If you look at what ethical issues they are debating in Korea, what the British government has been looking into recently, and compare that with ethical discussions in the US, then it seems like the US is not just one century but one millenium behind.

As far as the statement that it’s obvious that a fetus isn’t a person, I must admit I was relieved to read that I’m not the only (rational) person who finds this statement ridiculous. I’ve long wondered whether I was the only (sort of) pro-life atheist.

For me, it’s got nothing to do with the fetus having a soul. Instead, I have a reverence for human life.

So, there you have it, Amara: a pro-life woman who doesn’t believe in god. I only hope one day you will meet another one, so our existence can be confirmed.

*As well as Seans usual conspiracy theories about how everyone is out to get the feminists and don’t really care about the actual argument perse. No offense, but thats just absurd. No one in their right mind would spend so much time/effort and tears on such a pointless endeavour. *

The fact is, its not ‘your’ body anymore, you have something else that may or may not be a life. You are simply a host, and as such have a responsibility that you cannot simply exorcise at will. In fact the law can and will punish you for say killing a child minutes before birth, so whatever there goes that argument other than in extreme circumstances (risk of life etc).

Now, having said that, I find the notion that a 1 month old arrangement of chemicals is hardly what I would call sentient, in fact its not even close. Science comes to the rescue here and should provide the legal definition of life as well as the cutoff date for abortions +- an error zone. Simply take the 1 or 2 sigma margin of error, and there you have it, as close to humanly possible.

basically body rights trump all. Also, it should not be forgotten that women have died giving birth, and still do on occasion, if they do not want to undergo the risks of giving birth, they should not have to, no matter what the reason.

And I say all this as someone who supports abortion. Maintaining that people opposed to abortion are “simply wrong“, though, is rather too much for me to take.

Speaking as an atheist who doesn’t believe in any universal morality, it seems to me a first-principles argument about whether or not abortion is acceptable is not simple.
I think most people accept that contraception is OK, while murdering a new-born is criminal (Catholic church aside). There must be some continuous function linking those two points – But who knows what shape it should be? A step-function at birth seems unlikely to me. In the absence of any obvious “bright line”, it seems a linear interpolation is reasonable.
By that argument, abortion at any stage is reprehensible – though perhaps less reprehensible than the other alternatives.

Let’s say a woman is pregnant, and considers abortion for whatever reason. Having met people who’ve done this, consider that the woman who has the abortion (assuming it was done properly) then goes through emotional hell. If there is a partner still involved, he’ll go through hell too. So, let’s say she decides to bring it to term, and put it up for adoption. More hell, though some adoptive parents may be happier (whatever that means).

Another issue. Do we need more people? By some estimates the 6,000,000,000+ we have is too much, endangering life on the planet. We’re certainly not desperate for more.

Let’s say that at six months pregnancy, it’s discovered that the child has some horrific genetic deformity, and this person will never be whole. Then what?

Let’s say that the child reaches 40 years old, but has turned out to be Hitler. Is retroactive abortion justifiable?

In all these cases, society needs to set guidelines. But bringing heated absolutes to the debate is not very helpful.

Humans have no natural preditors, and have reduced evolutionary pressure. Should breeding programs be set to advance human evolution? If so, should those not in the breeding program be sterilized?

I would therefore humbly suggest that you reconsider your belief that changing someone’s gender (or male/female experiences) would change their pro-life/pro-choice view-point, as it appears to be based on a lot smaller sample size than the admittedly flawed poll statistics that I provided. At the very least, I think you should remain agnostic with respect to said belief. (Perhaps you are, but it certainly doesn’t come off that way.)

Daniel: I’ll agree that you’ll find a lot of pro-life people who feel the way you describe. However, you’ll also find a lot of people like me who are very pro-contraception. This includes responsible uses of the morning-after pill – where the only thing that concerns me is a throw-back to the thalidomide disaster. For the record, I’m also pro-enviroment (and a vegetarian). In fact, my pro-environment views are a much stronger motivator for me with respect to candidate selection than my views on abortion.

Oh by the way I am not either/or officaly. But I am a christain. (lots of woman are too).

Please be aware that abortion is an issue that people in the European countries do not get worked up about, perhaps because 1) the laws are set in Parliaments rather than the U.S. Supreme Court (where issues of individual rights get involved), 2) Europeans are much more secular, and 3) abortion is considered a private matter that is not anyone’s business but the woman’s. If you would like data about this, go to The Economist web site and use the search word: ‘abortion’ and you’ll see that the issue of abortion (and “when life begins”) is a peculiar feature of the American political landscape compared to the political issues in other countries.

And yes, my other comments about genders is based on anecdotes; in the circles I move in (academic, research, technical in several countries including the U.S.), I’ve never met a woman who was ‘pro-life’, while, on the hand, I occassionally meet men who are. If you want to state that therefore my circles are not broad enough, then so be it, but I do find this facet very odd. So therefore, yes, I do wonder if, after those men who had a few decades experience of managing their baby-machine bodies, they would still think the same.

These words should be engraved on stone plinths 100 feet tall and placed outside every center of government in the world.

You comment makes me wonder: are you aware of a larger male/female discrepancy in the “world view”? (I’m not.) I suspect that your (unstated) opinion on this is based off your gut instinct and not off actual data. Stephen Colbert would approve.