How ignorant are you about basic women's biology?

[Arbit]

Thing is even if it's only 51/49, if the woman decides one way then 51% of the decision has been made that way. Which means that way goes. In practice there isn't a middle ground between 50/50 and 100/0. Yes the man can talk with her and try to have his opinions noted but at the end of the day what she says goes.

Not saying that's not the best solution just that it's imperfect.

The thought of the woman holding the ultimate decision making power may seem unfair. In practice, it isn't something you need to consider, for the simple reason that if you are in any way concerned that one day your wife (or girlfriend... I ain't gonna judge) is going to come home one day and be like LOL I ABORTED OUR BABY WITHOUT TELLING YOU HOW WAS YOUR DAY AT WORK? you should not even consider having a baby with that woman. In fact, she just did you a great favor because the baby slaying* is totally on her head alone and now you can quickly and vigorously evac yourself from the relationship without having to worry about how it is going to affect the children.

*If that's what you believe it is**

**it's not

[n0z3k1ll3r]

The final decision is up to the woman but that doesn't mean she can't take other people's viewpoints into consideration.

Into consideration yes. I'm not suggesting she's just going to merrily abort a child without consulting her partner, just that if she's set on one course of action nothing the husband can do can really avoid that outcome. This is more of an issue I think if she wants to keep a child that the couple genuinely can't afford to keep.

[Akranadas]

Unfortunately, because the man isn't the one who has to go through the 9months of pregnancy, the decision of whether to abort or keep the fetus ultimately lies with the mother. It's a bad situation for the male partner in this instance but at the same time, he's got to be 100% understanding of the position the mother has been put it. Abortion has got to be a horrible experience to go through at any time during the fetus life cycle and there are bound to be emotional complications after the abortion has taken place.

That is why it is always good to talk about these things, don't treat them as a taboo subject or as a joke. Talk with your partner of the possibility (as no method of contraception is 100%) of what would happen in the woman fell pregnant so you know each others stances. Having an open dialogue with your partner about it will help if the issue does arise because you both aren't going into the decision fresh, you've both talked about it and both understand each others view points, so from there you can formulate a plan of action on whether to carry the fetus through to term or to abort at the first possible chance to minimize damage.

[ThursdaysChild]

What do you guys think about the opposite situation, as in a couple (married or not) has a broken condom or some mishap or things just don't work and the woman decides to keep the baby? If there is a disagreement about whether or not to keep it, and the pregnancy is brought to term, how would you deal with child support? Should it be a "you had sex, even with precautions stuff can happen, you have to support the baby for 18 years", or should there be some point where you decide how to split future responsibility post pregnancy?

I'm not asserting that this happens all the time, but child support seems to be a corollary issue to abortion (which I do think should be mostly the woman's choice), and while abortion is a very big health and future altering choice for a woman, supporting an unplanned child is going to likewise be a life altering issue for a man. This isn't to say that men who leave their families or get women pregnant should be always allowed to get off free, I'm not trying to defend deadbeat dads or whatever, but given a responsible couple and an unplanned pregnancy, if the choice is entirely up to the woman, should there be a point during early pregnancy where the woman has final say over whether or not to keep a child and her partner has a say over whether or not they want to be legal guardian/share responsibility for the child?

I guess it kind of leaves the possibility for women to be abandoned later, so I was kind of assuming maybe a window matching abortion viability, and if no opposition is stated during that time, then you proceed with the same child support responsibility laws and what-have-you. This way a woman would get to decide whether or not to abort, but keeping the baby would require an understanding between parents as at that point it presents more than just a health issue.

[roflmao]

So my question for the pro life movement is as follows

1. What happens to the mother's short term / long term psychological well-being?
2. What happens if the mother doesn't have enough money to not work for the next year?
3. What happens if the mother is actually a crack addict or lives an unhealthy lifestyle?
4. What happens if the mother doesn't have healthcare?

You can easily answer those questions yourself if you frame the question with a 6 month old baby instead. Assume the baby is out of the womb, and then come up with answers on how to handle the same situations you described above.

[Mac_Bug]

Why don't i just assume the baby is 18 years old instead and save you the trouble of answering the question?

[Moe]

You can easily answer those questions yourself if you frame the question with a 6 month old baby instead

No, you can't. They're not talking about a six month old baby. As mac pointed out, why not assume that the baby is 18 years old? This argument doesn't make sense. You don't treat a fertilized egg the same way you treat a toddler that's crawling around.

