Abortion

[Coyote]

And again, I should say this - we are unlikely to agree on this issue. While I conceded to your argument in stem cell debate (I couldn't argue your logic) - I still do not view a a fertilized egg or a blastocyst as a person with the same rights as a fetus with a nervous system and a brain. Logic and law alone doesn't convince me. We have a fundamentally different way of thinking and arriving at decisions and perhaps viewing the world.

I regard my right to my body, and to be able to make life and death decisions for it as primary. That is where my arguments come from. I am a thinking, feeling, sentient being. Is a fertilized egg? Does it have greater rights to my body then me?

I do not agree with abortion in lieu of birth control and I do not agree with unlimited abortion.

 

[palerider]

No. It doesn't involve "dehumanizing". It is about competing sets of rights. Who owns a person body? Who has the right to determine whether that person lives or dies?

That in and of itself isn't a valid argument because there are always competing rights. The hirarchy of our rights is sufficient to settle all issues (except according to you) this one.

Does any human being have the right to force another human being to risk death against their will? It's a simple question really. There is nothing dehumanizing about it.

Does the child ask or demand this or has it been put in a position of dependence through no fault of its own?

Actually, some of that is myth. A study published in the British Medical Journal said that while there is a correlation between abortion and depression, the strongest indicator for post-abortion distress was if it is a preexisting condition prior to pregnancy – i.e., abortion does not create the condition.

Most people have some degree of depression or precursors of depression. The fact that women who have abortions are 150% more likely to commit suicide than the general population of women is hard to argue against.

However - all of that ignores the point: choice. She has the choice as to whether she wants to risk death in bringing a baby to term or by having an abortion. She is not forced in either direction.

The choice to kill another human being for any or no reason.

No. At this point - childbirth carries a greater risk of serious health effects or mortality then abortion unless you are referring to a late term abortion where the risks are essentially the same. Attempts to form causal links between abortion and depression, abortion and breast cancer, for example have been largely debunked.

No. They have not been largely debunked. The case is growing stronger all the time.

It has not failed. You provide ONE study that indicates this. I can and have provided multiple links and studies that show the statistical risk of having an abortion is significantly lower than that of childbirth - unless you are talking about late term abortions when the risk is essentially the same

You want to draw the line at the time the woman walks out of the clinic. Life doesn't work that way. We have to live with our actions and killing another human being, especially one who is innocent is a heavy burden to carry and it doesn't get lighter with time.

You're statistics are way off - I suggest you do a bit more research. The National Cancer Institute, the Mayo Clinic, and others have totally debunked the abortion/breast cancer risk. That was the biggest load of bollocks yet attempted by the pro-life crowd. As a scientist, I thought you would have a more critical mind.

I have not seen any study that "totally debunks" the link between abortion and breast cancer. I have seen some literature that attempts to blur the link, but nothing that debunks it.

No. It is not the same debate at all. With stemcell research you are dealing with only one set of rights. With abortion you are dealing with two sets of rights - the rights of two different human beings who both some right to live and the question becomes which right is greater. You are also dealing with another fundamental right - who has rights to a human beings body?

If you conceed that I have rights, then when my rights come into "conflict" with another's rights, then the hirearchy of rights settles the dispute. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

And claiming that a 12 in 100,000 chance of dying is a real threat is simply dishonest.

I have taken and stuck with one position on the matter of abortion: no one has the right to force another person to risk death against their will. Your argument does not work for rape victims.

I asked you if you believed that you could defend yourself in court claiming that the strange person you killed represented a 12 in 100,000 chance of harming you. You know as well as I that killing another based on such odds would get you sent straight off to the pokey.

And how does my argument not work for rape victims. One's right to live outweighs another's right to not be inconvenienced.

