COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

Aside from the "morality" argument, is there any reason to not to legalize abortion?

2

Comments

  • JaywalkerJaywalker quantum cat PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    What if the child was not aborted. He/She could be the person who discovers the cure for cancer, or AIDS. Or the next Pope, or the next Bill Gates, or the next Einstein, if he/she were not aborted.
    If we are going to define abortion as the termination of the potential for life then we are commiting abortion this very moment by not impregnating someone/getting impregnated ...unless of course somebody here is typing while copulating.
    If your parents decided not to "do-it" at the time they made you and instead postpone it a month later, then it wouldn't have been likely that you're here reading this -it may be another person. If so then would they be guilty of abortion?
    If we reverse the question, because they decided to copulate at the time they did when you were made, not a month later, and the "other person" that would otherwise be reading this doesn't exist, does that mean that your parents aborted the "other person" ?
    There is no doubt that a 1 week old fetus is alive -bacteria are alive even if they have absolutely no cognitive abilities-. The question is by terminating it are we ending "human life" or just the potential for it.
  • ahlbirDahlbirD Member PExer
    Krayon wrote:
    Aside from moral/ethical arguments? - I can't think of any.

    Abortion IS a moral/ethical issue and should be treated as such.

    exactly...!! it would be pointless to separate the morality argument from the legalization of abortion, since it is, in my opinion, the main issue, or the only issue worth discussing with regards to abortion.
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    ahi,
    im curious what is that issue?
  • tsikoskitsikoski your puppet & clown PExer
    bludwid wrote:
    Just look at it this way. Abortion is, to put it bluntly, terminating a life, isn't it? If that ain't a moral issue fundamentally, then I don't really know what is.

    i try to exclude the moral/religious arguments because these things are deeply personal and NOT subject to discussion and argumentation; i.e., you can NEVER convince someone otherwise.

    it's better to exclude these particular parameters because the discussion is more pragmatic and realistic (and much less frustrating) without rabid bible-thumping.

    what's legal and "ethical" is not necessarily moral. for example, it is perfectly legal and ethical for a doctor in pgh to recommend artificial family planning methods to his patients, but if he's a conservative---that's "immoral". there's a difference.

    there is a LOT to discuss about abortion outside of religion/morality. if you can't see it, then you're either myopic or rabidly fundamentalist.
  • bludwidbludwid U Want Somma Dis? PExer
    tsikoski wrote:
    i try to exclude the moral/religious arguments because these things are deeply personal and NOT subject to discussion and argumentation; i.e., you can NEVER convince someone otherwise.

    it's better to exclude these particular parameters because the discussion is more pragmatic and realistic (and much less frustrating) without rabid bible-thumping.

    what's legal and "ethical" is not necessarily moral. for example, it is perfectly legal and ethical for a doctor in pgh to recommend artificial family planning methods to his patients, but if he's a conservative---that's "immoral". there's a difference.

    there is a LOT to discuss about abortion outside of religion/morality. if you can't see it, then you're either myopic or rabidly fundamentalist.

    That's the problem. People here tend to put "morality" and "religion" in the same box, when it isn't. I think Krayon was right in saying that the thread title should be "religion aside" and not morality aside.

    What's legal is not necessarily moral. But what's ethical is almost certainly moral, too. In a way, ethical and moral are synonymous (you can check the dictionary/thesaurus for this and it is), but ethical and legal are not.

    I've seen it posted that, yes you can argue about the economic implications. But the big picture of that is it's still a moral decision. It's a matter of choosing whether what's good for the country's pockets or what's good for the country's social conscience.

    However you want to twist and turn the debate on abortion, it just goes full circle and goes back to the issue of whether it's right or wrong and weighing the "lesser evil".
  • bludwidbludwid U Want Somma Dis? PExer
    i am referring to the political impact that it might cause, and not the moral impact that it will cause. They are two different arguments and consequences.

    As for ethics and morality, although they maybe similar, but they are different-- in 1 deals with the practical issue, and the other deals with the theoretical issue-- and thus, one can be emotional while the other cannot; as i have shown the logical implication of the word person in the definition of pro-life (i think on another thread)

    And lastly, abortion is not about the termination of life-- it is about the status of the fetus. If you think the argument is about termination then you have misunderstood it completely. To terminate something is amoral, but to terminate a person is a moral dilemma.

