AJ,

"The unborn child is human from the point of conception. Its DNA is proof of that. "

The stuff I leave in the bottom of the bowl after my morning ablutions also has human DNA. But with the best will in the world I can't see it growing up to be president.

If its human (whenever its human) it has all the rights that go with that. Whatismore, it needs to be protected and nurtured. The survival of the species relies on that. Reproduction is the main (the only?) purpose for our existence. Playing little mind games about when its humanity can be ignored rather misses the point of existence.

Even if its life threatens that of another, its right to life remains paramount. A society that acts otherwise is headed for a very dark place. If its true that some life is more important than other life, then why not enforce organ donations from 'lesser' people to save 'more worthy' people?

Again, I'm not anti-abortion. I think that, up to a point, it should be an unfettered right for women to end a pregnancy. But after that point, (and we seem to agree its at 20 weeks), society's requirement to protect all life takes over, even if the results are messy and detrimental to the mother's economic or psychological well-being. We have laws about child neglect for very good reasons. Society cannot operate otherwise. The issue is why those laws only apply when the head crowns.

It may be true or at least arguable that, say, a mongoloid baby in the womb should be put down for its own good. But unless those arguing that, are also prepared to argue that a mongoloid baby should have its brains sucked out a week after birth for its own good, they aren't being consistent and are missing the point of what being human means.

Correct, mhaze.

<<If its human … it has all the rights that go with that. Whatismore, it needs to be protected and nurtured.>>

Right up until the point at which it needs to use the body of another individual to survive. Then the mother’s rights trump those of the unborn child, as is also the case with children who have been born.

<<Playing little mind games about when its humanity can be ignored rather misses the point of existence.>>

At no point does my argument require that the humanity of the unborn child be ignored. It's about prioritising rights in a rational way. There are no mind games.

Also, appealing to a continuation of the species is irrelevant as we are hardly going to wipe ourselves out with abortions.

<<Even if its life threatens that of another, ...>>

Certainly not if its life threatens that of another! Even our laws recognise that people are not obliged to be good Samaritans if doing so would endanger their own life. And why doesn’t this right extend to people who have been born? I mean, we wouldn’t force a mother to donate a kidney to her child, so why does an unborn child have more rights than a child who has been born?

<<If its true that some life is more important than other life, then why not enforce organ donations from 'lesser' people to save 'more worthy' people?>>

It has nothing to do with importance, and everything to do with bodily autonomy. So your analogy here is invalid because it ignores the bodily autonomy of the hypothetical "lesser people".

<<The issue is why those laws only apply when the head crowns.>>

Because, again, the child is no longer dependent on another for its survival. You seem to be struggling with that point.

The problem with your 'When is it human?' method of determining rights, is that the answer will either always be arbitrary, or it would end up in a total ban on abortion. By making bodily autonomy the fundamental issue, we can take a reason-based approach to determining rights.

AJ

Its not a case of my not understanding your point about bodily autonomy, but a case of my disagreeing with it, even finding it abhorrent and not a little juvenile.

By your formula, a mother's rights to her body overrule the child's right to life while-ever that child is in the womb. The child cannot survive without her benevolence but she has every right to withdraw that benevolence as she sees fit.

Thus, by your formula, a women at say 33 weeks can simply decide that she no longer wants to be the life support system for her child and has the right to have its existence terminated. Such a formula, such thinking, I find abhorrent.

A scenario: women wants a child and, being in a well-paid job, reckons she can afford it without impacting her life-style. At 30 weeks she looses her job. Suddenly the new child is going to be a financial burden. She now longer wants the baby. Under your formula she has the right to withdraw her 'agreement' for it to use her body for its survival and to have it killed. Are you comfortable with such a world? Remembering that you've already said this thing to be killed is a human being.

This article is about legislation, not about morality.

If the laws of the state were meant to enforce morality, then not only abortion, but also drinking, gambling, meat-eating, adultery and advertising would be illegal, so would any sexual act that could lead to pregnancy because squeezing even more humans into this already-overcrowded world is also immoral. The full list of edicts and prohibitions would of course be much longer.

But upholding morality is not the role of the state - Fortunately, God can sort the goats from the sheep without the help of the state!

"God can sort the goats from the sheep without the help of the state!"
If you wonder why I don't believe there is actually a God at all, you only have to look at the sorry state that the world is in, particularly now that the US of A is now led by the biggest goat of all.

David