Yabba stated;
“Next we have Gerritt, seemlingly not understanding the difference
between having sex and driving a car. They are quite different!

Society of course is far more reasonable and rational then
both of you.

So far none of you has given a good reason, why abortion
in the first trimester, whether by ru 486 or the slurpy method,
should be considered such a bad thing.”

Seems you don’t get it that having sex or driving a car means you engage in a conduct that can have consequences if you do not take appropriate care/precautions.

I do not have to give a reason why someone else should not murder an unborn child! Neither do I need to give a reason why a comatose person or any other person kept on a life machine should not be killed. I am not the one pursuing the killing!

The problem with fanatics is they get some consensus to do some killing and then before you know it they will use the same rhetoric to start killing of the aged, infirm, the disabled and whatever. After all, if it can be applied to one group then why not another!
Why not then introduce a system that a woman who is pregnant can do so as she can always abort the child and get paid for the umbilical cord. Now, taxpayers paying for the abortion will pick up the medical cost and the woman makes money out of this kind of killings. While no doubt some may argue this will never happen, reality shows that people already are selling kidney’s, etc, for next to no money because of the need for the money and so we have a thriving economy in the black-market of body parts.

Do not deny rights to unborn babies you were never denied by your parents!

Yabby says "An embryo only has the dna it inherited from its parents.
New dna would require a mutation to happen."

Nobody has *two* DNAs.

They have a *combination* of the two parents' DNA, a third unique DNA.

If not the child would be a clone.

Only identical twins have *exactly the same* DNA.
But identical twins can have very different personalities?

Where does this come from? Not just their cells.

People have come up with all kinds of explanations for the human mind or spirit.

Whether you agree with any of these theories, we seem to possess some element beyond pure physicality.

What if this element is present right from the *moment of conception*, only becoming obvious later, but there all along.

I know this is hypothetical metaphysics, but that's precisely why this issue isn't as *clear cut* as you want to think it is.

"An embryo is not a person."
You keep chanting "person". It is "human".

"Since when do human cells have rights?
Every cell in your body contains the dna to build another body."

My cells can't *naturally* create a cloned body!
This could only happen artificially in a lab, with my consent.

Embryos are developing *naturally* and would inevitably become a *unique* human.

My cells have rights because they are *me*, and I'm human.

I have the right to chop off my arm and burn it.
Why? Because these are *my* cells, my body, not somebody else's.

I don't have the right to decide what happens to another human's body or cells, which is why I can't chop off somebody else's arm and burn it.

"Smart human societies ensure that they live sustainably".
You imply unrestrained population growth.

You ignore my statement that the number of abortions is the *same* as the number of emigrants.
The babies would simply replace people leaving the country.

Net result: no growth from these extra births, provided there was no more immigration (the main contributor to growth today).

Education might help potential Einsteins, but what if Einstein's abilities weren't learnt but genetic?
Or due to that mysterious "spirit"?

Gerritt, nearly everything we do has consequences, including walking
down the street. That does not mean that the two actions can be
compared.

Abortion is not murder of unborn children. Murder applies to people
and say a zygote or embryo is not a child/person.

Your slippery slope arguments, if applied elsewhere, would mean that
i.e. we could not teach children how to use matches safely, as they
might burn the house down. Ridiculous.

In fact, that’s exactly why secular democracy, with a separation of
the powers, is a great way of governance, certainly the best we
have come up with.

We might have extremist politicians, extremist religious leaders,
extremist individuals. The bulk of society however, is usually
far more rational then that.

Individuals views, such as sterilising women who have had an
abortion, are clearly extremist and would not be accepted
by a rational society.

The slippery slope argument is constantly raised by the religious.
What it implies is that people as a group are too stupid to
sit down and rationally discuss moral standards and the laws
by which they should live and behave. That is nonsense.

Next, some of the religious will tell us that as they are in touch
with the almighty through their holy book, their interpretation
should be accepted as objective morality. A hog for power
to control others, if ever I saw one!

There is no good reason for instance, why euthanasia could
not be allowed in terms of people making decisions about their
own lives. Its fairly ridiculous that Australians now have to
fly to Switzerland or Mexico, to be able to make decisions
about themselves.

As to me, if my parents had stopped for a cup of coffee before
making me, most likely I would not be here. I would not know
about it, so it would not matter.

Shocka, I will respond to you, when I have another post available.

Shockadelic, about our immigrant vs. embryo argument, you have reasonable points but I think we need to put it aside from the ethical discussion until it becomes an important deciding point which I doubt will happen within the frame of this debate. There are so many aspects to it, and while you may (or may not) be correct about the immigrant problems, there are overwhelming problems with foster care, too.

