his or her potential to live. That is what you do by killing a person in a coma from which he may recover. But I think we can both agree that you cannot end a life that has not begun. This is where an embryo that has never had a mind differs from a person in a recoverable coma. Denying the potential for life to be created is not murder. Even you can agree that every hour of the day you don't try to procreate denies the potential for a life.

So murder in this case is to take a person who has been a human being morally (i.e. mind and body, and from a neurological viewpoint, the mental function of the brain), and prevent that human being from having mind and body again.

But if there has never been a mind before, there has never been a whole human morally speaking. If you disagree, look at how we condemn murder, and all other immoralities, from the perspective of the harm they do, and we think the same way about all debates concerning values and policies, as opposed to debates about scientific truths. This is why a being (or embryo or fetus) that has never known moral value[/i,] as opposed to merely existing physically, is fundamentally different. Having not known moral value, the mindless embryo cannot place any in itself. And we, as a society, do not place moral value on things that have never known it, whether these things be inanimate objects or trees and plants. At its core consciousness is subjective preference, and we correctly recognize that something that has never known subjective preference is not yet something that we can morally harm. And I think the recognition is in accordance with morality.

[Beet]

There are two parts to your first point. I feel it is better to answer the second part of your first point, and then answer the first part of your first point. So, firstly, I understand your premis, but there's a flaw. It is unarguable that the fetus is a life- a life does not need a mind. Jellyfish are alive, and they don't have minds. What is the criteria for life? If you open up any biology book, it will usually have the following four requirements: Metabolism, Reproduction (or potential of, since newborns cannot reproduce), Stimulation, and Growth. The fetus metabolises, the fetus stimulates, and the fetus grows, and has the potential to reproduce. Therefore, the fetus is a life. The second question is, "is the fetus a human?" The answer is yes because of it's DNA and biogenesis. Firstly, let's look at it's DNA. Every organism has it's own distinct form of DNA, and every species has it's own type of DNA. The type of DNA the fetus has is not different from a newborns- they have the same DNA, the homo saepien DNA. If that was true, the fetus would mutate at birth. Of course, this is not true.

Well I agree that an embryo is a living being biologically speaking. But so is a person in a permanent coma (brain dead). What I'm asking is whether it's a human being morally speaking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What happened in the past is important because the value of first consciousness transcends the time when it occurs. A fetus is not human, so its potential consciousness does not give it the same rights as the person in a coma. Before first consciousness, an organism with a human taxonomy is there, but what does that mean? There has never been a human psyche, and our bodies are just things; we are people. What makes "ourselves" more whole than "our bodies" before consciousness? Nothing that I can see. Once the distinction has been made by first consciousness, a human exists. And for a human being, potential consciousness is a sufficient condition for human rights. In other words, once a moral agent is born, its rights transcend the conditions of that birth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, under your scenario the mind is still directing the breathing and heartbeat. Though not traditionally considered part of consciousness, because you do not seem to be aware of your it, it might actually be considered an act of will (especially with breathing). After all you are not always aware of your emotions either. I suppose it is an act of will if, by stopping the breathing or the heart beating, some pain or discomfort is caused. Only a neurologist would know the answer to this. On the other hand, if by doing these things, no pain is caused, then I feel that, while a miracle of natural engineering, the body by itself is not a human life. Unless you can think of some other way to distinguish your scenario from a body without a mind.

If there was no mental function at all, and never had been (and this was verifiable), I think it is justified to destroy a body, even if it denies the possibility of future mental functions from taking hold in that body. While at one instinctive level this seems wrong, it is only because this scenario (not your scenario) has probably never happened to anyone in real life. In looking at a human form, human physique, and human features, and especially knowing that it has the potential to be conscious, we automatically associate it with a sleeping newborn. But in this case, it is different from a regular newborn in that is is not sleeping but has no mental function whatsoever, and has never had any; so that all it has ever been is a body.

Why is the body not life? Consider that in surgery, all of the lungs, heart, and every part of the body can be replaced without the loss of life as long as the potential for the resumption of a previously existing will remains.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, when I said moral value I should have just said subjective value. The point is, the ability to prefer one thing from another.

[Beet]

Well then we get into morality. Now how do we define morality? Natural law... do animals have abortions? No. do the major religions believe in abortion? No. I mean, I can say that morally speaking an infant isn't a human being. Does that mean anything?