It is the major sticking point I have with your view. If exception were made to rape - and that would include incest because that is a violation of a child against her will then I might agree. But I suspect you would require a court of law to convict first, and that would take a great deal of time. Many rapes don't get reported. So again, the pregnant woman loses out on decisions regarding her body and she is unable to participate in decisions regarding her life or death.

Women woud claim rape at the drop of a hat and the child is still innocent.

Answer the question. If there was an exception for rape and incest and the health of the mother, would you support outlawing all abortions? Or is your constant return to rape just a device?

You don't have a shred of evidence to support your view.

Just as you don't have a shred to support yours. That makes the point moot.

And again, I should say this - we are unlikely to agree on this issue. While I conceded to your argument in stem cell debate (I couldn't argue your logic) - I still do not view a a fertilized egg or a blastocyst as a person with the same rights as a fetus with a nervous system and a brain. Logic and law alone doesn't convince me. We have a fundamentally different way of thinking and arriving at decisions and perhaps viewing the world.

But the majority of abortions are done at 8 weeks or later so we are no longer talking about a blastocyst. We are talking about a being with 10 fingers, 10 toes, a face and fingerprints.

This whole issue comes down to an issue of law. We simply can't allow one group to unilatarally kill another group for any or no reason unless we write law that specifically denies the second group's right to live. You can argue that a woman should be allowed to have the option all you like, but until that decision is encoded into our law, it is a violation of our constitution and I have said repeatedly that if the legal "i"s were dotted and the "T"s were crossed, my position, as I argue it would not be possible.

You know as well as I, however, that if Roe were overturned that the decision would go to the states and that abortion on demand simply could not make it through the legislative houses of even the most liberal states so this gross misscarriage of the law continues.

 

[Coyote]

That in and of itself isn't a valid argument because there are always competing rights. The hirarchy of our rights is sufficient to settle all issues (except according to you) this one.

The thing is though - you are deciding that in the competing rights - two sets of rights are involved both involving a "right to life". It doesn't matter how small that statistical risk of mortality is if you are that one. Can you name any other situation where competing rights involve the usurption of another human beings body and possibly life? This is a unique situation.

Does the child ask or demand this or has it been put in a position of dependence through no fault of its own?

Does any human being have the right to force another human being to risk death against their will - through no fault of their own based solely on their gender?

Most people have some degree of depression or precursors of depression. The fact that women who have abortions are 150% more likely to commit suicide than the general population of women is hard to argue against.

That is extremely weak and not in line with medical community.

No. They have not been largely debunked. The case is growing stronger all the time.

http://abortionmyths.blogspot.com/2007/06/ipas-briefing-paper-mental-health-and.html

The claims of emotional trauma following abortion are primarily based on flawed studies of self-selected women who had abortion, but regarded abortion as an immoral choice (David, Henry P.). Further, poor mental health outcomes that are reported may be due, in part, to the stigmatization and shame that some women experience with abortion (Russo NF, Zierk KL). A review of studies found that "the weight of the evidence is that legal abortion as a resolution to an unwanted pregnancy, particularly in the first trimester, does not create psychological hazards for most women undergoing the procedure" (Adler, N., et. al.). The best available studies on the psychological responses to abortion in the United States—where safe and legal abortion is available—indicate that severe negative reactions are infrequent (Adler, N., et. al.), and less frequent than with childbirth (Adler, N., et. al.).
​

This article appears to indicate mixed results: http://www.webmd.com/depression/news/20051029/abortion-depression-is-there-link

This article - lower down, talks about Reardon, the person who seems to be the main perpretrater of the so-called post-abortion syndrom and he seems to be quite out of step with the mainstream of the scientific community. In fact - it does not appear that he even submits his work to the peer review process.

Anti-abortion advocates like Brind and Reardon, ones who wear the lab coats but not the respect of scientists, have not been deterred by the response of the scientific community. Even though a panel at the National Cancer Institute has concluded, "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk,"21 and the American Psychiatric Association does not recognize PAS as a legitimate syndrome, such high status pronouncements are irrelevant to the followers of B.A.D. scientists. The success of their performances relies on volume before a general audience, not on the fidelity of their technical merits.​

If we were talking about Global Warming - you'd consider this to be "junk science" and hardly reputable.

