State control over one's body

[GoldenCaneKC]

A) I’ve never been swayed by the argument that I might not be here given my mom having an abortion. I honestly don’t care it makes zero difference to me. I would never know that I missed out on anything. It would be as if I were a tapeworm. Killed by Ivermectin.

I never made that argument.

B) The lifeform after conception has the propensity to be human. But it is not human anymore than a dog is human until it shows the characteristics that make humans human. Not a specific DNA chain mind you, because, after all we share many parts of our DNA with other life forms. A larvae is not a butterfly no matter how much you want to classify it as a butterfly.

If Neanderthals had survived alongside us with extremely similar but slightly varied DNA would their lives be worth more or less simply because of that variation?

False. It is human. It is not and cannot be anything else, regardless of it’s capabilities or lack thereof. And if you’re making the argument that human life is only valuable based on what it can do (I’m assuming you mean reason, communicate, have conscious awareness, feel pain, etc.), I would encourage you to think that through to its logical and moral conclusion. It gets you to some ugly places.

And sharing common genetic building blocks as other species is irrelevant.

And the larvae/butterfly analogy actually proves my point. Let’s assume we’re talking about a monarch butterfly. That individual organism is a full member of the Danaus plexippus species the entire way through its life cycle. Saying a larvae is not a butterfly is equivalent to saying that a teenager is not a senior citizen. Those are both true statements, but they don’t prove the point you are trying to make. They actually undermine it.

So while a zygote is not an embryo is not a fetus is not an infant is not a teenager is not a senior citizen, the organism at all of those stages is 100% Homo sapiens or “human” if you prefer.

And as far as Neanderthals, if they survived to now, I believe their lives would be just as valuable as a Homo sapiens’, and valuable at every stage of development too. Many (maybe all?) modern humans have trace amounts of Neaderthal DNA due to intergroup breeding.

 

[URedskin54]

If the Texas government is going to mandate that a woman has to keep an unwanted fetus through delivery against her will for its own (pseudo)moral desires then it should not be allowed to mandate that she raise the resulting infant. If I were a judge that was forced by precedent to let this ruling stand, I would mandate that the state give multiple options to the woman upon delivery with what to do with the child. (Adoption, ward of the state, whatever) as well as fund the financial burden placed upon the woman given the healthcare necessary to deliver the fetus safely. And that should all come out of Texas’ pocket.

I really don't understand the point of arguing this way. If I were to use your exact style it would look something like this:

If the California government is going to allow the murder of innocent children for it's own (pseudo)moral desires then it should not be allowed to mandate that fathers assist in the raising of children at all, either personally or financially. If I were a judge that was forced by precedent to allow Roe v Wade to stand, I would mandate that the state give grieving fathers compensation if the child is killed through abortion as well as funding whatever mental health treatment he needs in dealing with the loss of a child. And that should all come out of California's pocket.

This is dumb and gets us nowhere because it requires intentionally avoiding the things that the other side actually objects to and pretends they have no legitimate complaint because it pretends their world view isn't valid. In order for me to argue that way I'd have to pretend that 1. there is nothing to your notion that we assign lesser moral value to children before they're born, and 2. that there's no question of bodily autonomy for the woman to consider. To argue the way you do about this you have to intentionally ignore the other sides argument and/or just pretend they're not valid so that you don't have to contend with it. Nothing productive there.

 

[aTUfan]

I wonder how Texas came up with the 6 week mark and how arbitrary that is or if there is logic behind it.

they used the same benchmark the democrats used for allowing late mail-in ballots

 

[astonmartin708]

These have been the dumbest logical arguments that I’ve seen. A cell is not a human no matter if it contains human DNA. 10 cells is not a human. Sperm is literally a single cell organism that has human DNA. Skin cells are shed millions of times each day and they all have human DNA. A heartbeat does not make a human. Nor do opposable thumbs. What makes a human is the ability to live life as a human. Not the possibility that you could live life as a human. But the actual existent ability.

Redskin, I dismiss the other sides argument as invalid and illogical because it IS invalid and illogical. Your analogy to my fake ruling is flawed, the case you are making is not a government mandate that all women will have abortions the government would not be doing damage to any party by allowing the woman to have an abortion (at least not more than a man really wanting to have a child). The government does not decide who can have an abortion. So the government owes nothing. A man can not prove monetary damage for NOT having a child. A woman forced to have a baby she does not want has actual monetary damages that are proveable without suspicion. Both in the healthcare needed to birth the child and the funds needed to raise it.

