The REAL issue of abortion

[hifigator]

I think I have figured out why we can never get to a point of agreement concerning the abortion issue. The problem is that no one ever asks the right question. Like many of the issues, it gets politicized to such a degree that the public is left merely falling in line with those of a similar political alignment as themselves.

I think the question is "When is it a new life?" More specifically, when do we agree that we designate it as a life? I don't have a solid answer but I honestly think that is the question.

At some point our society steps in and protects the rights of the individual. At some point you are not allowed to steal, rape, kill or in any other way infringe on another's rights without the threat of consequence.

When does this start?

I have heard all kinds of suggestions, but find some fault with all of them.

Some say that it is a life at conception. Well, there is truth in that it is a uniquely identified being when the egg is fertilized. At that point in time the DNA chart has been finalized forever. But with such a designation, even the morning after pill would be "wrong" as it would be taking a life. I know of very few logical people who would adopt such a strict definition.
On the other extreme I have heard "first breath." In other words it isn't a life until it has been delivered and is outside of the womb. That also is too radical in my view. Additionally we already have laws in place which would refute such an argument. If a pregnant woman is assaulted and the assault results in a miscarriage then the assailant potentially faces manslaughter or even murder charges. And that is as it should be in my mind. Additionally, if a doctor were to prescribe the wrong medicine, resulting in a miscarriage then I am certain that he would be vulnerable to a "wrongful death" suit. But if it was a life, then what died?

I have heard others suggest something as shallow as when it could survive on its own. Well that certainly doesn't work either. I mean most 2 year olds would probably die a quick death if there weren't anyone arround to take care of them.

I have heard some suggest that it be the mother's responsibility to fill out paperwork when she is pregnant, and that she have the authority to decide when it is a life. That is screwy but in a way might make the most sense. But I don't think that accomplishes anything with regard to the abortion issue. If it was simply up to the mother when it's a life then we haven't really addressed anything.

The most logical answer I have heard arbitrarily designates some time point in the pregnancy for "life." Any strict timetable definition has its own problems. Logistically many women don't have a firm schedule for their cycles so the age of the fetus would be an approximation at best. Additionally, some babies develop more quickly or more slowly than others. I don't think that should matter from society's standpoint but it certainly clouds the water.
Furthermore if we were to adopt such a system, then it would still leave a large door open for the mother to choose an "age" which fit her objectives.

One of the most common suggestions I have heard, is open abortion for the first trimester, limited abortion available during the second trimester and no abortions during the third trimester unless deemed medically necessary for the health of the mother.
This probably makes the most sense of anything I have heard, although it still has the "timetable" issues. How exactly do we tell if you are at the end of the first trimester or at the beginning of the second?

Some have suggested that with today's technology, and the ability to take a "picture" of the baby as it develops, we can far more accurately estimate his or her development stage. That sounds pretty good, but even still you would have to deal with differences in technology and equipment cities. Obviously a small rural town of 200 in Kansas wouldn't have the same facilities as LA or New York.
I have asked this question of many others over the past couple of years and haven't yet heard an answer which didn't have fundamental and inherant problems.

What I do know is that the right question is never asked. Maybe it is because we know there isn't a good answer or if there is, we haven't discovered it yet. I don't know. What I do know is that it ISN'T a women's right issue. That is the biggest red herring there is out there. Regardless of how some may feel, the question has nothing to do with "women's rights." At some point we, as a society accept that we will step in to protect the rights of those who cannot do so for themselves. When is that point with respect to a new life?

I have major problems with conception, first breath or any arbitrary point, but I can't come up with better answer.

Ideas?

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Yes I have one. As someone who works as a lobbyist and consultant. You should probably put some time and thought into something before you write it down. Stop posting.

[EasyEd]

At conception, when the male sperm fertilizes the female egg, a new life is created with its DNA established for life. It is a living human being. No one disagrees that it is living. Since its DNA is the same for life, it's a human being. Anything that intentionally kills that living human being is an abortion whether it be by the suction device, a knife, or a morning after pill. The science is irrefutable, only the scientists are dishonest. It's not difficult. It's only when people are trying to find a way to justify what they want to do does it become a problem.

[hifigator]

stpetersburghoya said:

Yes I have one. As someone who works as a lobbyist and consultant. You should probably put some time and thought into something before you write it down. Stop posting.

You are a twit. If you don't have any opinion on the subject fine, but your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

[hifigator]

ed said:

At conception, when the male sperm fertilizes the female egg, a new life is created with its DNA established for life. It is a living human being. No one disagrees that it is living. Since its DNA is the same for life, it's a human being. Anything that intentionally kills that living human being is an abortion whether it be by the suction device, a knife, or a morning after pill. The science is irrefutable, only the scientists are dishonest. It's not difficult. It's only when people are trying to find a way to justify what they want to do does it become a problem.

I understand the biology of it. And there are certainly many who hold your view. I am probably in the minority in the "Christian" crowd, in that I don't hold such a strict view. Again, that would make the morning after pill "wrong." For that matter certain other birth controls cause a scheduled cleansing of the uterus. I have gone round and round with this issue and there is simply something wrong with every suggestion. Anyone else?