Anything organically connected in the interior of a human body could probably be assumed to be "alive."

But that's not the point. Science has no definition for "life" that I'm aware of. The issue isn't a scientific one.

The issue is when, if ever, a fetus acquires enough "humanity" that we become morally accountable for what we do to it, and furthermore, when, if ever, a fetus's right to exist takes precedence over a woman's right to do what she will with her own body.

That's ethics, it's not science. Science has nothing to do with it.

And letting yourself argue over definitions is just playing the very game the Christian Right wants, because their position is stronger going by definitions. It's weaker going by ethics.

But don't you also consider its presence and its potential for life? It's a fertilized egg. The kind we don't eat for breakfast...

But we do eat them for dinner. They're called "chickens" by then.

Don't you also consider a grown woman's right to decide for herself whether she wants to grow a parasite in her body for however many months?

No?

Cause I think that's a pretty basic right, myself. Probably more basic than a fetus's "right" to "potential life." Whatever the fuck that is.

Maybe a tire fire?

This is ridiculous. I'd expand on this but the whole abortion subject has been brought up and argued over so many times I don't feel the need to add to it any further. It's like a merry-go-round.

No, I'll back up the complete and utterness of it. He was saying that this wasn't a waste of time because "majority rules, dude!". While we both agree that that sentiment certainly doesn't apply here, it's also just flat wrong in general. The buck virtually never stops with the pure "democratic" will of the majority. It is always checked by the Constitution and the republican process that it sets up. There is no federal referendum system. The closest thing that comes to that is the process for amending the Constitution and even that is checked by both houses of congress AND those state's individual legislatures. Individual states might have more direct versions of democracy, but again that's checked by the federal constitution, the supremacy clause, the commerce clause, etc.

I mean, it's not really germaine or important, but the idea that "direct democracy" or "majority rules" is any kind of trump card in our governmental system is more than just a little wrong. It's really, really wrong.

no, you're wrong!

*flips bird, humps* Lets practice making babies.

Ok...so all the "majority rules" crowd, how do 1 sperm + 1 egg (pre-embryo) outweigh the vote of several trillion cells (complete human that can survive on it's own without being implanted in another being)?

I spelled that out for ya so ya wouldn't get all confused.

what, so you can go abort them? i'm on to you.

Fixed.

THis really makes me want to move. Not only would it make abortion illegal but they could easily argue any number of psychotic things...especially since any women who has ever riden a roller coaster three days after conceiving could suddenly be a child abuser.

That is the most concise and accurate description of the argument I have seen in quite some time. And lest we forget, the "rights" of the fetus have to be balanced against the rights of the mother. It is difficult to legislate morality, although humanity attempts to do so with regularity.