The only way I could see a tangible damage to a man from a woman not having a baby is if he already began to prepare to have the baby with the woman’s understanding that they would, before she changed her mind. In which case the woman should probably compensate him.

 

[astonmartin708]

they used the same benchmark the democrats used for allowing late mail-in ballots

What is the right number ?

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

A cell is not a human no matter if it contains human DNA. 10 cells is not a human. Sperm is literally a single cell organism that has human DNA. Skin cells are shed millions of times each day and they all have human DNA.

Straw man alert… Please respond to my actual arguments, not caricatures of them.

And yes, 10 cells CAN be a human. In fact, every single human alive in the world was 10-cells big at one moment in time during their development. If any particular genetically unique human is only 10-cells big at a particular point in time during his or her development, that does not change the fact that they are an individual, genetically distinct member of the human species at that time. And FYI, that is not the same thing as saying that 10 skins cells shed from an adult are or could be “a human”.

A heartbeat does not make a human. Nor do opposable thumbs. What makes a human is the ability to live life as a human. Not the possibility that you could live life as a human. But the actual existent ability.

(Setting aside the self-referential nature of your definition for a moment…) So what about people on ventilators? People in comas? People who are paralyzed? People with severe disabilities? Preemie babies? Regular infants for that matter?

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

I think it will be a big surprise to many of the people currently advocating for the “cancelling” of people who supported and/or participated in slavery, when in 100 years from now, people who are currently supporting and/or participating in abortion will be the ones being “cancelled”.

 

[URedskin54]

These have been the dumbest logical arguments that I’ve seen. A cell is not a human no matter if it contains human DNA. 10 cells is not a human. Sperm is literally a single cell organism that has human DNA. Skin cells are shed millions of times each day and they all have human DNA. A heartbeat does not make a human. Nor do opposable thumbs. What makes a human is the ability to live life as a human. Not the possibility that you could live life as a human. But the actual existent ability.

Redskin, I dismiss the other sides argument as invalid and illogical because it IS invalid and illogical. Your analogy to my fake ruling is flawed, the case you are making is not a government mandate that all women will have abortions the government would not be doing damage to any party by allowing the woman to have an abortion (at least not more than a man really wanting to have a child). The government does not decide who can have an abortion and a man can not prove monetary damage for NOT having a child. A woman forced to have a baby she does not want has actual monetary damages that are proveable without suspicion. Both in the healthcare needed to birth the child and the funds needed to raise it.

The only way I could see a tangible damage to a man from a woman not having a baby is if he already began to prepare to have the baby with the woman’s understanding that they would before she changed her mind, in which case the woman should probably compensate him.

You couldn’t have illustrated my point better if you tried

 

[astonmartin708]

I think it will be a big surprise to many of the people currently advocating for the “cancelling” of people who supported and/or participated in slavery, when in 100 years from now, people who are currently supporting and/or participating in abortion will be the ones being “cancelled”.

Slippery Slope fallacy.

 

[astonmartin708]

You couldn’t have illustrated my point better if you tried

The point is, that the government's law is placing undue financial burden on the mother. Not just emotional burden, but actual financial burden that wouldn't occur in the absence of the state. 18+ years worth of burden in some cases.

 

[astonmartin708]

Straw man alert… Please respond to my actual arguments, not caricatures of them.

And yes, 10 cells CAN be a human. In fact, every single human alive in the world was 10-cells big at one moment in time during their development. If any particular genetically unique human is only 10-cells big at a particular point in time during his or her development, that does not change the fact that they are an individual, genetically distinct member of the human species at that time. And FYI, that is not the same thing as saying that 10 skins cells shed from an adult are or could be “a human”.



(Setting aside the self-referential nature of your definition for a moment…) So what about people on ventilators? People in comas? People who are paralyzed? People with severe disabilities? Preemie babies? Regular infants for that matter?

The cells have genetic relation to a human, but by themselves, they are not a human. You are arguing that a sperm cell is a human as well, because every human was also a single sperm cell at one time. So are unfertalized eggs. We were all those at one time as well. Every single unused egg, lost in a period, had the potential to be a baby right up until it didn't. The same goes for a fetus. It had the potential to be a baby.... right up until the point that it doesn't.