Well it does if you can prove it. This entire debate is in morality. We're not debating facts, but what policies are right or wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, a plant has personal features too. No two plants are exactly alike. Obviously personal physical features does not equal human life.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When the heart, liver, and kidneys fail, doctors try to do a transplant. When the mind fails, nobody tries to do a transplant. Why, because unless the mind can return at a later time, the person is considered dead. Even if the parts of the brain that are entirely separate from the mind remain, transplanting the parts of Sally's brain that encompass her mind into Bill's cranium (if such a thing could ever be done) is not going to save Bill. Sally has just switched bodies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huh? If the mind is a defining part of humanity, then it is whether it exists or not. If it is not a defining part, then it isn't whether it exists or not. Definitions of concepts don't change with circumstances.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I don't know if you can have brainwaves and still not have a mind in any sense whatsoever. After all brainwaves are so closely interconnected with consciousness. Types of brain waves alpha, beta, theta, and delta, differ only in their number of frequencies. Although in the delta state there appears to be no consciousness or mind, the phenomena is still the same nature as the higher level waves. But, if you are right, then as I said, I don't see the moral value of a human body alone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can feel aversion without reasoning.

[Beet]

How can you prove morality? If you can't, then must we automatically assume that morality is relative? Of course not.

All I was saying is the debate is involved with morality. Im not saying its relative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here, all I was saying is that personal features alone don't make a human. I've already said why I think first consciousness, not just features and DNA, is necessary for humanity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That analogy doesnt work because recovering means returning to a prior state; the coma person would be doing that by recovering; the fetus would not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So a fetus fails one criteria so you go look for others... thats not the way it works. I realize that there are other defining parts of humanity; I never said the mind was the defining part, but all the defining parts have to be present for the whole. Trunks and big ears are defining parts of an elephant but that doesn't mean everything with trunks and big ears is an elephant. Thats not to say that all fetuses have never had first consciousness (which, along with potential to continue conscioussness, I think is necessary to be a human person, as I have said). I suspect a great many of them have had first consciousness, even maybe some before 24 weeks, maybe as early as 8 weeks. But I don't know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because people with an IQ of zero don't reason doesn't mean they aren't human.

I would just like to say one more thing. It is true that a fetus has human taxonomy and is a living organism; from a biological standpoint it would be human. But this definition is a creation of science and DNA is a set of information. Can a classification system invented in the 18th century for scientific purposes, and a string of letters identified in the 20th, create human rights? No, human rights are something more substantial than can be created by strictly scientific definitions.

Overall, Brambilla, I think we've made a lot of progress in this discussion, but at this point we're sort of repeating ourselves a lot. I am willing to agree to disagree if you are. If you don't know already realize this, I don't agree with either "side" on this issue, though I think a lot of times its argued stupidly, especially from the pro-choice side. Thats partially why I enjoy talking with pro-life people, because they recognize that "life" trumps "choice". But where I disagree with pro-life is where that life comes from.

[Beet]

Crap my login time was exceeded, I'll have to type this again. Since we aren't communicating well, I think we should keep going until we at least know one another's positions clearly.

For the time being, we wont be discussing if it's moral or not. We're talking about survival. It's wrong to kill innocent people. The fetus is an innocent person. Therefore, it is wrong to kill the fetus.

I agree it's wrong to kill people. The only reason I bring up morality is to say that statements built on strictly scientific definitions aren't the final word in this debate. The phrase "it is wrong to kill" means nothing outside the context of morality. It is wrong to kill, is a moral imperative that society agrees to. Thats why we have to consult what is moral and cannot just look at science definitions. Science definitions of human taxonomy and life were created for the purposes of classification and scientific study, not to make policy decisions. Moral definitions are distinct from that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree that potential consciousness can be part of a definition. I just disagree that just because a fetus has potential consciousness and so does a person in a coma, that makes them exactly the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not saying the fetus is brain dead. I'm just trying to distinguish between the fetus and a person in a coma. The person in a coma has had consciousness before, and even though that is in the past, it still matters. The criteria for distinguishing between a person in a coma and a fetus is not the state of having consciousness currently but the fact that this mind was once conscious for a person in a coma. Or if you prefer, the state of having had consciousness in the past. The consciousness of a mind has a right to continue, despite suspensions, once it has existed once, but it does not have a right to come into existence. This is what distinguishes the rights of a fetus from a person in a coma. The fetus's consciousness is asking for the right to come into being, the person in a coma is merely asking for the right to continue consciousness when possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I already accepted the premis that an "infant" born with absolutely no activity of the same nature as consciousness, and if it has never had any such activity, is not a human person. And although I voiced my skepticism about whether delta waves could be truly considered a complete absence of consciousness, I repeated that, assuming the can be considered a complete absence of consciousness, I accept that in that case the body is not human.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're both trying to present properties of a human rather than a complete definition. I never said that first consciousness, or a mind, is a complete definition of a human. Here is my complete definition:

