The question is not "when is a human a human", but when is a human recognized to be a member of society and thereby entitled to protection by that society? Potential life could result in a mature adult at any point, the key word being "could." An unfertilized egg could become fertilized and grow into a mature adult being, but nobody is going to cry over the death of an unfertilized egg.



It's very nice to mess with Mother Nature. Bill Gates, Mr. Dell, or George would likely not have lived to adulthood without the modern advances of medical science. Just one hundred years ago, when some medical services were available, the average life expectancy was 47 years. Don't say that we can take advantage of antibiotics, innoculations, modern surgery, radiology, etc. and then say pregnancy/childbirth must be left to "nature's devices." If you want to play "what if", what possibly could millions of women in the past accomplished if they could have controlled their reproduction? Abortion has been occurring for thousands of years and mankind has continued to advance.

OnTheLeft...

"Any person subject to this chapter who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 1 to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section and shall, upon conviction, be punished by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother."

...wtf? Look, I guess I'm neutral when it comes to abortion. I'm not really in favour of the idea but I don't think making it illegal is right either.

If this is a legal debate, OnTheLeft, checkmate, sure...

But this refers to the 'fetus' as 'unborn child' and says that if they kill it, it's like killing a human being. In fact, it says killing the unborn child is the same thing as killing the mother.

Legal trickery aside, this agrees that a fetus IS an unborn child and that IT is like killing a human being.

That's completely inconsistent with legal abortion. Putting a "third party" loophole prevents that, fine, but it's a completely arbitrary loophole that's only there to protect abortion! You can't claim that fetuses are not human beings in one case and not in another case without a pretty clear distinction between the two. I don't see where this distinction lies.

It certainly isn't in the idea that harming the fetus is harming a part of the woman since there is no law that says if you chop someone's arm off and then kill them, you face a separate punishment for the arm or that "killing" the arm is like killing a human.

Plus, if the fetus isn't alive, how can you kill it?

Blech. I'm sure legally it's drum-tight, but from a perspective of, um, Reason, it stinks pretty bad.

So do you think that a fully developed child is a human being or not? If a child isn't born then it isn't a human being? When you were born, I hope you made it to term, you were developed and capable of becoming what you are today... but let's say your mom's doctor just chopped your head off before you took your first breath considering your feet came out first... would he be a murderer? What is the difference between that and partial birth abortion? When do you think society should protect you or your baby should you become pregnant if there were some doctors running around with a dark chocolate sense of humor? Is it OK in the first trimester... second... when does society say you are worthy of being considered human and being protected? If a punk comes up and stabs a pregnant woman in the womb and kills a baby at what point is it murder?





That is all BS and you damn well know it, sex, pregnancy and childbirth are totally separate from home, health care and other modern medicine. Nature is an example of nature where other mammals in the wild do not require any of the things you mention to survive. Advances in medicine, food production, housing and other contributing factors have advanced shelf life of humans but have nothing to do with the issue of selection of life or death of a possible adult member of the human race. To end pregnancy is to alter nature. To be cel1bant is to alter nature. If nature gave the woman choice in the matter it would be only in the form of rejection of the male counterpart. If all women would choose not to carry a child then the human race would end, clearly this is not nature's plan for humans and to consider it as an occasional trend isn't an option.

A man and a woman could be stranded on an island with none of the things you mention and produce a child. Yours is an illogical argument.

There is a consensus in society that one becomes a full-fledged member of society at birth. Before that there is no consensus.



It is true that a woman can sometimes give birth with no medical intervention and mother and child both survive. It is also true that they may either one or both die without medical care. There really is no danger that ALL women will choose not to bear children. If such a thing did happen what would it matter?

THE EFFECTS OF PREGNANCY - complications of pregnancy

Every minute of every day, somewhere in the world,
most often in a developing nation,
a woman dies from complications related to
pregnancy or childbirth.

Maternal mortality is so high in the developing world (1 in 4 that it is customary for Tanzanian women about to give birth to bid farewell to their older children.
-- Michele Landsberg, TORONTO STAR, Sat., Sept. 30, 2000,
p. L1 "U.N. Executive Council Fights Inequality With Shocking Facts and Figures"

Pregnancy/childbirth was a leading cause of death
of American women of childbearing age at the turn of the century.
It remains a leading cause of death of women in many countries in the world.


All pregnant women, by virtue of their pregnant status,
face some level of maternal risk. Data suggest that around
40% of all pregnant women have some complication.
About 15% ... [have complications] that are potentially life-threatening

Actually, "nature" has aborted-and is still aborting-far more pregnancies than humans have aborted, or ever likely will abort.

And humans, with all of their possible actions, are also a part of nature.

And you have no point at all so you resort to name calling...WOW. If by misogenist, you mean someone who recognizes that some women are taking advantage of a medical procedure to terminate a life that her own actions created. Yup, that's me. I respect women that respect themselves. But again, the abortion statistics tell a clear story of "who" has abortions and how often. Some women don't need help being marginalized.

If it were that simple, there wouldn't be child support. It's relevant.

I signed in to thank this post. Spot on.

To be honest, I really don't giva damn about abortion. It's not my problem. But it does make for great discussion. But to think some people have rationalized the significance out of what is obviously a developing human goes a long way to explain why this whole damn world is going to poo. We are casting aside all the fundamentals of humanity.

I appreciate the thanks, Fx. I'm interested in the reply. The only distinction that I could see existing would be a distinction in term [i.e., this only applies to unborn children who are too old to abort]. The document states that this applies to unborn children of any term, however. No wonder Bush signed this.

LOL, exclude under deveolped countries, and see what the numbers look like. There is almost no reason at all for abortion in the western world, cause of fear of the mother dieing.