Not really. There is no organism in nature that has human DNA that is not a human being. Being a human being is simply a matter of species classification, it is not a stage of development. We do not change our species, and we are of the species Homo sapiens from the moment of fertilization.

Except that viability plays no part in our species classification.

Are you Hindu? Or does the killing of an unborn human being simply mean nothing to you?

The use of the term "rights" is not an indication that one believes that the definition of "human being" is a legal matter.... and indeed it is not.

"Human being" as such is not defined in a unique way by any legal source that I know of. Only the term "person" has been appropriated by the legal system to arbitrarily make a legal distinction between the born and unborn.

"Human being" is a term of the vernacular, which is the mirror to the scientific concept "Homo sapiens". It has no unique legal usage.

Are you Hindu? Or does the killing of an unborn human being simply mean nothing to you? - Yoda

"Human being" is a term of the vernacular, which is the mirror to the scientific concept "Homo sapiens". It has no unique legal usage - Yoda..

Nice contradiction in how you are applying the definitions.

If you wish for me to respond, please keep your posts within context.



That's an interesting response. If I reply, will we have to get the box of Kleenex out for you? Or will you just start another self pitying thread about how you are "constantly attacked"?

No, she's vegetarian, not that it matters. A cow is not attached to your body. A fetus is. Oh wait, not your body. You're male.

Fair enough. No source can be entirely accurate, but we need something constructiveand credible to go on. Do some research.



However, as you stated, in your opinion human life is more valuable than subjective ideas; in my opinion - and the opinion of the majority of the people - foetuses are of lesser importance than women, so in order for all to have their slice of cake and eat it, we need fully pro-choice laws in which women who are comfortable with havingan abortion can do so and women who aren't don't have to.



First of all, your response was weak and made no sense. The 'argument by nature' is not viable. Some of us naturally get cancer, but we won't refuse treatment based on the fact it exists naturally. In the same way, you can't argue that the foetus deserves rights because everybody was a foetus at some point in their life.



You are not an egalitarian as long as you're pro-life; equally (no pun intended), women who abort are not pro-life. They are antonymic ideas.

No person is equal to another because they are different, individual people. I have black hair and light tanned skin; my neighbours are different. Different DNA code, different people. Not equal.



Neither is the pregnant woman.



I don't see how forcing a rape victim to give birth to a child she doesn't want because it was put there by her rapist makes moral sense.



What about ectopic pregnancies? They simply need to be terminated immediately! I will presume for the time being (you can correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't condemn abortions in such cases - what makes the mother more worthy than the foetus in this situation, hence denoting a naturally unequal relationship between hostess and foetus?

I will guess that by early delivery you mean that the pregnancy, if life-threatening, should not be permitted to be aborted but rather continued until viability? Even if there is an overwhelming chance the baby may die? Well, I disagree with you (obviously), but I think that is the only pro-life stance that doesn't contradict itself.

What point do these snippets of cases prove? Roe v Wade was wrong, the Constitution did not mention anything about abortion. Blackmun simply made abortion as a Constitutional right out of thin air. Don’t just throw in cut and paste junks to diffuse the debate to cover up the fact that you didn’t have any refute to my previous post.

And back to your previous post ==>

Now, here below are Article IV and VI, now tell me where do you find any prohibition on the government or the People from conducting inquiring into the status of unborn life or “every pregnancy considered for abortion”?

Quote:

Article IV Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state. Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. Article VI All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

OK, I see what you mean.
Actually, the burden of proof falls on the party who is on the side of aborting the unborn human life and not the victim who is being aborted.

But, that’s ok. Modern medical and scientific advancement in biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics and genome projects have uncovered for us the reality concerning the prenatal human life. I would not torture you and others of the tedious long post on the biological facts on human biochemistry for now, but will debate with you on that ground as we go along. We can also discuss on your concept of legal sense even though I don’t subscribe to the concept of legal sense of “human being” based on “person” or “personhood”. It would be better if we debate this on a new thread in order to stay on topic for this thread.