    Point one. abortion is termination. Whether you're terminating a life or a non-life, with the grey area of how old a foetus has to be to consider it "terminable", is the actual dividing factor between pro-life and pro-choice lobbyists. I think I understand it completely, thank you very much.

    Point two. Ethics is created on the basis of morality. You can't create a set of what or what not to do without having a set of boundaries to work from.

    As I've mentioned already, however you want to twist and turn it, it all goes back to the question of conscience. And again, morality plays a big part in this.
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    If a fetus is a non-life then terminating it would not be such a dilemma, as terminating one's internet connection. What divides pro-life and pro-abortion is the status of the fetus.

    Pro life argues,

    1. a person has constitutional right to live.
    2. a fetus is a person
    3. a fetus has constitutional right to live. <-- follows from 1 and 2.

    however, if expanded it will look like.

    1. a legal person has constitutional right to live
    2. a fetus is a biological person
    3. a fetus has constitutional right to live <-- does not follow from 1 and 2

    thus, it has nothing to do with when can a fetus be terminated, because the fetus' status is in question. With the example i had shown above, i used logic and not moral argument to show why the fetus has no right under the constitution. And thus, it is not a question of morality. This is only an example of an argument that can be use without using moral card.
  • bludwidbludwid U Want Somma Dis? PExer
    thus, it has nothing to do with when can a fetus be terminated, because the fetus' status is in question. With the example i had shown above, i used logic and not moral argument to show why the fetus has no right under the constitution. And thus, it is not a question of morality. This is only an example of an argument that can be use without using moral card.

    But again, is it right or wrong to think that a fetus is a non-life? Contemplating that alone depends on what kind of moral platform a person stands on.

    For example, a pro-life person would think that disgusting that somebody can even consider a fetus inanimate. So from his/her POV, it's wrong.

    You can try to exercise logic, but logic really has no bearing without a platform, in this case morality, to stand on.

    Before you apply logic in such a sensitive matter, you first have to decide which partition you want to fall under, and that will depend on what your moral values are. This is just my two cents.

    In any case, as what I've posted earlier, the biggest factor in this whole abortion debate is still the question of whether it's humane or not, and this is the global view. Any other bases for arguments are superficial.
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie Moderator PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    value-laden judgement
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Firstly, if you will quote me, please quote the entire post and not sections of the post. As I had explained in the previous post, EVEN IF A FETUS IS CONSIDERED TO BE HUMAN, IT STILL HAS A PROBLEM OF LEGALITY.

    Secondly, To consider that a fetus is non-life, it is an amoral consideration. Moral dilemmas only occur if and only if there is a dilemma and not if we contemplate if certain things are alive. As when I contemplate if my computer is an individual (personhood), it is an amoral question, unless if I consider the ‘destroying’ of this machine; and hence a dilemma.

    Thirdly, logic has every bearing on philosophical questions; im curious how did you come about with the idea that logic has no bearing at all?

    Fourthly, why do I have to pick a side to defend? Whereas my sort of philosophical beliefs fall under a post modern view based on guilt, and hence I am not a traditionalist that I have to pick a side? Does that make my view incorrect? Does that make my process of analyzing things to be wrong? It seems to me, most of the opinions you had made are either misleading and or outright funny—Any arguments that has no logical basis, and or has no proof either a priori or a posteriori (or even based on experiences) is a mere gossip. So if your opinion is that of negative logic then are you merely babbling nonsensical opinions?

    Fifthly, you cannot analyze your own opinion. You had said ‘the biggest factor in this whole abortion debate is still the question of whether it's humane or not, and this is the global view. Any other bases for arguments are superficial.’

    In regards to the fifth point, can you please elaborate, what you mean by the term ‘humane’ And what consists of the global view? As far I’m concern you had not said much except regurgitate the definition of abortion, without analyzing what does the debate really is.

    And lastly, how can other arguments be superficial? And what do you mean by being superficial?