I have not seen any study that "totally debunks" the link between abortion and breast cancer. I have seen some literature that attempts to blur the link, but nothing that debunks it.

A review of all the data on individual women from 53 scientific studies undertaken in 16 countries on the possible link between abortion and breast cancer found that “...pregnancies that end as a spontaneous or induced abortion do not increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.” The review entitled ‘Breast Cancer and abortion: a collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries’, was conducted by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer and published in peer-reviewed journal The Lancet in March 2004.

The National Cancer Institute, the cancer research and training government agency in the USA, declared in February 2003, that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."

The World Health Organisation, the health arm of the United Nations, in its Fact Sheet No 240 in June 2000, concluded that induced abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy does not have the effect of raising a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer later in life.

The National Health and Medical Research Centre’s National Breast Cancer Centre in Australia, in its 1999 publication Summary of risk factors for breast cancer, does not recognise induced abortion as a cause of increased risk to breast cancer.

The UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recently released its Guidelines for the care of women requesting induced abortion.The College reviewed the available information from well-conducted clinical studies, including correlation studies, and concluded that the “available evidence on an association between induced abortion and breast cancer is inconclusive.”

In 1997, a study by Melbye et al. was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. This large study of the entire female population of Denmark was based on information obtained from Danish population registries. The researchers compared the abortion histories of women with and without breast cancer and concluded that induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.

 

[Coyote]

I asked you if you believed that you could defend yourself in court claiming that the strange person you killed represented a 12 in 100,000 chance of harming you. You know as well as I that killing another based on such odds would get you sent straight off to the pokey.

First - that 12 in 100,000 chance is simply overall - if you are a black woman, a very young woman, an older woman, or a woman with medical issues, your chances are higher for problems.

Second - if someone threatens to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself. If someone is holding you hostage against your will and the potential for death exists, you have the right to do what it takes to free yourself.

And how does my argument not work for rape victims. One's right to live outweighs another's right to not be inconvenienced.

It doesn't work because you regard the possibility of dying as an "inconvenience" but only an "inconvenience" when it's the woman.

Women woud claim rape at the drop of a hat and the child is still innocent.

Well that's kind of the problem isn't it? On the other hand, what is the woman guilty of that she should be forced to bear this and face the chance of death or long term health problems against her will? What is she guilty of that she should be punished too?

Answer the question. If there was an exception for rape and incest and the health of the mother, would you support outlawing all abortions? Or is your constant return to rape just a device?

Possibly, depending on how the exception was worded and applied. However returning to "rape" is not a "device". As long as you make no exception for the above, it weakens your position.

Just as you don't have a shred to support yours. That makes the point moot.

Not really. I have more evidence then you do. I provided a source showing what happens in countries where abortion is illegal or medical facilities inadaquate. That's not theoretical - that's real life. What evidence did you provide?

But the majority of abortions are done at 8 weeks or later so we are no longer talking about a blastocyst. We are talking about a being with 10 fingers, 10 toes, a face and fingerprints.

I do not support abortions after the fetus has a brain except to preserve the mother's life or health.

This whole issue comes down to an issue of law. We simply can't allow one group to unilatarally kill another group for any or no reason unless we write law that specifically denies the second group's right to live. You can argue that a woman should be allowed to have the option all you like, but until that decision is encoded into our law, it is a violation of our constitution and I have said repeatedly that if the legal "i"s were dotted and the "T"s were crossed, my position, as I argue it would not be possible.

I don't see how it is unconstitutional - it certainly would be unconstitutional to force a woman to face the risk of death or serious health problems and bear a child conceived in violence. You are weighing her rights to her body and life vs. another beings rights to life and her body. Both are issues of life. And again - what gives anyone else the right to my body if I didn't first grant that right through an act of consentual sex?