Your take on “human being” being a legal definition is entirely wrong. Human being is a layman term for the scientific term “homo sapien”. Before the advent of science or legal field as an academic discipline, laymen terms were there first. However, words are just a tool of communication. You can point to the real physical human body and using sign language to convey the notion of “human being” or “homo sapien”, or you can use other other languages such as “ren” in Chinese to convey the same sense, it doesn’t matter what words or language you use, legal or not, it won't change reality. One thing that frustrates me in abortion debate or debate against the violence in islam is that the debate gets behind the screen of semantics and legalism when supporters of abortion rights are confronted with logic and facts.


That is the problem I encounter from your side that I find lacking. I heard a lot about things that vilify the unborn life or the ridiculous blame on people who oppose abortion for not doing their part, but I hardly hear any real life stories about why abortive women were driven to choose abortion in the modern days and age when social taboos against women in the good old days no longer apply.


I just threw in the term “chicken egg” to make a point and not necessarily to mean that she was thinking it was a chicken egg.
She said: “If the fetus is a human being with individual rights, then I am among millions of women who have committed first degree”. If she tried to argue that the prenatal life is not a human being, which she had not proved in her article, then what is it that is in the womb? That was my point.


Sometimes I have to figure out why you would ask such a question despite my previous answer. Wouldn’t it be sufficient significance for my belief and concern when a human life is at stake? Would you not be concerned when you realize that a child next door is being abused and whose life is in dire danger? Even the cry of a dog concerns me, so why not a human being?

Almost every person alive has DNA in some cells of their body that are not their own. Plenty of women have male DNA, and plenty of men have female DNA. During pregnancy, cells containing DNA from the mother transfer to the fetus, and vice versa. Also, some people are born with 2 different types of DNA, half and half. These people are called Chimeras.


So the woman's egg that she was born with is not part of her? Every single egg has completely different DNA from the mother, and from every other egg. That means each woman is actually millions of different people? How about sperm in men? That just floats. How about blood in all people? Is blood not part of a human body either?

Eiri, You misunderstood Yoda. I am sure you’re not including me as your “other people” who have agreed with you. What Yoda meant was the concept known as cell intelligence. Read this:

Oh please. That's about as ridiculous as believing in Scientology.

I too actually care little for semantics because I believe that no matter what you call it, it is still exactly as it was a thousand years ago and will be tomorrow.

The "human being" point that we've taken up was inspired by your response to McElroy's article, which I took issue with because I did not think you understood quite what she meant. She wasn't saying it's a chicken egg, she was saying it doesn't deserve to be awared all the rights of a "human being". You are saying it does.

I think you need to show why it does, and explain what those rights are, and where they come from.



I agree with your point on semantics. I also find it irritating that prolife advocates as well use semantics to their advantage despite being confronted with logic and facts.

My 'take' on "human being" is not 'wrong'; I am simply responding to the points you've brought up on McElroy's article, including such phrases as "rights". Only now do you know what my opinion is on labels and semantics.



If you make the effort, you will find many stories as to why women had abortions. There is a forum on this very board, is the "Abortion Pro Choice" forum.
And social taboos absolutely still exist against women even in this modern society. I am astonished that you would think otherwise. Regardless, women seek out abortions for many reasons, not just social taboos.



Not a human being with rights. She does not need to prove it is not. (And here's that dandy argument re: burden of proof again.)



"Even the cry of a dog"...

It is this perceived notion of homo sapien supremacy that gets to me.

Anyways, I asked because I truly struggle with the idea that this biological "entity" (name it as you will) has this immediant and inherent significance worthy to some of protecting at all costs regardless of the opinions and reality of the individual directly involved. I'm being sincere; help me to understand why. And please read some stories as to why women seek out abortions.