I have a problem with the thought of discriminating against 2 groups of actual people: immigrants and pregnant women all for the sake of 1 group of potential people or embryos that lack consciousness/awareness, dependence, and even a developed, functional brain. Only actual persons have rights, not potential persons. Potential persons can be granted rights by their hostess, who is an autonomic person and supplies everything for the potential person. Only the hostess has authority to decide whether the potential person has rights or not.

About potential, you said: “There was only *one* Einstein (unique DNA). Only *one* Michelangelo (unique DNA). What if the world had missed their contributions?”
There was only one Hitler, what if his mother had decided to have an abortion?
This was just to illustrate one reason why the ‘potential person’ argument is a useless one.

I was just pondering…. what holds anti-abortionists back, since their mission is saving human lives, from becoming a life donor?
There is a very safe option with a risk that can be neglected since it’s almost non-existent: bone-marrow transplants.

You can save a life by donating your bone marrow without having to oppress or force anyone else to take risk to save a life that YOU want to save.
You could even do this multiple times during your life time.
Why focus so much forcing others to save potential people while there are so many actual people, including children that can be saved by YOU?

If you think that pregnant women should be forced to give birth while the risk of death in childbirth is roughly 1 in every 5000, then why not save a life almost risk-free yourself?

Shocka, so let me get this straight. You think that women should be forced to
have children that they don’t want, any surplus could always be dumped into
orphanages etc, for the kids would eventually “get over it”

Given that women have around 400 chances to have another potential Einstein,
Why not simply let them have their children when they are ready, willing and
able?

Your plan is doomed to failure from the start. Statistics show that if abortion
is banned, out come the knitting needles etc and the net result is a huge increase
in women dying from botched abortions. Needless suffering all round and then
you claim to be a humanist!

DNA expresses itself in the form of genes and in sexually reproducing organisms
like ourselves, cells contain two copies of every gene, one from each parent.
No new genes are created, unless a mutation occurs, simply genes passed on
from generation to generation. That is why some characteristics can be passed
on from grandfather to grandchildren, without ever expressing themselves in
the parents.

As to your speculation about spirits, souls etc,
I will rely on substantiated evidence. The mind is what the brain does. No
evidence of any ghosts that we know of. Identical twins are affected by
differing environments and different nutrition, even at the foetus stage,
so will behave a little differently, no magic there.

Your cells have rights as part of you, a person. On their own they have
no rights. Similarly zygotes, which are cells owned by women and
completely dependant on women, thus depend on her goodwill and
ownership. They are not an autonomous individuals.

People are products of both their genes and environment. Potential
Einsteins may well exist in Africa, but they won’t get far without
an education. Check out the number of patents coming from the
third world, compared to countries with good education systems.
Einstein would not get far, if he never learnt to read or write.

If you were a humanist Shocka, you would be more concerned with
suffering, not forcing kiddies into orphanages.

.

Celivia, "immigrants vs. embryos"
"You have reasonable points but we need to put it aside"

Don't you mean: "That makes perfect sense, but I don't want the debate deviating from the familiar women's rights vs religion."

"Discriminating" against immigrants?
Migration isn't a "right".

Einstein vs Hitler.
"Bad" people are born! Really?
At least we can learn from their mistakes.

Donors?
Preventing destruction of life isn't the same as preventing *natural death*.
Subtle but significant difference.

"Risk of death in childbirth is 1 in 5000"
In modern hospitals?

Yabby
"Unwanted children dumped into orphanages"
Do you work for a tabloid newspaper?

"Why not simply let them have children when they are ready, willing and able?"

Why not allow a penis to ejaculate in your vagina only when you are ready to raise children?
In the meantime, ejaculate somewhere else, anywhere else, and Shazam, no pregnancy!

"If abortion is banned, out come the knitting needles".
If you're a spoilt brat.

Feminism and the advertising media have trained young women to think only of themselves.
Don't think of others or the future of society.

It's all about me, me, me, gimme, gimme, gimme.
The Veruca Salt generation: "I want it NOW!"

"Cells contain two copies of every gene, one from each parent.
No new genes are created, unless a mutation occurs, simply genes passed on from generation to generation.
That is why some characteristics can be passed on from grandfather to grandchildren, without ever expressing themselves in the parents"

By this argument, *you* don't really exist as an individual.
You are just other people's genes: your parents, grandparents, etc.

A dead end: nobody exists as individuals.
So why should you have rights as an individual?

"As to your speculation about spirits"

*My* speculation?
Every culture thoughout history has believed in the spiritual dimension.
Rational materialists, like yourself, are the odd ones out.

Science isn't infallible.
Science is subjective (the experimenter is *part* of the experiment) and any data produced is interpreted subjectively.

The metaphysical and psychological cannot be reduced to "facts" and "evidence".
Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting? I want proof!