Also can we stop with "pro choice" and "pro life". They're stupid terms and imply that one side hates choice and the other one hates life. It's pro and anti abortion and apparently in some extreme cases pro and anti contraception.

[Stripe7]

Hmm, lets see no abortion and you have young teenage women harming themselves with drugs bought from Mexico for abortions in Texas right now, that will jump significantly if the Republicans in the US have their way. Abstinence does not work, that is a fact, teenagers will have sex, deal with it or you can start imprisoning your teenagers for having sex. Then you have the child support issue, what do you do with teenage moms with 3-4 kids? Sterilize them? Government support, create government run orphanages or let the babies die? I thought Republicans were for small government not taking over the lives of women and teenagers. You are looking at a Totalitarian/Theocratic government that tells its people when to have sex, when to have kids and what they can do with their lives.

Hmm, Totalitarian/Theocratic government, that sounds like the Taliban to me.

[roflmao]

@Moe, Mac:
18 years old would work perfectly fine as well.

I don't actually want to debate abortion or when life begins. It's like debating religion, every possible argument has been given and heard and there's nothing new to add. I just want to explain the mindset, because it surprises me how few pro abortionists actually understand where the anti-abortionists are coming from, or grasp the thought process.

If you want to understand how the anti abortionist thinks, then you have to think of a fetus as a human life with equal value to all other human life. The entire point is that it's not a question about how developed the fetus is, life is life and taking life away is murder.

You reserve your right to think the position is insane or retarded, but for the purposes of answering the questions Mac Bug posed, whether the human being is in the womb or 8 months old or 18 years old or 80 years old doesn't matter. Don't want to be accused of evading questions, so:

1. I think those who don't abort are far more healthy psychologically in the long run than those who do. You're trading 9 months of pain for an entire lifetime of being able to look back and see that you did the right thing during insanely difficult times. But it's up for debate, of course.

2. I'm all for financial aid.
3. No difference from a 4 year old who has a crack mother. State intervention is required.
4. Government should absolutely cover the healthcare costs of delivering children in the cases of rape. Any counseling or mental healthcare the person requires should absolutely be provided by the government. I have zero qualms with breaking my anti government principles here.

[Stripe7]

Do you know anyone who has had abortions? My mom had two. She has had no issues with having had them. I have 3 sisters and their choices are their own like their mother. You are not talking about 9 months here. you are talking about 18 years + 9 months for every child, be it their choice to have kids or not since even if they get raped the Republicans will not allow them to abort the fetus.

[FriendlyFire]

I'm not sure I really want to jump in that debate, but I can't help it.

roflmao, from what you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're mostly against the traditional conservative/libertarian position (2, 3, 4) and the only point you're debating (1) is based entirely on personal opinion? Unless you have studies proving that abortion is psychologically unhealthy, of course.

But then, assuming that this is opinion, why are we even debating this? It should be up to the woman's own opinion on this as to whether she should abort or not. There should be no ruling saying that you MUST abort or that you CANNOT abort, it should be up to her, simple as that.

[Mac_Bug]

1. I think those who don't abort are far more healthy psychologically in the long run than those who do. You're trading 9 months of pain for an entire lifetime of being able to look back and see that you did the right thing during insanely difficult times. But it's up for debate, of course.

2. I'm all for financial aid.
3. No difference from a 4 year old who has a crack mother. State intervention is required.
4. Government should absolutely cover the healthcare costs of delivering children in the cases of rape. Any counseling or mental healthcare the person requires should absolutely be provided by the government. I have zero qualms with breaking my anti government principles here.

1. Well, I'm told that being pregnant is not entirely a pleasant experience, neither is child birth, and on top of that to have it remind you everyday of being raped? If the mother has say, PTSD or any other form of psychological trauma from the rape itself, I would imagine she would have a pretty hard time giving birth to the innocent baby (remember - what YOU think of the baby is kind of irrelevant to this question). Maybe we'll end up with a Casey Anthony.

2. Is financial aid well defined to cover women who are pregnant? Is this or has it been part of any bill the 'pro life' faction sponsored? What if this pushes up your deficit? How will you pay for it? By giving them the money that usually goes towards sexual education / contraception / abortion services?

3. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse about this, but you do know that the mother's lifestyle while pregnant severely affects the baby, right? I'll give you some examples - Cerebral Palsy (possibly for some cases), Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Being pregnant also affects a woman's body and her health dramatically, for example gestational diabetes can end up hurting both the mother and the baby in extreme cases. What exactly do you propose to do, separate the fetus from the mother?

4. So why shouldn't the government cover the cost of someone who got hurt in a car accident?

[Theophilis]

Which is why these statements (Akin's, not yours) are so problematic. Religion says "this is how it is. Anything that doesn't seem to fit must therefore be wrong." That's fine for basing your personal philosophy on if you're into that sort of thing, but it becomes a massive issue when you try to legislate based on it, because reality doesn't care about what you believe. If you have a nasty infection and believe that praying alone will cure you, odds are you'll die because the bacteria don't care about your prayers. They will however care about antibiotics.

Religion in general is one of those things that, unfortunately, people let others decide for them, as well as getting very defensive when it is belittled. Religion should look at the evidence and adjust accordingly just like science. Let's take the Genesis account of creation. Maybe Moses believed he was writing down the literal beginning of earth, maybe not. But let's just assume, from the Judeo/Christian perspective, that the Genesis account is divinely inspired from a very real God. Now lets take all the evidence of the universes age, the earths age, evolution and all that. If the Genesis account is literally accurate then either the evidence is wrong, or the evidence is misleading somehow. If the evidence is accurate then either God is wrong, or the interpretation of Genesis is wrong. Let's say the evidence is accurate. So now we have to believe that either God was wrong, because He was/is a fallible being, or He was being diliberately misleading. Both of which leads to Judeism and Christianity being based on falsehoods. Now if the interpretation is wrong, then what is God really trying to say? Sadly most religious people don't want to actually think like that. Right now God and the spiritual are beyond science. Science can't account for them so they remove them from the equation. Does that mean God doesn't exist? No, does that mean He does exist? No, but I will say that any god who can create a world that can change and adapt and become something different and new without collapsing on itself is bigger than a god who just made everything as is, in media res. I personally haven't reviewed all the evidence to make an informed decision and I really don't want to take somebodies word for it.

It also means that you don't ever have to be wrong. If a guy came down from the heavens tomorrow who looked exactly like Jesus, who then performed a bunch of miracles and brought back Joseph and Maria from the dead, only to announce that he was in fact gay and thinks that abortion is cool, a significant chunk of Christians will call that guy a fraud, regardless of what else he does, because he doesn't fit with their interpretation (which can't be wrong!) of the bible. I suppose there's comfort in believing in an absolute truth, but if that takes over all aspects of your life, including the ones that impact the rest of society, then you and society have a problem.

I would say that would cause as many problems for the religious community as it would the scientific community.

Also can we stop with "pro choice" and "pro life". They're stupid terms and imply that one side hates choice and the other one hates life. It's pro and anti abortion and apparently in some extreme cases pro and anti contraception.

The thing is, it's two different arguments. Pro choice is whether or not a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body or not. Pro life is whether or not it is right to harm the innocent and defenseless and now has devolved into when a human is actully a human. If you really want to make it interesting flip them and argue from the reverse. Then you get Pro government controlling individuals in defense of others and Pro destroying at the very least unique genetic material for the psychological well being of someone.

[Kushan_Pilot]

Any position that depends on what's in the bible can be taken only as seriously as necessary to account for the people who believe in it. Don't stress over it too much; academically speaking the debate is long since done. The history of the Abrahamic religion(s) (and of that god, Yahweh Sabaoth) is plain enough. YouTube Example 1 and Example 2. I tried to avoid the much longer and duller stuff, but it's around. Anyone can still argue for the possibility of some kind of woo/spiritual thing, but that'd be using pretty much a blank slate. Point being, don't waste time trying to find profound wisdom in those texts, as you can't find it there. Been there, done that . You're right that people "just listen," and thus disenfranchise themselves from their government, which is a real shame. As Moe indicated, if a real Jesus came along today and was executed (in today's society, put in the chair), Fox News would celebrate .

Edit: I'm on the choice side of things, given there isn't any overriding standard. It shouldn't be used liberally, though. Prevention measures should be part of the program to keep those numbers down and everyone "happy." And save money, no doubt.

Also the aforementioned "trap" a male could end up in, combined with the current failure rate of marriage, makes me think the same solution could tackle them both. It may be our current family model can't handle our needs (and may be a myth).