I know she wasn’t saying it’s a chicken egg. That was just my counter comment to infer a point. Regarding the point about “it doesn’t deserve to be awared (sic) all the rights of a ‘human being’”, that was not the point of contention on my part. I don’t know what the phrase ‘all the rights” you refer to let alone asking for the award of such rights.

What I was arguing about was McElroy’s own conditional premise: If the fetus is a human being then she had committed first degree premeditated “m”. Whether you consider fetus has rights or all rights or not it doesn’t alter the fact that “m” results in the death of a human being if in fact the fetus is a human being. The rights or all rights issue is entirely different debate. Personally, I’m not asking for “all rights", whatever that means. When I’m speaking in defend of the unborn life beside the narrow focus on McElroy’s specific conditional argument, I am defending the unborn life not to be killed without just cause and not your so-called “all rights”. As such, I don’t know how to explain “those rights” unbeknownst to me.


It appears to me we are in totally different planes when it comes to the understanding of the same terms or concepts involving abortion issue. When I say “human being” I am referring to the biological understanding of human being. When you say “human being” you are referring to your so-called “legalized” sense of “human being” with the connotation of the concept of “person”. When I read about the previous poster above talking about her understanding of DNA and chimeras, I just couldn’t believe the chasm. I had to shake my head and wondered what’s the point of even trying to present the biological argument of the human being based on scientific facts. I don’t know…


I don’t mean hearsay, I am talking about first hand personal stories. I can’t imagine there would be a case where a woman has no option but to resort to terminating the life of her unborn offspring. I would like to hear what extreme condition driving her to that choice and to personally pose questions as to why there really aren’t other options no matter how unappealing except when her life is seriously threatened.

Personally, I have a friend whose sister-in-law was once in a life and death situation during her pregnancy when she was acutely reactive to the infection of Toxoplasmosis which is a parasitic infection caused by a protozoan. Despite her serious condition, she refused to abort her unborn child. When she suddenly went into a coma, the doctors had to quickly remove the fetus by C-section. The premature baby also needed intensive care. When she was in coma for several weeks, they thought she wouldn’t make it, but it turned out both the mother and child eventually recovered without any ill effect. Now, the woman is back working in the farm like she always has been before she got into the medical emergency.

It’s not that I expect abortive woman to choose the way the above woman did when faced with such health crisis. No, I don’t. But I do hope she would not succumb to telling me it’s none of my business under some serious questioning. Of course, as she is proponent of abortion rights, I would expect her to hold that viewpoint which is the main reason for her choice of abortion, unless she proved me wrong.



Again, the word “rights” refers to what rights if not about the taking of life? If she made a conditional assertion with the implication that the fetus is not a human being, then she has to prove her case since she was the one initiating and advancing that assertion.


I kinda at a loss why you thought my mention of “the cry of a dog” somehow related to the notion that I was alluding to homo sapien supremacy. When I said that, I was thinking about a real situation that kept me up all night concerning for the dog. I just didn’t want to tell the story and made the post too long.

Certainly, human being is different and special than other animals, that does not mean that we should place them as equal nor treat them bad. We are their keepers.

Regarding this biological “entity”, who I call the unborn baby, I believe he/she is treated worst than the animals. Don’t you think if there should not be any homo sapien supremacy over the animals, shouldn’t there also be no “pro-choice” homo sapien supremacy over the unborn baby, who like all human beings are just a part of the whole animal family?

Dolphin to sum up your last 4 overly verbose posts.. those cases prove the constitutionality of abortion. I can see I will have to either explaine each and every legal reference to you or just shake my head with an amused smirk becuase you clearly have no idea of the legality of abortion and how it came to be and which branches of government and articles of the constitution are permitted to regulate it.

I recommend becoming familiar with those cases and the articles quoted before continuing a debate on a topic that you are underinformed on.

Yoda - look closely at your text book glossary for "Symbiosis" .. now look at your text book glossary for "Parasite" you tell me which one fits pregnancy.

Pregnancy has no benefit to the mother but her resources are utilized and her health is placed in danger to gestate.
Therefore Parasiticial relationship is accurate.