1. A living organism
2. With human taxonomy
3. Which is either conscious or once was, and
4. Has the potential to be conscious in the future

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree laws aren't the ultimate authority of what has rights. What we're debating is what constitutes a "human being", and thus what policies uphold the law in this case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think it's necessarily just. I may very well be a tragedy, and if I could, I would put a moratorium on abortion at 8 weeks and study the development process very carefully. As I said, I don't agree with either side. But I advance a different definition of life than both sides and since I don't know the exact number of weeks that first consciousness typically occurs, I dont want to make a determination of policy.

[Beet]

Then where does it come from? Obviously, humans couldn't have just invented morality... morality is natural, not unnatural, we must remember.

I think a big part of morality comes from human instinct, and another big part comes from the tradition of the society. I think it's really instinctive that to destroy a newly fertilized embryo is not murder but to kill a crying baby is. There's a definitive difference somewhere in between these two extremes, and it's the first consciousness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well only accepting the premise that there is and has never been any consciousness at all. But like I said, I suspect delta waves may indicate some consciousness. The reason is, the only way they differ from higher level waves is by their amplitude and frequency. So I don't think we can actually kill it. Red is red, even if the pigment is so thinly spread that we can't see it. The same with consciousness. If the nature of consciousness is brain waves, then any brain waves, no matter how small the amplitude and frequency means consciousness. At least this is what I suspect for now based on my limited knowledge of neurology.
I'm not saying the body isn't scientifically human. I'm saying it has no moral value by itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a terrible trivialization for the many potential reasons for an abortion. Whether or not to have a child is probably the most important decision any man or woman will face in their lifetimes. It will determine the whole future of an entire family of people. If it really is no more than a mass of cells, yhe mother has a compelling interest to do what she wants with what is in her body.

But yes, I'm sorry for my ignorance. The sad fact of the definition of life I think is correct is that, I myself cannot say 'I support x policy' based on this position. However there are people out there... neurologists, specialists in fetal development, etc. who can provide the answers. This is such a complicated question... does it matter if the cerebral cortex is there? what is consciousness? how can we measure consciousness? are REM waves the only important aspect? and so many other questions.

[Beet]

Come on, you'd be surprised at people. I haven't heard anything from Brambilla that says he doesn't care about people. And I think people's minds can be changed. A lot of people changed their minds after seeing the results of ultrasound technology in the 80s and 90s. If a well presented and coherent line of reasoning, as well as indications of sincerity on the issue on the part of the presenter (rather than coming off as trying to use the issue for their own goals of social control) can't convince people to change their positions, this country is in really crappy shape.

[Beet]

Well it's possible he honestly believes that those two statements are true, though I agree, if Republicans showed more sensitivity, they would have more credibility in advocating their positions. It worked for Bush (but only as a tool), but now that he's high and might on terrorism he doesn't need that anymore. The amount of manipulation in politics is overwhelming.

[Beet]

Human instinct does not define any part of morality. It's in certain people's instincts to kill others- and they truly believe what they did was just. It's in certain people's instinct to rape women... and they believe what they did was just, but it's obviously not.

I don't think you're going to agree with me no matter what I say, but at least I can say that CS Lewis, Locke, and Rousseau agree with me here, even if they wouldn't agree with my position. Even Jesus appeals to law found out by instinct when he tells people not to do what they would not have done to them. You haven't said where you think morality comes from, but this is something that can be debated until the sky falls, so theres no point in doing it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have it your way. You totally ignored what I said in favor of blunt assertion that you've already made, but okay...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dude, learn to READ. I already qualified my statement by saying "If it really is no more than a mass of cells..." obviously you dont agree with that, but it was a qualification which if true, would make my statement true. And since the verity of the qualification is the matter being contended, the side that says a fetus is not always more than a mass of cells does have a substantial policy interest in doing so. And I obviously already agree with what you said (assuming by body you meant person), as should have been apparent to you throughout our entire conversation. Second of all, even if it is a person, the decision to have a child, to concieve in the first place, is huge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So do you accept that life doesn't begin until consciousness does? Believe me there are very smart neurologists who think real consciousness doesn't happen until the 28-30 week period; including that brain waves aren't present until 26 weeks.