You know as well as I, however, that if Roe were overturned that the decision would go to the states and that abortion on demand simply could not make it through the legislative houses of even the most liberal states so this gross misscarriage of the law continues.

Abortion on demand - in reality - doesn't exactly exist in many places. Very few states for example - allow late term abortions for anything less than the mother's life. In fact - I'm not sure any do. Many states have restrictions in their laws.

 

[Coyote]

I bet you play chess.

 

[top gun]

What are you talking about?

41% favored making abortion illegal with a few exceptions.
24% favored making abortion always legal
19% favored making abortion legal most of the time.
12% favored making abortion totally illegal.

I think if Roe was ever overturned you'd see this polling article to be the true reflection of the electorate...

Ms. Urgent Report
The Polls Speak: Americans Support Abortion
by Celinda Lake

Despite what anti-abortion activists and politicians would have you believe, the majority of Americans continue to support a woman’s right to a legal abortion — as they have done consistently for the past 15 years. Polls show that those who strive to abolish a woman’s right to the full range of family-planning services are fundamentally out of step with American opinion. Here’s a sampling:

Voters self-identify as “pro-choice” over “pro-life” by a double-digit margin.
In 2004, 52 percent of voters identified themselves as pro-choice, 41 percent pro-life, according to Gallup Poll trend data. Although the margins have fluctuated slightly, the pro-choice position has remained dominant since 1996, and in the past four years there has been very little change in public opinion.

Americans strongly wish to keep abortion legal.
A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 56 percent of respondents nationwide favored keeping abortion legal in all or most cases. The survey of 1,082 adults, conducted in April 2005, showed that only 14 percent of those surveyed wanted to keep abortion illegal in all cases, with another 27 percent wanting most cases to be illegal.

Voters don’t want the government and politicians involved in their choice about abortion. In a recent survey by The Mellman Group, 62 percent of respondents felt the government should not interfere with a woman’s access to abortion. Only 33 percent believe the government should restrict access.

Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who will uphold Roe v. Wade.
Nearly 60 percent of Americans say that, if presented with an opportunity to appoint one or more new justices to the Supreme Court, President Bush should pick individuals who would uphold Roe.

The Associated Press/Ipsos-Public Affairs Poll, which surveyed a national sample of 1,000 adults last November, found that only three in 10 respondents (31 percent) favored nominating justices who would overturn Roe.

Voters don’t want the Senate to rubber-stamp judicial nominees.
Three-quarters of the respondents in a poll of 1,000 likely voters said that the Senate should examine each of the president’s nominees carefully and make its own independent judgment. Only 24 percent thought that the Senate should just confirm whomever Bush puts forward.

Voters avidly support comprehensive sex education and emergency contraception and don’t support pharmacists refusing to fill birth-control prescriptions.
When the debate expands beyond abortion, voters show overwhelming support for a number of issues impacting women’s reproductive rights, family planning and prevention of unintended pregnancies. Voters recently surveyed by Planned Parenthood Federation of America overwhelmingly (78 percent) favor requirements that schools teach sex education, and 79 percent favor access to emergency contraception (EC) for rape and incest victims.

A large majority (65 percent) favors EC for all women, and 66 percent said that health-insurance policies should cover contraceptives. Respondents further showed strong support (67 percent) for a law making it clear that contraception does not constitute abortion and should not be regulated by abortion legislation. Furthermore, in the recent debate over pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, only 40 percent of those surveyed agreed that pharmacists should be allowed to do so.

The support for abortion and family-planning rights is rooted in core values of free choice, personal responsibility and personal decision-making.
Politicians love to talk about values these days, so we can remind them that support for reproductive choice is rooted in strong ones. According to the Planned Parenthood polling, nearly nine in 10 voters (88 percent) agree that men and women should have the right to the information and means to decide freely and responsibly about the number and spacing of their children.

