[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, the summary was necessary, don't know why I was so verbose about it.

[ QUOTE ]
No. I can make a complete argument against this without ever mentioning God. Granted it may get a bit philosophical, but its not religious per se.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, we have to agree on some premises. Most pro-choice folks I know will agree that human life is something to be protected. Some hard line pro-choicers try to make their stand here, saying this isnt the case. We can debate from that standpoint if you wish, but most people generally agree more or less with my premise. Assuming that we agree on this, everything hinges around the question of personhood. The biological question isnt really debatable, just look at some embryology textbooks and see what their definition of the beginning of life is. So where does personhood begin? Basically, asserting that personhood begins sometime after conception is asserting a dualistic concept of human existence, in other words that your physical being and your "personhood" (or soul or whatever word you want to use) are two distinct entities. But this is a philosophically indefensible position. Human beings are an integrated unit, and thus no grounds exist for claimg that personhood doesnt begin when life biologically begins, which is clearly at conception. We can go into more detail on whatever points you wish, but this is just a sketch of the argument I am trying to make here.

And sorry for the delay in response to your post. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I get an idea of what you're saying, although I think that the premise needs a little development. (i.e. I don't entirely agree with the premise, so yes, I'm being difficult [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

I feel that personhood is variable, to some degree. Most people would agree that personhood occurs at the moment of conception. However, it seems wrong that an 8-celled zygote that has all the complexities of an amoeba is somehow equal in worth to a fully grown man with a good job, a family and noble aspirations. I make a similar argument about Terri Schiavo or other "vegetables." One could make an argument along similar lines of a completely burnt-out drug addict with a brain disorder and no hope for a happy life, but the argument carries less strength as this person displays more "personhood" than the zygote or the vegetable. However, if one were to choose between saving a drug addicted criminal with no family and poor mental and physical health, and a good doctor who gives to charity, one choice seems far better than the other.

Because of this variability of personhood, I feel that some persons are more deserving of protection than others. In some cases, I don't believe the personhood of the zygote is worth the effort of raising it, and complicating life for the mother or others affected.

Again, it varies from situation to situation, but I don't think that a young fetus has the same personhood as a grown person, or, accordingly, the same rights.