[Nasarog]

All the cut backs in the education system are retroactively making the talking heads dumber by the minute.

[Theophilis]

Obviously you missed my point. Why don't you try reading it again, but the whole thing instead of going to the word Genesis and skipping the rest. It was an example. Oh boy, videos on youtube. They must be trustworthy and honest and in no way have an agenda. I'm pretty sure I could find some Christian ones that beg to differ about those claims, however that's not the point. If I take your videos word for it, I'm still taking someones word for it instead of making an informed decision on my own. I happen to have personal reasons to believe in God and the Bible. I'm not going to start listing all that here, but if someone wants I willing to discuss that privately. For me, like most people, my personal experiances supercede anything anyone tells me until my experience is proven to be false. Does that mean that that should be proof enough for you? I'm not saying that. Atheism however is just as much a religion as Christianity, Hinduism, or New age spiritualism even if it's not as organized and is on more individual basis. It's certainly getting the intolerance down, along with the dogmatic responses and not listening to whats actually being said. I would like to point out that not all athiest are intolerant, dogmatic, or unwilling to listen, but just like most religions, the ones that are stand out the most. The only real scientific view on God and the spiritual is an agnostic one.

As for Jesus coming back today, I agree with you. According to the Bible, which apparently has zero profound wisdom, Jesus had harsh criticisms almost exclusively with the religious elite. Apparently thinking your better then other people and taking advantage of people was a hot topic for Jesus. I imagine it would be an interesting study to compare and contrast Fox News, or our entire political/media/religious elite, talking heads, whatever to the pharisees and saducees.

[Starblade]

This thread isn't about religion, let's get back on track.

[Akranadas]

Yeah! Lets get back to talking about vaginas!

[LoCo]

Kushan_Pilot: Can you provide me statistics on marriages failing that compensate for the whole "one person getting married and divorced multiple times".

For example, my mother has been married 9 to 11 times, (I lost count) and has just - in the last three months - left her latest husband.

That kind of shit skews the statistics since it seems like lots of divorces and broken marriages, but really it's down to the fact that the woman is insane and has a lot of issues. But not everyone is insane with a boat-load of issues thrown in for fun.

So my mother has had more than her fair share in the stats, and there are others like her (I'll admit though that my example is on the extreme side), some people just can't do marriage.

But then, each of those husbands are also included in the stats and because they come from an already dysfunctional marriage the chances of them moving to a functional one are lower which just spreads the effect.

The best one can do is finding the stats on marriages where both parties are on their first marriage. Otherwise there are simply too many complications to form any kind of stable sample.

So... ummm... if you want to argue about the failure of marriages, you're going to have to back that up rather tightly because from all the current stats I know of there isn't a shred of accurate data.

[Busby]

Yeah! Lets get back to talking about vaginas!

Vaginas... That's that organ that ladies have and straight men like putting there penis in... Right? Eugh.

[Kushan_Pilot]

You'd be right LoCo, it's a mess and I was just poking at it . For my part, I also know several family members who have divorced multiple times (I know only one couple that's still married and hasn't announced any change there). I don't know if these folks (and some percentage of the population) are just incapable of it by nature, and/or if anything needs to or should be done to accommodate them. It's all personal testimony, though. If the solution to womens choice meant a government family support system, we'd probably see clamoring there for its expansion. (But that's like printing a newspaper from the future, with headlines that haven't change for decades).

[Moe]

I would say that would cause as many problems for the religious community as it would the scientific community.

The point is that science is a method, not a belief. By its very design the explanations and models it produces are changed and adapted to new findings and new evidence. Which is why a debate on what boils down in large parts to a public health concern needs to be far away from religion, which for the most part operates on both the morals and the very limited understanding of the physical world generated by a society that hasn't existed in thousands of years. There is very little difference between using religious arguments against emergency abortions and burning crops to appease the Mayan gods so as to improve the harvest.

Roflmao (edit aw man you deleted your post): Even if we take those articles at face value, they're not enough to make this illegal. Smoking for example presents a direct health risk, is entirely voluntary, and has pretty much nothing but horrible side effects on you and the people around you, yet it's legal. To make abortion illegal because it increases the risk of suicide doesn't fit with how we legislate. Additionally, in many cases the abortion follows a traumatic event. It's very hard to control for these variables, so to draw a statistically significant correlation between "suicide rate" and "having had an abortion" doesn't really point to a causal relationship between the two.