The abortion issue did not determine the outcome of the 2004 presidential election — but perhaps it could in a future contest.
In the months since November 2004, a host of commentators insisted that abortion had a negative impact on the election; some even blamed Democratic candidate John Kerry’s loss on his support for abortion rights.

However, data collected by Lake Snell Perry & Associates for the nonpartisan network Votes for Women 2004 shows that the election issues about which voters most cared were the economy (23 percent), national security and terrorism (19 percent), and the war in Iraq (13 percent).

When voters were asked what made them decide their presidential choice, only 2 percent volunteered the issue of abortion. Among Kerry voters, less than 1 percent offered this as an issue. Among Bush voters, only 2 percent said abortion determined their vote for president.

But actual votes for the two presidential candidates divided clearly — and evenly — along the line of abortion-rights ideology: Voters who felt abortion should be “always legal” voted 73 percent for Kerry, while self-defined pro-lifers voters voted 77 percent for George W. Bush.

Perhaps if choice had played a more visible role in the presidential campaign, John Kerry would have fared better. In fact, choice may have played a role in generating a record number of unmarried-women voters, who surged in turnout — 7.5 million more than in 2000 — with 62 percent of them casting their votes for Kerry.

Looking to the future of the electorate, 60 percent of female voters under the age of 45 were pro-choice, according to exit polling, compared to 55 percent of all 2004 voters. Effectively mobilized, perhaps they’ll demand—and vote for—only the candidates who dedicate themselves to preserving women’s reproductive rights.

 

[palerider]

Sorry. I had some things going on last night and couldn't get to the computer and am running late this morning so I don't have a lot of time. I will answer what I can and continue later.

The thing is though - you are deciding that in the competing rights - two sets of rights are involved both involving a "right to life". It doesn't matter how small that statistical risk of mortality is if you are that one. Can you name any other situation where competing rights involve the usurption of another human beings body and possibly life? This is a unique situation.

12 in 100,000 chance of death vs 100% chance of death. You do the math in a case involving competing rights.

Does any human being have the right to force another human being to risk death against their will - through no fault of their own based solely on their gender?

You have glomed onto this "risk of death" idea as if it were a winner and it isn't. First, 21 in 100,000 isn't a statistically signifigant chance of death and second, according to a defense lawyer friend of mine, such an argument wouldn't carry in court because the first thing a good opposing lawyer would ask was whether or not the woman engaged in other "non essential activities" that carried an equal or greater risk of death. If you are going to use the 12 in 100,000 as a reason to kill, then you had better not be engaging in any other non essential activity that carries an equal or higher risk of death.

A review of all the data on individual women from 53 scientific studies undertaken in 16 countries on the possible link between abortion and breast cancer found that “...pregnancies that end as a spontaneous or induced abortion do not increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.” The review entitled ‘Breast Cancer and abortion: a collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries’, was conducted by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer and published in peer-reviewed journal The Lancet in March 2004.

I am going to conceede this point at this time because I really don't have time to do the research necessary to attempt to discredit it. But I do want to add a few caveats for your consideration.

First, I believe the studies you reference "question" the results of the other studies more than they debunk them.

Second, every study you referenced specifically, all omited any
mention of the 1989 New York State study, Howe et al., “Early Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk among Women under Age 40, a study which—prominently published in the International Journal of Epidemiology—found an unequivocal ABC link using a rock-solid prospective database.

Third. The primary study you reference, from the lancet has evidence of a methodological flaw that obscures the most obvious connection between abortion and breast cancer. If you look at the data summary table in the study, you should note the single comparison that they claim disproved the link between abortion and breast cancer. The title of the table states clearly “Relative risk of breast cancer, comparing the effects of having a pregnancy that ended as an induced abortion versus effects of never having had that pregnancy.” This comparison is at best bogus, and at worst, deliberately deceptive. For “never having had that pregnancy” is not an option for a woman who already pregnant. And in terms of any reasonable standard of informed consent, the potential harm of any given medical or surgical procedure must be weighed against the alternative of not having the procedure. They should have compared the risk of cancer for having an abortion to having the child rather than having an abortion to not getting pregnant.