A woman (all of the cells that make up her being and her consciousness) have the right and the natural ability to take action to terminate a pregnancy if it's in her body's long-term best interest. That's why miscarriages exist. It's the body saying that the pregnancy is unviable and rejecting the fetus prior to the fetus being fully developed. Why should a certain group of cells in a woman's body be allowed to terminate a pregnancy using the methods available to them, but another group of cells not be able to? The fact that it is done consciously or unconsciously makes no fundamental difference. The only difference with abortion is that it's done with the assistance of a third party instead of your wife (figurative) throwing herself down a flight of stairs because she doesn't think it right to develop a child with you. For as long as there have been civilizations women have been deciding if it was in their best interest to have a child. The less elicit we make that decision, the better it is for the woman and society at large.

As to your comment regarding the infirmed or premature births, I have already addressed this topic. It's a slippery slope argument. No one is labeling premies, or people on ventilators as not human.

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

You are arguing that a sperm cell is a human as well, because every human was also a single sperm cell at one time. So are unfertalized eggs. We were all those at one time as well.

Straw man alert… No I am not arguing that.

A sperm cell is not a human. An unfertilized egg is not a human. When a sperm cell enters and fertilizes a previously unfertilized egg, THAT is now a human. That is the only scientific and logical line in the sand that you can draw between human and non-human.

The same goes for a fetus. It had the potential to be a baby.... right up until the point that it doesn't.

Correct. And if that potential was stopped by the intentional ending of an innocent human life via abortion, that is a grave moral evil.

The error in your argument is that you’re assuming a human fetus has less intrinsic value than a human baby (infant). They are the same human, just at different developmental stages. It’s like saying that “A teenager has the potential to be a senior citizen…right up until the point that it doesn’t.” That’s a true statement, but just because it’s factually true doesn’t mean it automatically justifies another person intentionally being the one to put a stop to that potential.

 

[watu05]

Straw man alert… No I am not arguing that.

A sperm cell is not a human. An unfertilized egg is not a human. When a sperm cell enters and fertilizes a previously unfertilized egg, THAT is now a human. That is the only scientific and logical line in the sand that you can draw between human and non-human.



Correct. And if that potential was stopped by the intentional ending of an innocent human life via abortion, that is a grave moral evil.

The error in your argument is that you’re assuming a human fetus has less intrinsic value than a human baby (infant). They are the same human, just at different developmental stages. It’s like saying that “A teenager has the potential to be a senior citizen…right up until the point that it doesn’t.” That’s a true statement, but just because it’s factually true doesn’t mean it automatically justifies another person intentionally being the one to put a stop to that potential.

OK, let's say that line of thought is scientifically indisputable (?), how do those who support it square it with the claim the the state has no right to mandate that people are vaccinated when the virus has already killed over 600K people in a year?

BTW I'm not saying that's your vaccination view. Also I think the science of when a fetus becomes a person is still more debatable than the effects of the vaccine on public safety. It's the resolute dissonance between these two lines of thought that interests me.

 

[lawpoke87]

My question with the mandate deals with a vaccine where the long term effects (if any) simply aren’t known at this time. Not sure how we can mandate a vaccine under those circumstances. Especially with a virus with under a 1% fatality rate. Change the fact pattern and I very well could have a different opinion.

 

[drboobay]

Slippery Slope fallacy.

It is not a fallacy.

 

[drboobay]

All this said turning residents into spies on one another is no way to enforce a law.

 

[astonmartin708]

Straw man alert… No I am not arguing that.

A sperm cell is not a human. An unfertilized egg is not a human. When a sperm cell enters and fertilizes a previously unfertilized egg, THAT is now a human. That is the only scientific and logical line in the sand that you can draw between human and non-human.



Correct. And if that potential was stopped by the intentional ending of an innocent human life via abortion, that is a grave moral evil.

The error in your argument is that you’re assuming a human fetus has less intrinsic value than a human baby (infant). They are the same human, just at different developmental stages. It’s like saying that “A teenager has the potential to be a senior citizen…right up until the point that it doesn’t.” That’s a true statement, but just because it’s factually true doesn’t mean it automatically justifies another person intentionally being the one to put a stop to that potential.

I was not making your argument for you. I was saying that your logic (of any living organism with human genetic code and the potential to be a human someday) would lead anyone to deduct that any reproductive cell can be considered human.