    All these need to be answered because it seems that you had misunderstood the question and problem of 1. an opinion 2. moral values 3. the topic of abortion 4. your own argument, if there is any.
  • bludwidbludwid U Want Somma Dis? PExer
    Firstly, if you will quote me, please quote the entire post and not sections of the post. As I had explained in the previous post, EVEN IF A FETUS IS CONSIDERED TO BE HUMAN, IT STILL HAS A PROBLEM OF LEGALITY.





    I saw that section as the gist of your whole post...apologies
    Secondly, To consider that a fetus is non-life, it is an amoral consideration. Moral dilemmas only occur if and only if there is a dilemma and not if we contemplate if certain things are alive. As when I contemplate if my computer is an individual (personhood), it is an amoral question, unless if I consider the ‘destroying’ of this machine; and hence a dilemma.

    But your computer being a non-life is a fact that nobody disputes. Don't you think it a bit silly to compare a computer, an obviously man-made, non-living object to a fetus, which, depending on whose POV, could or couldn't be.
    Thirdly, logic has every bearing on philosophical questions; im curious how did you come about with the idea that logic has no bearing at all?

    logic has no bearing without a PLATFORM. It seems I'm not the only one who cuts corners here.
    Fourthly, why do I have to pick a side to defend? Whereas my sort of philosophical beliefs fall under a post modern view based on guilt, and hence I am not a traditionalist that I have to pick a side? Does that make my view incorrect? Does that make my process of analyzing things to be wrong?

    You have to pick a side, not to defend, but to base your argument on. You can't really debate with me, and not commit to where you stand on the issue. Wherever your philosophical beliefs fall under, whether or not you are a traditionalist, it still follows a set of principles of what's right and what's wrong. You can bake or mash it, put sugar on top, but it's still the same potato

    Whether your view is correct or incorrect is not the basis of discussion here. I'm not questioning the way you analyze things, either, so don't be so vain. That's not what's being debated about in this thread. The fact that you have an opinion based on your concept of guilt and your value set defines the kind of morality you have.
    It seems to me, most of the opinions you had made are either misleading and or outright funny—Any arguments that has no logical basis, and or has no proof either a priori or a posteriori (or even based on experiences) is a mere gossip. So if your opinion is that of negative logic then are you merely babbling nonsensical opinions?

    The opinions I've made are mine. I'm not pushing my point down anyone's throat, nor have I presented any proof. I'm not in a thesis defense scenario, don't treat it as such.

    And don't even try to use exotic, clever sounding latin words on me. It only makes you look even more pretentious.
    Fifthly, you cannot analyze your own opinion. You had said ‘the biggest factor in this whole abortion debate is still the question of whether it's humane or not, and this is the global view. Any other bases for arguments are superficial.’

    I didn't analyze my own opinion. I stressed it.
    In regards to the fifth point, can you please elaborate, what you mean by the term ‘humane’ And what consists of the global view? As far I’m concern you had not said much except regurgitate the definition of abortion, without analyzing what does the debate really is.

    Humane, meaning is it a kind or an unkind act? The global view is that the abortion issue is a moral issue. All laws regarding its legalization was based on
    humanistic pretenses. Regurgitate the definition of abortion? I only defined it once. Most of the time I spent defining my views that whatever reason anybody has for legalizing abortion, it still anchors on the morality issue - true or not?
    And lastly, how can other arguments be superficial? And what do you mean by being superficial?

    Superficial meaning outside the big picture which is "whether abortion is right or wrong in the first place", other reasons to legalize abortion are not really important to merit a long discussion like this. Bottomline is, however hard you try to veer away from the moral issue and mask it with other factors like economics, politics, science fiction, etc it will still boil down to people asking themselves "but is it right or wrong?" And is that question fundamentally moral or not?
    All these need to be answered because it seems that you had misunderstood the question and problem of 1. an opinion 2. moral values 3. the topic of abortion 4. your own argument, if there is any.

    I don't think I misunderstood the question. I merely sliced into the subject matter by saying "what's the point of having any other reason... is morality not enough?"

    At the same time you 1. were too engrossed in your own sophistry that you failed to comprehend my point, too, and failed to see my opinion 2. pushed the discussion too deep its boring the hell out of the people in here 3. were contradicting yourself by unknowingly using the concept of morality to prove your point.
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    1. I was comparing my computer with a fetus, but that was not the main point. My main point was that a dilemma is required for a statement to have a moral value; and that any statements that has NO dilemma is an amoral statement. Do you object to this?