[Stripe7]

Science is teaches us how to question, how to observe and how closely its theories match those observations. In learning Scientific theories we first learn how to question them. There is no data that supports that theory and in fact at least 38,000+ data points year in the US that disproves it. Not to mention what happened in Chechnya with the organized rapes of the Muslim women. That theory that Todd Akin was talking about is what the pro-life lobby believes, it is not his idea alone, look at the Evangelists now flocking to his aid. Note that Dr. Jack C. Willke, the father of the antiabortion movement is/was a Romney surrogate that revived that Medieval belief.

[roflmao]

@Moe:
Sorry. I deleted the post because I figured the issue was controversial and I'm not convinced those two papers are definitive or sufficient enough evidence to support an argument.

[Moe]

Well no, they're psychology papers so they don't count :P

[Agdune]

"Well no, they're psychology papers so they don't count :P"

:'(

It'd be interesting to see them anyway. Would personally like to see what fed into the author's decision; psychology's always interesting when unscrupulous people use it to pursue their pet moral issues. Having new fodder to argue about is always good too

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Moe: I'd argue that the scientific community includes not just science but a lot of "pro-science pro-reason" people who are actually about as badly set into preconceived notions as the religious community can be. The number of hardline atheists I've heard claiming that "Galileo got burnt at the stake for claiming the Earth was round" or some such nonsense kind of shows they don't bother actually applying the scientific method to anything.

[Starfisher]

People, remarkably, are still people. Belief systems only modify the target of their prejudices. People who choose to make actual scientific skepticism a core of their lives are rare.

[Stripe7]

Not that rare, just go to a TAM meeting or DragonCon and you will meet a lot of people who choose to live their lives skeptically. People who claim that science knows everything are just as guilty as religious followers. Science teaches us how to question everything methodically. If you don't question Science then you are treating it as a religion. Science teaches you how to question its theories and laws. Religion just says it is right via argument from antiquity or authority and persecute or kill everyone who disagrees with it's Truth.

[TDATL]

Religion just says it is right via argument from antiquity or authority and persecute or kill everyone who disagrees with it's Truth.

Religion isn't a proper noun. You are making a massive over generalization.

[mlai]

Scientific reason only works the correct way, the way it does, because it has not yet been subverted. Like the way it's been subverted by.... Imperium of Man, for example. 9___9
Christianity has already been subverted since Jesus died. What's spewed in church is not what Jesus taught. Nor did Jesus ever look like a blonde model with a beard.
And the US of A has already been subverted, gradually corroded layer by layer after all the Founding Fathers passed into history. That's how this country founded proudly on secularism worded meticulously by brilliant men, turned into a backward fundamentalist armpit where ignorant and deceitful men cripple the future of its children.

[Savage Noble]

@mlai

Yes, it is sad that a nation founded by relatively forward thinking men of the time has recessed to a point where it is controlled of some of the most backward thinking elites of today. But ofcourse, creativity emerges from crisis, and the US, realistically speaking, has not been in a state of true nation-compromising crisis since the Civil War. Change will only happen when it absolutely has to, and the US is simply not there yet.

[Starfisher]

Scientific reason can't be subverted because it's an ideal. What has happened is that people stayed human while some small percentage of them started to start claiming that they were scientific/skeptical thinkers. Maybe we are becoming more critical as a culture, but my personal experience is that, just like most religious groups, most "skeptics" don't actually act particularly skeptical, except for a few parts of their life where it's convenient.

[Agdune]

Well, this is moderately related; Arizona law now defines pregnancy from the first day of the last menstural period; basically meaning you're legally pregnant for 2 weeks before conception. Good job team! (I'm aware the link is biased as all hell, but at least it's longer than a couple of paragraphs)

Source

(rather hyperbolic, but actually reasonably accurate summary of the potential implications of legally defining pregnancy as being any time before conception).

The reasoning behind it is that it shaves a couple of weeks of the maximum allowable time for an abortion; so now the 18th week is apparently the max, as opposed to the 22nd-24th weeks. Or something along those lines. Personally, I'm not sure what they were aiming for beyond 'fuck you, preggo sluts'. It seems fitting, considering the Rep involved also wrote that there should be mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, despite there being no practical reason whatsoever in doing so. I've been seeing that drug testing thing come up often over the last few weeks; you have no idea how much it shits me. No-one can tell me, beyond childish spite WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF IT?!