Saying that a fetus and a teenager should be considered the same way is simply dumb.

By the way, you disregarded the contention that a woman already has the natural god given ability to abort a fetus via a miscarriage of her body seems the pregnancy should not continue. You act as if it’s some incredible evil it has been going on for millions of years both naturally (through miscarriages) and artificially as women sought the ability to terminate pregnancies.

It is not a fallacy.

Yes. It is. Abortion has not and does not lead to logic justifying the ending of any life other than an undeveloped

 

[drboobay]

I was not making your argument for you. I was saying that your logic (of any living organism with human genetic code and the potential to be a human someday) would lead anyone to deduct that any reproductive cell can be considered human.

Saying that a fetus and a teenager should be considered the same way is simply dumb.

By the way, you disregarded the contention that a woman already has the natural god given ability to abort a fetus via a miscarriage of her body seems the pregnancy should not continue. You act as if it’s some incredible evil it has been going on for millions of years both naturally (through miscarriages) and artificially as women sought the ability to terminate pregnancies.


Yes. It is. Abortion has not and does not lead to logic justifying the ending of any life other than an undeveliped

Then exactly when does that fetus become a human. At birth? 3 days before?

 

[astonmartin708]

Then exactly when does that fetus become a human. At birth? 3 days before?

As I’ve stated multiple times, I would argue that a fetus becomes viable to be considered human when it’s possible to exist without the requirement of the person developing it. (that’s not to say that it can’t require any assistance to survive. Obviously babies do, it just doesn’t matter who’s assistance it is.) Conservatively that would be the earliest time we could save a premature delivery which is currently 21 weeks.

Interestingly the 20 week mark is when definitions of fetal mortality change from miscarriage to stillborn.

 

[drboobay]

I don't have the patience to go back and read everything on one of these threads. It is rarely rewarding.

I'd say your definition is as good as any else. Some might say the fetus becomes a person when it can feel pain. Others might say the fetus becomes a person when it is born. You set 20 weeks as a general guideline for viability. All of these things have an arbitrariness to them and judgment as to what makes something human.

I happen to believe the most compelling argument, and the most elegant, is that the fetus was always a human from the moment of conception. I think this is much more persuasive.

Regardless, though, unless you believe that a fetus is not human until after being born, one is left with a question of "when is it OK to kill a human before birth." Certainly we don't disallow killing in all situations, so it is a valid question.

This is also a purely secular argument above. For people of some faiths, there is the belief that humans possess an immortal soul. I happen to be of this sincere belief. So I find both the secular and faith oriented arguments on when human life begins very persuasive.

I also believe that the best way to influence society to make just decisions in this arena is by persuasion. Not by a law that turns neighbor against neighbor.

 

[watu05]

Does the complexity of this issue and the myriad related impacts (health risks, unwanted children, state support, eventually higher crime rates) argue for letting women make decisions about their own bodies instead of the state? Women will be influenced by their upbringing, education, faith, health and economic situation. Why shouldn’t individual women, instead of a one size fits all policy that most women hate, determine the outcome?

 

[URedskin54]

One of the funniest things about leftists over the last few years is the habit of white dudes using “white men” as a pejorative.

Related:

 

[Clong83a]

I understand your premise and don’t know the answers. I’ve always struggled at what point a fetus is a human, it can be once the fetus exits the canal or is pulled out during a C-section. So I’m good with 20-21 weeks.

I quoted just this tiny snippet though because I’m against the death penalty and it made me curious if anyone else here is or if I’m in the minority? When the topic comes up in real life I’m typically the only person in a room against it.

I am also opposed to the death penalty and opposed to late term abortions that don’t have a medical reasoning. IE, harm to the mother, or a fatal congenital defect found with no cure that will cost a million dollars and you end up with a dead baby in a year anyways, that kind of thing. IMO, 21 weeks is too late for a completely voluntary procedure. But I think that late term abortions that are not for a medical reason are already actually pretty rare, so I never understood the arguments over as if it were really common for women to just change their minds and make that decision. It’s not. Most of them happen for a reason. Despite what I heard on the campaign trail last year, you cannot walk into a clinic the day before your expected due date and have a voluntary abortion. Not anywhere that I’m aware of, anyways. That’s insane.