    And a small note: Both my computer and a fetus are man-made—and im curious what are the requirements of being alive?

    2. I have a platform don’t I not? Or you didn’t read between the lines? My view is the abortion issue can be settled by looking at it on an objective argument, either by using logic, and or meta-ethics—to find out the real cause of the disparities between pro-life and pro-abortion, which one of my posts clearly (with hope) shown that ‘the term life’ has no bearing on the argument.
    3. Again, my meta-ethical belief is different from yours. I believe that there is no clear line between right and wrong, and that each individual ought to be treated differently, based upon one’s perceive relationship. And that based on that relationship, guilt becomes the only factor that matters. As you can see, the set beliefs you hold are of traditional view, while mine is not. I am practicing a sort of post modern belief system that fits my experience. And hence, I don’t have to pick between black and white – and hence, I have to use other means such as logic and meta-ethics to show certain things.
    4. It seems to me by merely reacting and responding to my opinion, you’ve analyze the posts objectively, and hence is imposing your set view on my opinion. And hence, the opinion is not subjective but rather becomes objective—and is worthy of analysis. Where as the terms I used are common, I suppose, to anyone that participates in a moral discussion; as I don’t prohibit anyone to describe something using any fancy terms, if and only if, that is the best way they want to describe what they want to say.
    5. Is the process of aborting inhumane? If it is so, what if we find a process that makes it more humane, then should we allow it? And when we talk about it being inhumane, why is it inhumane?
    7. Yes, the moral debate is important to the understanding of the abortion issue, but since you cannot even define the moral debate then it seems you need to 1. define the question more than once, as you said 2. continue to type more words, since most of the time your posts were spent defining your views.
    8. I understand your view, that you wanted for everyone to accept the moral issue, that is why I had asked what is the moral issue, or a more layman term, what is the dilemma.
    9. Again, I stress logic and meta-ethics and not factors such as economics, politics, science fiction, etc
    10. In order to understand the moral question, we ought to take it a step further. This is my point! The moral question in itself, we cannot define, if we don’t understand the basis of one’s morality. And morality is based upon logic and meta-ethics. If one refuses to discuss using these two important elements then we are merely discussing a fruit, an apple and an orange— or morality, with two different systems.
  • bludwidbludwid U Want Somma Dis? PExer
    1. I was comparing my computer with a fetus, but that was not the main point. My main point was that a dilemma is required for a statement to have a moral value; and that any statements that has NO dilemma is an amoral statement. Do you object to this?

    And a small note: Both my computer and a fetus are man-made—and im curious what are the requirements of being alive?

    2. I have a platform don’t I not? Or you didn’t read between the lines? My view is the abortion issue can be settled by looking at it on an objective argument, either by using logic, and or meta-ethics—to find out the real cause of the disparities between pro-life and pro-abortion, which one of my posts clearly (with hope) shown that ‘the term life’ has no bearing on the argument.
    3. Again, my meta-ethical belief is different from yours. I believe that there is no clear line between right and wrong, and that each individual ought to be treated differently, based upon one’s perceive relationship. And that based on that relationship, guilt becomes the only factor that matters. As you can see, the set beliefs you hold are of traditional view, while mine is not. I am practicing a sort of post modern belief system that fits my experience. And hence, I don’t have to pick between black and white – and hence, I have to use other means such as logic and meta-ethics to show certain things.
    4. It seems to me by merely reacting and responding to my opinion, you’ve analyze the posts objectively, and hence is imposing your set view on my opinion. And hence, the opinion is not subjective but rather becomes objective—and is worthy of analysis. Where as the terms I used are common, I suppose, to anyone that participates in a moral discussion; as I don’t prohibit anyone to describe something using any fancy terms, if and only if, that is the best way they want to describe what they want to say.
    5. Is the process of aborting inhumane? If it is so, what if we find a process that makes it more humane, then should we allow it? And when we talk about it being inhumane, why is it inhumane?
    7. Yes, the moral debate is important to the understanding of the abortion issue, but since you cannot even define the moral debate then it seems you need to 1. define the question more than once, as you said 2. continue to type more words, since most of the time your posts were spent defining your views.
    8. I understand your view, that you wanted for everyone to accept the moral issue, that is why I had asked what is the moral issue, or a more layman term, what is the dilemma.
    9. Again, I stress logic and meta-ethics and not factors such as economics, politics, science fiction, etc
    10. In order to understand the moral question, we ought to take it a step further. This is my point! The moral question in itself, we cannot define, if we don’t understand the basis of one’s morality. And morality is based upon logic and meta-ethics. If one refuses to discuss using these two important elements then we are merely discussing a fruit, an apple and an orange— or morality, with two different systems.