[Vijil]

roflmao sums things up pretty nicely - the entire abortion debate comes down to whether a foetus counts as a human (and therefore has human rights) or not. It's a philosphical question at the core and science has very little to say about it. If we decide it's human then all the usual arguments about rape, hardship etc. no longer apply and more than they do to an adult or child. If we decide it's not, then we should really have full abortion on demand and not worry about people's reasons. The only problem then is what point the foetus becomes a baby - again a more philosophical than scientific question since you once again have to decide what defines a human. Pain? Thought? Language? Cognitive capacity? Heartbeat? It's not an easy question. Unfortunately there appears to be no point of change which makes it easy to decide even up to and beyond birth. I've read papers in which ethicists argue for infanticide on the grounds that a child under 2 is not really human yet - and I'll be honest that they were convincing within their own criteria. The criteria are the sticking point, not the science.

Regarding the topic, as far as I can make out the senator was referring to how the extreme trauma of a rape can sometimes cause a miscarriage, which is plausible. It seems unlikely that he meant to say that real rape victims should never get pregnant.

[mlai]

It's wrong to frame it as a philosophical debate instead of a sociopolitical debate, because that's where the real consequences are.
Ultimately, science is the odd man out. People who debate this are not concerned with facts.

[Starblade]

Personally, I'm not sure what they were aiming for beyond 'fuck you, preggo sluts'.

You got it in one. They can't outright ban abortions so they chip away at it in a hundred different ways, doing as much as they can to make it as difficult and humiliating as possible. See also: vaginal wand ultrasounds.

[Theophilis]

People who debate this are not concerned with facts.

And what facts would those be? I would also imagine that the real consequences end up in haz-mat trash bags at the abortion clinics. Like little miniature mass graves. Seriously, has anyone actually thought that anti-abortionist truely believe that fetuses are human beings and that abortion murders a defenceless, innocent human being? How is this not a valid argument? I will gladly argue for the government controlling individuals to protect the innocent all day long, but how can you argue for murder?

[Akranadas]

And what facts would those be? I would also imagine that the real consequences end up in haz-mat trash bags at the abortion clinics. Like little miniature mass graves. Seriously, has anyone actually thought that anti-abortionist truely believe that fetuses are human beings and that abortion murders a defenceless, innocent human being? How is this not a valid argument? I will gladly argue for the government controlling individuals to protect the innocent all day long, but how can you argue for murder?

People respect your view point, but you also have to consider that pro-choice people see those things in Haz-mat trash bags as nothing more than a collection of cells, much like a tumor and that they don't see it as murder in any sense. The term "therapeutic miscarriages" is sometimes thrown around instead of the word abortion with some GPs here in Australia, and we're somewhat more relaxed when it comes to this than the US. Hell, Abortion is legal in all states in Australia, although the extent is different from each state.

[Moe]

Regarding the topic, as far as I can make out the senator was referring to how the extreme trauma of a rape can sometimes cause a miscarriage, which is plausible. It seems unlikely that he meant to say that real rape victims should never get pregnant.

Vijil come on. You know better than to jump in without reading the thread. That is exactly what he meant.

Seriously, has anyone actually thought that anti-abortionist truely believe that fetuses are human beings and that abortion murders a defenceless, innocent human being? How is this not a valid argument?

Because they're not. You can have a philosophical argument about potential. And you can find some common ground towards the end of the pregnancy, since even the more staunchly pro-choice (fine I give up and I'll use those terms) people probably won't argue that you can abort a pregnancy when the woman just went into labor. How to define that magic point where we start treating the fetus as a human is at least partially a question of philosophy and ethics. But please remember that to many if not most in the pro life camp "no abortions" means "no abortions period". Let's look at what that means:
-If you were to abort the pregnancy by means of Plan B, or within the first few days, what you're aborting is a cluster of cells. Seriously, at this point an ant has higher cognitive functions, in that it has neurons, unlike the little ball of stem cells you're trying to protect.
-If the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, the fetus is already lost because if the mother dies, so does the fetus. At this point all you can do is attempt to save the mother's life.
-(PS: If this personhood stuff becomes law, then a fetus is a person. This means that pregnant women can always use the carpool lane, since it's "two or more persons per car".)
-Since the ball of stem cells now constitutes a human being, they can't be used for research (human subject without approval, you'd never get an IRB). There goes the most promising medical discovery of the last few decades.