I am okayish with voluntary ones earlier than 20 weeks, but I still think it is unethical to use abortion as a first line of defense against unwanted pregnancies. In my mind, abortion should be there because birth control and condoms sometimes fail, and because sometimes we all make mistakes at a really bad time in our lives when we can’t necessarily take care of a child or even have the time to be pregnant. And because not all sex is consensual. But it’s a gray area for sure, and not something that I think has any easy philosophical resolutions. Not honest ones, anyways. As distasteful as I find them, I also think it is unethical to force a woman that maybe got pregnant despite precautions to carry a baby to term. Especially if that was the product of a rape or if it poses a potential risk to her health.

I try to respect people’s disagreeing viewpoints. It’s a thorny issue for sure.

 

[aTUfan]

no smoking restaurants, ban big gulps, limit sugar drinks, no salt,

 

[astonmartin708]

 

[Clong83a]

no smoking restaurants, ban big gulps, limit sugar drinks, no salt,

On the Ning Nang Nong
Where the Cows go Bong!
and the monkeys all say BOO!
There's a Nong Nang Ning
Where the trees go Ping!
And the tea pots jibber jabber joo.
On the Nong Ning Nang
All the mice go Clang
And you just can't catch 'em when they do!
So its Ning Nang Nong
Cows go Bong!
Nong Nang Ning
Trees go ping
Nong Ning Nang
The mice go Clang
What a noisy place to belong
is the Ning Nang Ning Nang Nong!!

 

[watu05]

Texas governor's answer to no rape exclusion to new anti-abortion law is both pathetic and almost funny. If he can do it, what has he been waiting for?

Texas Governor Defends Abortion Law, Saying State Will 'Eliminate All Rapists'

"His comments are confusing to me because they certainly do not seem to reflect the realities of this law," said Amy Jones, the chief executive officer of the Dallas Area Rape Crisis Center.

www.npr.org

 

[URedskin54]

The correct answer of course is that a child conceived in rape is no less valuable than a child conceived with consent. Whether or not you’re killing a human is the relevant question, not how it came to be.

 

[astonmartin708]

The correct answer of course is that a child conceived in rape is no less valuable than a child conceived with consent. Whether or not you’re killing a human is the relevant question, not how it came to be.

I would presume that women pregnant from rape would be likely to seek abortions early in the timeline. I wouldn’t say that people were arguing that babies born as a result of rape should be killed. Theoretically the pregnancy shouldn’t be allowed to progress to a point where the fetus is considered viable.

 

[drboobay]

The correct answer of course is that a child conceived in rape is no less valuable than a child conceived with consent. Whether or not you’re killing a human is the relevant question, not how it came to be.

Also whether or not the killing is just given the circumstances. That is where my moral reasoning goes - to those two questions - to assess the moral course of action.

There is of course another consideration - that of morality in the context of freedom of religion.

For example, as I understand it, the Hindu religion would extend the concept of an immortal soul to non human living beings. Should we extend the state authority to prohibit such killing of certain animals as well?

Though I believe in Catholic moral theology with regard to abortion and find it morally unacceptable, there are complications everywhere when it comes to government action on the matter. Until more fellow citizens are persuaded we must find some type of legal common ground.

 

[watu05]

Catholic theology is against abortion but does it go beyond being an individual's mortal sin and require enforcing non-Catholics to make the same decision? Apparently the answer for most Catholics is 'yes', but as you point out there are complexities. That decision may look very different to non-catholics. Rape and incest are examples. Largely Catholic Mexico has just decriminalized abortion.

 

[astonmartin708]

If Catholics had more lenient views on profalaxis I would appreciate their theological morals more.

I see it as a self preservation desire from the church (not just Catholicism mind you). The more children who are born into the church the better for them.

 

[Clong83a]

The correct answer of course is that a child conceived in rape is no less valuable than a child conceived with consent. Whether or not you’re killing a human is the relevant question, not how it came to be.

I appreciate that philosophical stance.

I think if you view it as a human life from conception, that is fine, the question then just becomes, "When is killing this tiny human morally or ethically justified?" For you the answer may be that it simply isn't, under any circumstances. But there are general situations where killing someone may be considered justified. Self-defense, for example.

And a mother that has her life threatened by a medical condition could be construed to be acting in self-defense. It's a stretch, but so too could a mother that has been raped. Her attacker's child is (unwittingly) continuing an undesired assault on her body, and she could be considered justified to stop it. And in my view, she most certainly is.