    1. Um, I think a computer and a fetus, however much you philosophize on it, are two VERY different things. A computer doesn't turn into a robot... a fetus turns into a thinking, breathing, cognitive being. Given that it's not your main point, it defines your moral values; hence, it in a way defines your whole view on abortion.

    2. Ok, I agree with this. It has to be looked at objectively. We'll get back to this point later.

    3. It seems you fail to comprehend me entirely, also. I did mention that I am pro-choice. I have merely been presenting the case of both sides of the abortion issue. I was just establishing the essence of morality in abortion. I think you have to go back a few steps and look at where I'm coming from.
    It seems to me by merely reacting and responding to my opinion, you’ve analyze the posts objectively, and hence is imposing your set view on my opinion. And hence, the opinion is not subjective but rather becomes objective—and is worthy of analysis. Where as the terms I used are common, I suppose, to anyone that participates in a moral discussion; as I don’t prohibit anyone to describe something using any fancy terms, if and only if, that is the best way they want to describe what they want to say.

    I'm lost now. This is all mumbo-jumbo to me.
    8. I understand your view, that you wanted for everyone to accept the moral issue, that is why I had asked what is the moral issue, or a more layman term, what is the dilemma.

    Unfortunately, you don't understand my view. I didn't want everybody to accept THE moral issue. I just want everyone to understand that abortion is A Moral Issue, regardless of which side you lobby for. Or did you, fail to read between my lines?
    10. In order to understand the moral question, we ought to take it a step further. This is my point! The moral question in itself, we cannot define, if we don’t understand the basis of one’s morality. And morality is based upon logic and meta-ethics. If one refuses to discuss using these two important elements then we are merely discussing a fruit, an apple and an orange— or morality, with two different systems.

    Nope, we don't need to take it a step further. We don't need to define the moral question itself, as that's not the point in question here.

    You used a lot of logic and meta-ethics in your arguments, which you now present as "based upon morality". Yet in earlier posts, you were separating logic from morality. Check this:

    i used logic and not moral argument to show why the fetus has no right under the constitution

    I'm really confused, and my failure to read between the lines is partly due to your jumping from one contradiction to another (the main one being your use of big philosophy clique terms).

    Your last sentence is beginning to scratch the surface of what I'm trying to say, well done. YES, people have different levels/concepts of morality, which is why abortion is a moral issue... Thank you.

    And apologies to everybody who's had to endure this long-winded discussion, which, if anything, cheapened a really important social concern by drowning it in rhetorical argument.
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    In any moral discussion, it is imperative for parties to look at their meta-ethical values, that is, where they come from, their differences and similarities, and hence they are moving the discussion to its most basic precepts. If this is not necessary, then how do you plan on discussing ethical values? As I said, I never deny that abortion is a moral argument, but to discuss it at the moral level will result to more confusion—since our moral stand is merely a by-product of our meta-ethical beliefs and logic.

    One way that we can do this, is by breaking up the dilemma to its basic parts. However, since you are misled on the problem of abortion that it is about humane process, (and which you fail to reply on a few questions I had regarding it) then by analysis, the debate is totally different from what mainstream are arguing. Although you are entitle to your own argument, but it is necessary to explain why is it so, to give the readers such as I a better grasp of your arguments, and or opinion.

    And since you claim it is merely an opinion that you are entitle on having one, I agree. But the moment we rebut another opinion, we placed our opinion on the realm objectivity, since opinions of the subjective nature is infringed upon, and hence, you expect to get a rebuttal too. In that case, we cannot argue that my opinion is a mere opinion.