It's not about saving a life, it's about saving a soul. This whole notion that life begins at conception, that through diving intervention a soul is bestowed upon what if left alone may one day become an actual human being. That's why this is a religious argument. The religious right has no problem killing people - many of the pro-lifers are curiously also pro death penalty. They have no problem axing social services that would help the baby and the mother once it's actually born, or railing against services that try to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place. So it's not about that precious human life, it's about the immortal soul, and this is where common sense goes out the window.

There is no such thing as a soul. People can believe that it exists - that doesn't make it so. They have absolutely zero evidence for the existence of such a thing, so to put lives in danger and to base a debate with such wide-ranging consequences as this one on what is about as real as Santa Claus is absolutely ludicrous. We absolutely should be having a debate about when life begins, and the best way to handle this would probably be on a case by case basis, and there may not be a perfect solution to this, but religion needs to butt out of this discussion pronto, because where religious morals enter this discussion, reason leaves.

[Langy]

And what facts would those be? I would also imagine that the real consequences end up in haz-mat trash bags at the abortion clinics. Like little miniature mass graves. Seriously, has anyone actually thought that anti-abortionist truely believe that fetuses are human beings and that abortion murders a defenceless, innocent human being? How is this not a valid argument? I will gladly argue for the government controlling individuals to protect the innocent all day long, but how can you argue for murder?

Even if I were to accept that fetuses are people and deserve all the rights of a person, I'd still say abortion should be legal. No person is allowed to maim another person's body without that person's consent. That's assault with grievous bodily harm, and lethal force is typically authorized in order to prevent something like that happening.

An unwanted pregnancy resulting in an unwanted birth is certainly maiming the mother in a fashion and without her consent.

Thus, abortion should be legal even if babies are human.

[TDATL]

@Theophilis: "How can you argue for murder?" By understanding that it is going to happen either way. I personally think abortions (as with an amputation or killing a person) should generally only be done in "do or die" situations.

Yet, I have to realize that my personal belief does not make for good practical policy. In this case I have to realize that no matter how you try to prevent abortions they are going to happen. If you made it a law that abortions were 100% illegal they would still happen. The difference would be that they would be carried out with a coat hanger or some other horrible method that is worse for everyone involved.

Now the common response to this would be "So because murders still happen you should make them legal?" and in response to that I say "sorta." When something is going to happen outside of your control you can't simply say it's wrong and hope it goes away. You have to try to work with the problem to solve the problem. Case and point the reason we have capital punishment/life sentences is because people would take matters into their own hands other wise. Two wrongs don't make a right but sometimes a "wrong" action can be the best way to minimize suffering overall.

This whole debate is very similar to discussing needle exchange programs. You have a "bad behavior" (abortion/drug use) and a perceived "enabler" (abortion clinics/needle exchange groups) that is encouraging or "normalizing" that aberrant behavior.

The problem in both cases is that you can not properly prevent the "bad behavior." In both cases it involves people manipulating their own body. To prevent such actions any sort of attempted preventative measures have to be so oppressive that you very quickly move into Orwellian level crazy. Using the law, the best you could do would be to punish people after the fact.

So what do we do? How do we stop people from harming themselves in a way that we believe is damaging to others in society? I think the only answer is understanding and communication. Understand that their problem isn't going to go away. Put in place measures to ease the harm caused to all involved and increase communication between all parties.

It is easy to condemn others for actions you think wrong. It is easy to ostracize and demonize them. It is much harder to understand them. It is much harder to forgive them for their faults. It is far FAR harder to take a few steps beside them down a path you disagree with in order to help make their lives better and perhaps lead them to a better place.

In short you have to be willing to meet people part of the way. The response to a lack of compromise is not compliance but reciprocal lack of compromise.

edit:
@Langy: Wow. I really REALLY disagree with your reasoning. I'm agree that even if fetuses are people we could still have reasons to have abortions. But your reasoning is way out there. Especially as in any case other than rape you already have consent.

Also, the pregnancy isn't maiming the mothers body. The mothers body is no more maimed by a pregnancy than your gums are maimed by your teeth coming in. Yes, tissue is "damaged" and form is changed but that is how the body is supposed to work! It is part of the normal functioning of the body and in no way constitutes "maimed."