Constitution & Law




* In March of 1970, a pregnant woman by the name of Norma McCorvey sued the state of Texas to challenge the constitutionality of a state law that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother.[42] McCorvey wanted to keep her identity secret and assumed the fictitious name Jane Roe.[43] The name of the Dallas County district attorney responsible for enforcing the law was Henry Wade. Thus, the case was entitled "Roe vs. Wade."



* Before the United States Supreme Court, the attorney for Roe argued that the Texas law was unconstitutional because it violated the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.[44] The Ninth Amendment reads:



"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." [45]




The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment relevant to the argument reads:



"No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" [46]




* In support of this view, the attorney for Roe stated that "liberty to these women would mean liberty from being forced to continue the unwanted pregnancy." [47]



* During oral arguments, one of the judges asked the attorney for Roe if her case was dependent on the assertion that pre-born humans have no Constitutional rights. After some back and forth, the attorney for Roe responded:



"Even if the Court at some point determined the fetus to be entitled to constitutional protection, you would still get back into the weighing of one life against another."




After more back and forth, another judge said to Roe's attorney:



"[To take this position], you'd have to say that this would be the equivalent after the child was born if the mother thought it bothered her health any having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn't that correct?"




The attorney for Roe responded:



"That's correct. That..."




At this point, the Chief Justice cut her off and started to ask another question. He then interrupted himself and asked:



"Did you want to respond further to Justice Stewart? Did you want to respond further to him?"




The attorney for Roe stated:



"No, Your Honor." [48]





------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------



* The attorney for the State of Texas argued that preborn humans are protected under the Fifth Amendment.[49] The portion relevant to the argument states:



"No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" [50]




* During oral arguments, one of the judges contested this viewpoint by asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment defined what the term "person" meant, and that it did not include preborn humans.[51] The relevant clause reads:



"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."[52]




* After some back and forth, the judge retreated from this position and said:



"[I suppose] that's not the definition of a person but that's the definition of a citizen." [53]




* The attorney for the State of Texas responded that the only way to understand what the Constitution means by the word "person" was to go to "the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed." He then quoted from William Blackstone, who is described in Simon & Shuster's New Millennium Encyclopedia as a "British jurist and legal scholar, whose work Commentaries on the Laws of England was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S." In this work, Blackstone wrote that life is a "right" that



"is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born." [54] [55]




* To further support his position, the attorney for the state of Texas appealed to the Declaration of Independence and started to quote the following sentence from it, but was cut off by one of justices: [56]



"WE hold these [cut off] Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." [57]





------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------



* On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court released its ruling. Seven of the judges ruled in favor of Roe and two of the judges opposed the ruling. The ruling overturned the laws of 30 states that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother.[58]



* The majority ruled these laws unconstitutional on the basis that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that it protects "the right to privacy," and that this includes "a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy." [59] The relevant portion of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:



"No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" [60]




* The Fourteenth Amendment does not contain the word "privacy" or any synonym for it.[61] [62] It was adopted in 1868 to address a number of issues relevant to the Civil War, such as ensuring constitutional rights for black people.[63]




------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------



* The majority wrote that they were "not in a position to speculate" as to "when life begins" and criticized the State of Texas for "adopting one theory of life," namely, that life begins at conception.[64]



* They also:



- Used the term "potentiality of human life" in reference to preborn humans who are capable of living outside the mother's womb.[65]



- Ruled that preborn humans have no Constitutional rights.[66]




------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------



* The majority created rules regarding the types of abortion legislation that states could enact based upon the three trimesters of a typical pregnancy:



1) First trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can require that abortions be done by licensed physicians, but other than this, they cannot regulate the manner in which they are performed.[67]



2) Second trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can regulate the manner in which they are performed for the purpose of protecting the mother's health. The ruling cites examples of the types of regulations that are permissible. These include establishing "qualifications [for] the person who is to perform the abortion" and setting rules regarding "the facility in which the procedure is to be performed." [68]