Forcing her to carry it to term opens a whole other can of worms, such as, does the father have any parental rights? Will the mother be forced to interact with this person for the rest of her life in various legal ways, by either trying to get child support out of him, or possibly even situations of shared custody or fighting a suit for shared custody?

Again, you don't have to agree here and I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this issue. I just think that people have different ideas about what is considered justifiable, and I think that's okay. Further, I think it should be okay for people to make their own (often difficult) decisions on the matter and keep the government out of it.

 

[astonmartin708]

I appreciate that philosophical stance.

I think if you view it as a human life from conception, that is fine, the question then just becomes, "When is killing this tiny human morally or ethically justified?" For you the answer may be that it simply isn't, under any circumstances. But there are general situations where killing someone may be considered justified. Self-defense, for example.

And a mother that has her life threatened by a medical condition could be construed to be acting in self-defense. It's a stretch, but so too could a mother that has been raped. Her attacker's child is (unwittingly) continuing an undesired assault on her body, and she could be considered justified to stop it. And in my view, she most certainly is.

Forcing her to carry it to term opens a whole other can of worms, such as, does the father have any parental rights? Will the mother be forced to interact with this person for the rest of her life in various legal ways, by either trying to get child support out of him, or possibly even situations of shared custody or fighting a suit for shared custody?

Again, you don't have to agree here and I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this issue. I just think that people have different ideas about what is considered justifiable, and I think that's okay. Further, I think it should be okay for people to make their own (often difficult) decisions on the matter and keep the government out of it.

I think there has to be a distinction between what we can ALL agree on, and what the church believes. If it were up to the Hindu minority, there would be no McDonalds hamburgers and Cows would roam the streets. If it were up to some Baptists we would have no dancing and if it were up to some LDS folks there would be no alcohol. Sometimes what is allowed in general is more of a compromise for logical philosophy, practicalityand efficacy than it is a judgement of religious morals.

The restrictions that our laws place upon individuals are not made to protect the sanctity of a belief, but are made because they prevent actual harm to parties.

The problem at hand is that children are being born into bad family situations which is causing societal issues both for the children and mandated into caring for them. Now, we don’t have the tenacity to fix the societal issues that challenge these families nor do we have the ability to keep people from having sex without turning our country into a religious theocracy. We have to allow something to be done to combat the problem. That either means encouraging birth control / profalaxis (and advisements to use them if necessary) prior to conception or abortive measures after conception. Those are the only two options we have unless we want to start tackling more difficult issues instead.

 

[aTUfan]

according to the Constitution; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

[astonmartin708]

according to the Constitution; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

A famous line from the Constitution which is not actually in the Constitution.

It’s in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

A famous line from the Constitution which is not actually in the Constitution.

It’s in the Declaration of Independence.

Derp

 

[URedskin54]

Just gonna put out there that none of this really has anything to do with religion. You’ll have religious people argue this or that about what God would want but it’s not really a part of the debate. There are secular and atheist pro-life groups and none of my reasoning has anything to do with what I learned in church. Focusing on religious stuff is a distraction, because the arguments against abortion are universal and not faith based. I know people on the left feel more comfortable arguing with the religious stuff but those are not the arguments you actually have to contend with.

 

[astonmartin708]

Just gonna put out there that none of this really has anything to do with religion. You’ll have religious people argue this or that about what God would want but it’s not really a part of the debate. There are secular and atheist pro-life groups and none of my reasoning has anything to do with what I learned in church. Focusing on religious stuff is a distraction, because the arguments against abortion are universal and not faith based. I know people on the left feel more comfortable arguing with the religious stuff but those are not the arguments you actually have to contend with.

I would not say the arguments against abortion are universal. They are logical and emotional to a point, but frequently when you point out flawed logic regarding when a lifeform should be considered a human protected by laws, then people start to revert back to beliefs rather than deductions, and those beliefs typically fall back to definitions made in various texts of faith.

 

[URedskin54]

I would not say the arguments against abortion are universal. They are logical and emotional to a point, but frequently when you point out flawed logic regarding when a lifeform should be considered a human protected by laws, then people start to revert back to beliefs rather than deductions, and those beliefs typically fall back to definitions made in various texts of faith.

Nothing I have ever said on the issue is religion based. The arguments can be accepted/adopted by anyone of any faith or no faith. That is universal.