If viewed as a separate entity, the child itself has a rather minimal effect on the mother. The majority of the changes to the mothers body are caused by her own body, in the interest of nurturing the child, and it is doing it to "itself." The child is completely at the mercy of the mother's body and any implied "maiming" or "consent" is directly her fault far more than the child's. (if you are trying to assign "blame" though I really think you shouldn't.)

[Vijil]

First point taken Moe, but second not.

You can talk about potential and all that sort of thing, but in the end as I said it comes down to the criteria you use to define a human. Cognitive ability is just one. DNA is another. Science can tell us where along the line different changes happen, but it can't tell us how we define human. Defining a human by cognitive ability, or ability to live unsupported, or whether it's shaped like a human yet etc. are all essentially subjective judgements and are all fraught with difficulty as all also apply to adult humans in certain situations. Defining humanity is a philosophical question, not religious. Souls don't necessarily come into it.

Regarding your specific points, if it's human then saying that medical research makes it ok is like saying that medical research made the nazi research on Jews ok. A non starter. Cognitive function isn't a good determinant of humanity, and as for "both or one will die" that's one of the only cases where it would be acceptable. But let's be honest - rape and mother death arguments only apply to a tiny minority of abortions.

Langy's argument is interesting - so if someone is hurting someone else (in a non life threatening manner) through absolutely no fault of their own, you are ok with using lethal force to resolve the situation? Even if it means killing a child? That's some seriously interesting morals there.

[Moe]

DNA is another.

Wait how does that work? Anything with human DNA is a human being?

Regarding your specific points, if it's human then saying that medical research makes it ok is like saying that medical research made the nazi research on Jews ok

I was arguing the complete opposite. If you define stem cells as a human being then you can't perform research with them, because they would count as human subjects and those have to give consent, which a pile of cells can't do. I'm not saying abort babies for research, I'm saying that if you make that cluster of cells a human person that means we can't use it for research.

Defining humanity is a philosophical question, not religious. Souls don't necessarily come into it.

Exactly, thank you. Which is why religious reasons should not be a part of this discussion.

[Vijil]

DNA - yep, it's as valid a way to define a human as anything else. More so, as it's more clear cut and less subjective than things like cognitive ability or shape or independence.

Um... I'm saying that appealing to research progress is a non argument as far as determining whether abortion should be ok or not goes.

And yes, religious issues should be kept out of it. You can only have a meaningful debate if there is some common ground. Pro lifers hurt their own cause when they appeal to beliefs their opponents do not share.

[Akranadas]

DNA - yep, it's as valid a way to define a human as anything else. More so, as it's more clear cut and less subjective than things like cognitive ability or shape or independence.

So that tissue I just threw out because I had a bloody nose is actually full of humans?

[Vijil]

As I jumped in the shower I figured someone would jump on that

Obviously for a pro lifer it would be something like "Human: a life form defined by a complete set of human DNA" or something to that effect leaving no ambiguity for blood cells or sperm or whatever. In any case my point is that the debate comes down to how you define a human, and that everything else is really just a side issue.

Unless, that is, you're talking to someone who doesn't believe in human rights. Then it gets complicated...

[Langy]

Langy's argument is interesting - so if someone is hurting someone else (in a non life threatening manner) through absolutely no fault of their own, you are ok with using lethal force to resolve the situation? Even if it means killing a child? That's some seriously interesting morals there.

Forcing a woman to give birth without her consent is very similar, in my mind, to forcing a woman to donate a kidney to a child without her consent. Yes, if she doesn't do it then the child will die. That doesn't mean the woman should be forced to do it.

And yes, birth is a very traumatic experience. Think of it as if it was happening in reverse; ignore the fact that it's 'normal'. Birth causes significant changes in a woman's body, and forcing someone's body to change (even in a non-life-threatening manner) is legally considered 'maiming', if I remember right.

Also: Having sex does not imply consent to pregnancy and birth.

And yeah, it's totally proper to use lethal force to prevent even a child from assaulting someone else. For example, if a child were going around firing a gun, it'd be perfectly proper to use lethal force to stop them if there were no other way.

[Moe]

"Human: a life form defined by a complete set of human DNA"

I think you need to go back to high school biology mate. You can use DNA as an argument for whether or not something is human, but that's very different from human being or person.

[LoCo]

What, exactly, is the problem with drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and saying that "After two months it's considered human and thus murder, but any time before then is A-Okay"?

It seems to me that no matter where or how you finally decide on "what is human", it's going to be arbitrary for someone. Why not embrace it, make our laws and be done with it?