3) Third trimester: States can prohibit abortions after "viability" (meaning the point where a preborn human is capable of living outside their mother's womb), but cannot prohibit abortions "where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." [69] The ruling cites specific examples of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health. They include the "stigma of unwed motherhood," the work of caring for a child, and the "distress" "associated with [an] unwanted child." [70] [71]



After listing these examples and others, the majority wrote that this portion of their ruling does not permit abortions "at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason" a woman chooses.[72] They repeated this assertion four times using varying words, but listed no example of a circumstance where abortion could be prohibited.[73]




------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------



* On the same day that the Supreme Court released Roe vs. Wade, it issued another ruling in a case entitled "Doe vs. Bolton." The same seven judges who ruled in favor of Roe also ruled in favor of Doe, and the same two judges opposed the ruling. [75] The majority wrote that this ruling and Roe v Wade "are to be read together." [76]



* In this case, the State of Georgia had a law prohibiting abortions unless the pregnancy would "seriously and permanently" injure the health of the mother.[77]

A lower court struck down this law and the majority of the Supreme Court agreed. The ruling stated that abortion laws with exceptions for the health of the mother must allow for factors such as emotional health, psychological health, familial concerns, and the woman's age.[78]



* The Georgia law also required that the doctor who would perform the abortion, two other doctors, and a committee of the medical staff at the hospital where the abortion was to be done needed to agree that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother.[79] The lower court upheld this law and the Supreme Court struck it down.[80] The majority ruled that only the doctor who would perform the abortion needs to determine that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother. The abortion provider could make this decision based solely on their "best clinical judgment." [81]




------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------



* In 1992, the Supreme Court decided a case entitled "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey." In this case, the majority reaffirmed the central element of Roe vs. Wade, but did away with the "rigid trimester framework." [82]



* As in Roe vs. Wade, the majority ruled that states cannot prohibit abortions prior to viability, and laws that prohibit abortion after viability must include an exception for the "health of the mother." [83]



* Contrary to Roe vs. Wade, the majority ruled that states could enact laws that regulated abortion throughout pregnancy; as long as they did not create a substantial obstacle to obtaining an abortion. An example of what would be acceptable is a law requiring that doctors provide women with certain information before they perform abortions.[84]

And Jane Roe.. "Norma McCorvey"
Now is Pro life..

Your original response contained a comment on the judicial system- comparing between the 'presumed innocent until guilty' criminal and the fetus. There is most certainly an implication there that you feel the fetus deserves certain rights. For example, the right to prove it's humanity. Where does that right come from?

And, because I know you are prolife, you must have some hankering towards giving a fetus the "right" not to be aborted by taking away the right of the woman to make her own medical decisions. Why does it deserve this right? Where does it come from?

And what is "just cause"? Could you explain your concept of "just cause"?



Again, I refer you towards your comments regarding our judicial system. No one is denying a fetus is human. You may call it a human being; that's fine; but when you start asserting that it's a human being with rights is when you have to prove why it has these rights.



These are first hand personal stories of why women obtain abortions. And you can message any of the women who posted them if you like. I don't understand why you've decided it's all hearsay without even looking at anything.

And because you didn't reply, I just want to reiterate that there are social taboos against women even in this soceity.




Your choice of the word "even" alludes to your opinions of other creatures in comparision to a human.



Why not? Why do humans reign supreme?



Maybe I'm not asking this correctly. I'll try this: Why is the fetus of a mother who you will never know have such significant value for you? To the point of actually dismissing whatever the unknown mother thinks and feels in favor of forcing the continuation of her pregnancy?

(I'll get to your question in the last paragraph after I receive a response.)

In abortion debate I have come to realize that I should not assume anything regarding terms being used. Terms like “certain rights” and “all rights” are very ambiguous. Do the terms involve other rights such as rights to vote, right to drink, etc? Also, the term “right” or “rights” can have legal or layman sense. For example, owning a slave at one time was legal in this country (I mean USA). During that time there was a guy named Brown who spoke out against slavery and said that no man should have the right to own another human being. By that he meant not just the legal right but also the moral right. Do you see what I mean?


