It seems like nearly every abortion debate is based on stupid grounds to begin with. It seems like it's always a debate between hardline pro-lifers on one side, who use the "life begins at conception argument" (yet with some of them hypocritically saying it should be legal, despite being "murder", in cases like rape, incest, etc). It's apparent that for some it's more of an issue with religion, or the idea that individuals who have sex are under an "obligation to give birth, rather than real concern for murder. Then on the flip side, it seems like most pro-choicers aren't concerned about the 'human life' factor at all - but simply "woman's rights", so they ignore or flat out admit they don't care at what point life begins but just argue legal definitions - and absurdly compare pregnancy to "an attacker", or "a slave owner", etc - that's just scraping the bottom of the barrell right there and I don't think even they believe that nonsense. To me I think coming up with a definition of human life based on actual biology isn't that hard - I think most would agree that the difference between a human (or an animal) life and any form of matter which is "alive" (ex. a sperm cell, a bacteria, etc) is the fact that it has it's own brain and individual awareness (ex. "mental life") - so based on this definition human life doesn't begin immediately at conception (since an embryo has no brain), but at some point in the development of the fetus (within the 2nd trimester most likely, I'm not sure yet of the exact point.) This is what abortion should boil down to - coming up with a biology-based definition for when human life begins. Prior to that a woman can have an abortion for any reason, if she waits past that point then once the fetus is biologically a baby, that's on her and obviously it's human life is more important than convenience at that point.
Really, well we are entitled to our opinions. Actually agree with you on this. False premise, the issue is not just about women's rights at all, it is about the rights that all people have, and the restrictions on those rights that having the status of a person brings, and let us not forget, that like most countries, the USA is run according to its laws and rights, to simply suggest that they should be dismissed is an inane argument .. unless, you are advocating for the removal of abortion from legalities in it's entirety, such as it is in Canada, and making it purely a medical issue - which is what it should be IMO. You cannot arbitrarily decide when, and to who, laws and rights apply, by doing so you create a group of 'persons' who are basically outside of the law and as such actually have superior 'rights' to any other person. I find it hypocritical of you to suggest that using the law in defense of abortion should be ignored and yet you want the law to protect a fetus after a certain point .. that is nothing more than a hypocritical double standard based on your inability to offer a serious rebuttal to the legal arguments provided in favor of abortion, if you like a cop out on your behalf. you are of course entitled to your opinion on the matter, however what you are advocating pretty much falls into the viability timescale laid down by SCOTUS in Roe v Wade, as there is no consistent brain wave activity prior to 25 weeks. The often cited pro-life mantra of brain wave activity measured as early as 40 days is at best misrepresentation of the facts and at it's worse a down right lie. The so called facts used are not from ANY peer reviewed publications and are based on speeches and personal articles, which as already stated have been misrepresented. - Here is a breakdown of the way pro-lifers have tried to twist articles to fit their own assumptions - http://www.svss-uspda.ch/pdf/brain_waves.pdf - now this is not a peer reviewed article, so it is up to you if you accept the items it contains or not.
