abortion

Thanks Pro for opening this important topic. I'd like to begin by affirming the emotional sensitivity of abortion. My hope is to have a respectful and constructive discussion without offending either side. I disagree that an abortion can occur "spontaneously." A miscarriage is not an abortion, because the term "abortion" implies a degree of intentionality. As such, I will not include miscarriages in my argument. I agree that abortion most commonly refers to induced pregnancy termination, and that's what I will focus on. Since no BoP was established, I assume it is shared. The issue here is whether a woman should be allowed to abort her unborn child "without consequences." I am arguing that by and large a woman should NOT be allowed to make that choice. Assuming that terminating human life is wrong, the central point of this issue is whether a fetus should be considered a human life. I believe it should. Before we consider what human life is, we must first examine the characteristics of life in general. I will examine multiple different definitions of life across numerous disciplines and determine if an unborn child can be included within each definition. I will start with the dictionary. Two definitions of life according the Merriam-Webster dictionary are: 1) The ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks 2) An organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction Starting with the first definition, we must ask if an embryo has the ability to grow and change. The answer is undoubtedly yes. Pregnancy tests cannot detect a pregnancy until week 4 or later. By this time, a fertilized egg has already implanted in the uterus and is dividing cells. At the very earliest moment a woman can know she's pregnant, a fertilized egg has already begun to grow and change. Therefore, it fits our first definition of life. For definition number two, does an unborn child possess the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction? Yes. An unborn child can absorb and metabolize nutrients, they grow, they can detect light, sound, and touch stimuli while in the womb. While they obviously cannot reproduce, they begin developing sex organs within a few weeks and females produce eggs during week 16. They are growing the capability to reproduce, which will not be fully actualized until puberty. Once again, an unborn child seems to fit into the definition of life. Let's move on to another category. Medically, life is defined as "The energy that enables organisms to grow, reproduce, absorb and use nutrients, and evolve... [1]." Do the unborn possess this energy? Yes. What about in the legal realm? American law recognizes an unborn fetus as an individual with individual rights at every point in pregnancy. In 2004, the federal government passed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it illegal to harm (either intentionally or unintentionally) an unborn child. The law defines "unborn child" as follows: "the term 'unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." This means that if drunk driver hits a pregnant woman who, as a result, loses her baby, he can be charged with homicide even if the mother survives. This remains true whether the mother is 4 or 40 weeks pregnant. The fetus is protected by law as a member of the Homo sapiens species at every stage of development. [2] Therefore, according to numerous definitions the unborn are living things. Now we must take it one step further and ask if it's a human life? There are biological and philosophical considerations that can help us answer this question. Biologically, humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present in the zygote the moment fertilization occurs. According to the book Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. [3]" Even if an abortion happens immediately after pregnancy can first be confirmed (4 weeks), the embryo has already begun developing a brain, spinal cord, and heart. By week 6, the arms, legs, eyes, and bones develop. The heart also begins beating [4]. These are all distinctly human organs. The brain and spine of a fetus do not belong to some separate, sub-human species. They are genetically fully Homo Sapien - just at an early stage of development. Philosophically, in order to call an embryo "non-human," then there must logically be some point at which it does become fully human. This distinction is very difficult to make unless you draw it at the moment of birth. But even drawing the line at birth presents philosophical problems. Is a baby really not fully human until the second it leaves the womb? How about 30 seconds before? 3 hours? 3 days? What about after leaving the womb but before the umbilical cord is cut (since the baby is still attached to the mother)? What about after the cord is cut, since the baby is still completely dependent on others for survival and its brain is still not developed? I am interested to hear where my opponent draws the line of human life and why. I am not going to address cases of rape or life of the mother. People love to bring this up, but these cases make up only a minute fraction of total abortions performed. To have a real discussion about this issue, we need to focus on the bulk of abortion cases. I look forward to Pro's explanations. [1] Mosby's Medical Dictionary (8th Edition, Elsevier, 2009). [2] http://www.gpo.gov... [3] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-29 [4] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...............