    Again I will paste my argument:
    Pro life argues,

    1. a person has constitutional right to live.
    2. a fetus is a person
    3. a fetus has constitutional right to live. <-- follows from 1 and 2.

    however, if expanded it will look like.

    1. a legal person has constitutional right to live
    2. a fetus is a biological person
    3. a fetus has constitutional right to live <-- does not follow from 1 and 2

    And to reply on that last quote,

    If you read any of my posts, I never said they are the same. I never said I am making a moral argument. If we argue at the moral level, there is no point. We have to argue using logic and using meta-ethics. Sorry if it was confusing, or seemed contradictory; but since I didn’t bother explaining myself in the beginning due partly to I was merely making a short opinion (subjective until you replied on it), and hence I didn’t need to explain myself thoroughly, except that I was making a logical and not moral answer to the topic.

    P.S. You didnt define what is it to be alive. And if a computer turns into a robot will that make a computer alive? Without defining the term alive, how do you know if certain things are alive? And you didn’t answer my queries on humane process.
  • bludwidbludwid U Want Somma Dis? PExer

    P.S. You didnt define what is it to be alive. And if a computer turns into a robot will that make a computer alive? Without defining the term alive, how do you know if certain things are alive? And you didn’t answer my queries on humane process.

    I think this has dragged on for more than anybody would like, though I will again address your question, just for the sake of not being called a cop-out.

    Whether I define what is alive or not is not the basis of argument here. It's the dilemma of how people consider what is alive or not which is the gist of the issue. So what if I give you a definition? Will it change the issue of morality? I think answering this will bring us to more rhetoric, and I refuse to indulge myself.

    The computer will not turn into a robot - no ifs. That's why you can't compare it to a fetus in the first place. What if a computer turns into a robot through a biological process you mean? Isn't that a silly question you're bringing up just for the sake of argument?

    Again, my definition of what's humane or not is veering away from the topic. I think you fail to see the big picture in what I'm saying here. I, nor my personal views, is not the topic of discussion here; rather it's abortion being a moral issue. The thread title is not "what do you think of the abortion issue." It's "apart from the morality issue, is it worth debating abortion, etc etc."

    I've apologized about this already, so I think this is my last post regarding our little jousting session. I've stated my point, so have you, so let's leave it at that and give others a chance to give more meaningful and on the ball insights.
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    The definition of the term alive is imperative if we want to discuss what it means to be a person. After all isn’t the problem of abortion really is on the status of the fetus? Again, if we can come up with an acceptable definition of personhood (including the term alive) then we have solve the problem of abortion—  basis of any ethical claims – (meta ethics)

    P.S. how can the definition of alive be rhetorical?
  • PhooeyPhooey Member PExer
    One word: "Readthetitleofthethread" :D

    The spate of arguments so far only proves thatthe concepts of abortion and morality are inextricably intertwined. (whew!). Even a womans underlying decision to seek/shun termination of pregnancy is based on her own ingrained moral system. A legalistic argument is also difficult since laws them selves are crafted with morality or "common good" in mind.
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    phooey,

    And since our moral inclination is based on our meta-ethical beliefs, then we should discuss this underlying cause (why we incline this or that towards certain things)-- and only with logical investigation can we realize our inclinations... then wouldnt it be best, if we discuss our meta-ethical beliefs?
  • PhooeyPhooey Member PExer
    Sure, thats fine, though a discussion to that end would probably go farther and farther away from the original query posed by tsikoski.

    freak. I was scratching my head for a while over what "meta-ethical" meant. (we just didnt have very humanities courses in college). The spelling I found though is "metaethics", just a minor point really. Its just that "meta-" always brings to mind those hated "meta-analysis" journals we had to review every so often.

    ps
    are you a philo, anthro or econ major? Im just guessing, really. :D
  • TessariaTessaria Fan Forum's Finest PExer
    Don't we already have a thread for this?

    Well, for argument's sake, I say yes, you CAN argue against abortion aside from the morality stance: a scientific one. Like what I've said in the other thread, a fetus, at the moment of conception, has his own DNA, something that is entirely unique and separate from either one of his parents. That tells me that the person inside the womb is a person, and not just some pesky 'organ', or extension of the woman's body.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file