Actually, I don’t call myself “prolife”. I understand in a debate on issue, we have to use label to identify our position and differentiate between me and my worthy debate proponents. Therefore, I allow myself to be labeled according to the issue of the debate. Since this forum is about abortion and I am speaking out against abortion, therefore on this debate issue, I am debating in the position of anti-abortion. I know you and others who support abortion rights do not want to be called “pro-abortion”. As a respect to your sensitivity and your person, I would refrain from using that term. However, I would not directly use your self-designated term “pro-choice” because by calling you “pro-choice”, I am admitting that I am “anti-choice”. Since I am not against women who choose to give birth, neither am I a tyrannical official in China who compels women to abort after one child, I am certainly not anti-choice. Shoot!! Such a long explanation on a simple term. I apologize.

Back to your question on why fetus deserves the right not to be aborted. To me I know beyond a reasonable doubt that a fetus is a human being in the full sense of the word including whatever legal sense or added definitions from abortion rhetoric. As such this right and the source of this right are no difference to the right of my next door neighbor’s child not to be abused or killed for whatever reason the mother pleads.

The right to prove one’s humanity and where does that right come from is no difference than if you were to be attacked by some murderous thugs and that hopefully we have that courage to step forward at our risk to defend your right to life. That moral sense of right and wrong is the source of defending your right to live. Having said that, have you ever been called to prove your humanity on the pain of death? If not, why should that only apply to the unborn human beings?

"Just cause" simply means legally or morally acceptable reason for the action taken. In this case, the "just cause" is self-defend when your life is in danger.


If no one is denying a fetus is human as in “human being” in the whole sense of the word, then nobody should kill a human being without just cause. The term “human being with rights” is meaningless. We don’t kill dogs or cats at whims just because they don’t have human rights.


I wasn’t commenting on the women’s post in the forum you mentioned since I didn’t have the chance to locate the forum. I was simply making a short clarification without being verbose. The point I was making was that the stories should be from person who personally experience it or from those who are close to the person who can answer my questions or relate my questions to the person to answer.

As to my none reply on social taboos, I was trying to limit the length of the post and trying not to be too wordy already. Social taboos we have today is no longer the same as in the old days. For instance, women having children out of wedlock is no longer a taboo. If it still is, it’s not like in the Islamic country where strict sharia is concerned, muslim women can be killed in honor killing for simply suspected of having a boy friend not just pregnant out of wedlock.


Human being as a specie is of course different and special than any other animals on this planet. How many animals have you encountered that go to school or design and build infrastructures? Different and special doesn’t mean reign supreme. At least not the reign supreme that abortion does to the living thing in the womb. The question, therefore, should be: why should abortion reign supreme over the prenatal creature?


Truly, I don’t know why we seems to be living in a totally different planets. I can't understand how is it so hard to accept that a human life deserve not to be slaughtered without just cause? Do you try to understand why someone would speak out against their next door neighbor and take action when they believe their neighbor is abusing and threatening to take the life of a child?

I think the core differences between you and me is that you dismiss the worth of prenatal life simply because of its location, size, physical dependency, and brain function among others. I make no such distinction because the location, size, physical dependency, brain function, etc are just a process of nature and so it doesn’t matter. What matter is that a human being is a human being no matter what size and shapes, function and location the unborn is. Whatever size and shape an unborn child is at, it is what it is supposed to be according to biological fact. You cannot expect a human being at conception to be fully formed in an adult body with adult intelligence. We don’t expect a newborn baby to be at least 5 feet tall, be intelligent and have fully formed breasts and menstruates in monthly cycle, do we? The lack of those yet to be realized potential doesn’t mean a newborn baby is not a human being. Therefore, the same logic applies to the unborn human being.