A few points relevant to the discussion…

A zygote/fetus is a full fledged person like an acorn is an oak tree. Put a litte more clearly… the difference between the unconcious naked man on the iceberg and a fetus is that the the man, irregardless of his current conscious state is already fully developed individual human being. A zygote/fetus has the potential to become one but has not yet. Put even more succinctly… The rights of a woman who “is” take precedent over the rights of any child that “may be”.

Of all conceptions it is believed over 80% end in spontaneous abortion/miscarriage before the woman ever suspects pregnancy. Mother nature apparently is a greater mass murderer than those evil abortion doctors, God better look into pulling her license.

The woman’s right to self-determination for herself and her body comes from the same place men’s does. Just because a right is not enumerated in the constitution or it’s amendments, it is not presumed to not exist.

Why should pro-choice people support unlimited drug use and prostitution for women? You failed to demonstrate the logic for that conclusion.

Why do conservatives want women to “suffer the consequences of their actions”, while men are not held accountable? Yes some step up, but many do not and in fact go to great lengths to avoid meeting their responsibilities. It is notoriously difficult to force men to meet their repsonsibilites, especially across state lines. Where is the conservative uproar over the enforcement of paternal responsibility?

Why does conservative concern end after birth? Why are they opposed to aid to sinlge parents in the form of halth care, welfare, child-care, etc…?

Why is it always quantity of life with no regard to quality of life with conservatives?

If stopping or reducing abortions is the goal, why are so many conservatives opposed to sex education, providing contraception to the public(to include minors), and contraceptives in general? And really, why oppose the mornig after pill when all you’re talking about is a clump of cells?

Um, Frank, you’ve just described the situation, you haven’t given a moral or ethical rationale for why you support abortion in this instance.

I’m not quite that devoted, however.

On what basis are you supporting abortion in this case and none other?

Would you agree that only they should have abortions? I would

Assuming a scenario in which a mother could carry a child to term but would almost certainly die in child birth, why does the state, in this instance priviledge the life of the mother over the life of the embryo? On what grounds is this hierarchy of life, so-called, established?

The state can’t order a person to put their own life in jeopardy, nor they can they order Person A to put Person B’s life in jeopardy. Where’s the conflict?

They can’t stop a person from taking his own life, but they can damn sure stop a person from taking someone else’s life.

Embryo v. living breathing human being

The state has a right, in your mind, to control a woman’s body to save the life of an embryo.

The state does not have the right, in your mind, to control your body to save the life of an already living breathing human being.

How do you justify the difference in your positions?

Um, that doesn’t make any sense, Frank. There are two people involved: A person who needs/wants a kidney in order to live and you with an extra kidney. Last count that was two people. Only in this example the person whose life is in question is a human being in the way that an embryo isn’t. You don’t have to “reliably project” their status as a human being. There’s no question that they are already human being and will cease to be one if they don’t get your kidney. So why can’t the government force you to give up a kidney to save this person? You have yet to actually answer the question, just dodge after dodge after dodge.

I can only assume that you don’t think the government has the right to tell you what to do with your internal organs — even if one of them could be used to save a life. And yet you turn right around and suggest that the state should restrict a woman’s control her internal organs, namely her womb. You base this right on the “potential” humanity of an embryo even though, in the case of the kidney, you don’t think the state has a right to use you to save an already living breathing human being.

If life is all that matters in the equation Frank, why can’t the government use your extra organs to keep someone alive?

To put it another way, in my example, if you refuse to give your kidney another living being will die. A living being, mind you, is not “potentially” a human being, but already a human being capable of articulating pain and a desire for life. Why can’t the government force you to give up your kidney to save this living being’s life?

In order to defend your point, frameone, you would have to believe that only one living being is involved. If, for example. a person choose not to donate a kidney, or get a tumor removed, then they suffer the consequences.

If a woman chooses to have an abortion, then there is another living being involved. In my view, exactly when the gamete becomes a human being is irrelevant. Until the day that women give birth to toasters or sock puppets, the ultimate outcome of a pregnancy can be reliably projected to be a human child.

To prevent that from happening doesn’t just make her the master over her anatomical and physiological “domain”; it gives her say over whether someone is born or not. Quite a different matter.

One-upping Oliver Willis), Publius thinks that the pro- [...]

Ya, Frank but men can also split during the pregnancy and never face any consequences under the law. Can the state force a man to marry a woman that he gets pregnant? And no, Frank, you don’t have men bear children. You give women the choice to make their own decisions about their own bodies. If they discover too late that sex with some loser was a bad decision, there is no moral reason why she should be forced to live with that decision while he isn’t.

So far you haven’t given a single intelligible answer to any of my comments. I’m understand now why it’s possible for you to say this: “That s one argument I ve never heard a pro – abortion person answer.” You just don’t WANT to hear it.

Perhaps you have men bear the children? I’m not sure we have the tecnology (or the biologicl prerequisites) to do that.

And while, I certainly wouldn’t want to tell women when to have sex, it is still true that behavior has consequences, or maybe I should say inevitable outcomes.

My wife and I tried for thirteen months to have our first child; other, first time and that’s it. That’s how it is. The “solution” to that is not to macerate the fetus.

You know here’s an interesting point. When abortions are legal women have a choice to have a child or have an abortion. When abortions are illegal, women are, for all intents and purposes, forced to have children if they get pregnant. Naturally, you’ll say that women aren’t forced to have sex but they should be forced to accept the consquences of having sex. But men aren’t forced to accept the consequences of having sex, are they? Why not?

Having explained how it is relevant can I now expect you to answer the larger points I raised about state power and the body?

frameone: Your point about the kidney would be relevant if 1) Women were being forced to have abortions, or 2) Forced to have children.

You might also consider the idea of responsibilty: The sex act can quite often result in pregnancy. Why should that be the point where we allow women to be autonomous and independent? Shouldn’t be living with the consequences of their actions, as we all do?

Fire away!

I take it you’ve abidicated on the point in question?