As far as breast cancer is concerned, the risk-reducing effect of full-term pregnancy (FTP) has been well-known literally for centuries, and is universally acknowledged and this study deliberately sidestepped this well known bit of information.

It is even acknowledged explicitly in the introduction to Beral’s “reanalysis”: “Pregnancies that result in a birth are known to reduce a woman’s long-term risk of breast cancer.”

You don't have to be a rocket scientist in order to connect the dots here: Having an induced abortion leaves a woman with a higher long-term risk of breast cancer, compared to not having the abortion; i.e., compared to childbirth. Even ABC link nemesis Lynn Rosenberg was forced to admit this under oath in cross-examination in court: “Question: So in other words, a woman who finds herself pregnant at age fifteen will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy than if she carries the pregnancy to term, correct?” Answer: “Probably, yes.”

Out of time. I will pick up later.

 

[palerider]

First - that 12 in 100,000 chance is simply overall - if you are a black woman, a very young woman, an older woman, or a woman with medical issues, your chances are higher for problems.

Right. Some have a far less than 12 in 100,000 chance of injury or death while none have a much higher than 17 in 100,000 chance.

Second - if someone threatens to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself. If someone is holding you hostage against your will and the potential for death exists, you have the right to do what it takes to free yourself.

No. A threat doesn't give you any right to take action. The threat much be followed by action before you can legally kill in self defense. And unborns don't hold anyone hostage. It is they who are being held since they are where they are through no fault of their own and are powerless to do anything about it.

It doesn't work because you regard the possibility of dying as an "inconvenience" but only an "inconvenience" when it's the woman.

I want to see some evidence that suggests that a million women a year walk into abortion clinics and demand an abortion because they aren't prepared to accept a 12 in 100,000 chance of injury or death.

Well that's kind of the problem isn't it? On the other hand, what is the woman guilty of that she should be forced to bear this and face the chance of death or long term health problems against her will? What is she guilty of that she should be punished too?

She, like the child is not guilty of anyting. There is a guilty party and that party shoud bear the responsibility of his actions. You seem eager to relieve him of the responsibility and demand punishment for the only one who is innocent beyond any reasonable doubt.

Not really. I have more evidence then you do. I provided a source showing what happens in countries where abortion is illegal or medical facilities inadaquate. That's not theoretical - that's real life. What evidence did you provide?

We are in none of those countries.

I don't see how it is unconstitutional - it certainly would be unconstitutional to force a woman to face the risk of death or serious health problems and bear a child conceived in violence. You are weighing her rights to her body and life vs. another beings rights to life and her body. Both are issues of life. And again - what gives anyone else the right to my body if I didn't first grant that right through an act of consentual sex?

Because the "risk" that you keep harping on isn't really a risk at all. Practically everyting you do in your day to day life carries more risk. A whole class of human beings is being subjected to being killed for any or no reason.

I bet you play chess.

Yeah. I play. I am no grandmaster or anything but I can beat my computer up to about level 5. Why?

 

[Coyote]

Yeah. I play. I am no grandmaster or anything but I can beat my computer up to about level 5. Why?

You think like a chess player.

I must think on all your two posts to give you a decent answer - lots of crazyness going on at the moment so I may not be able to till later tonight. In the meantime I am letting off steam with some sillyness - the junk food equivelent of debate not requiring serious thought.

 

[ArmChair General]

So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?

Of course it does. silly.

 

[palerider]

You think like a chess player.

I must think on all your two posts to give you a decent answer - lots of crazyness going on at the moment so I may not be able to till later tonight. In the meantime I am letting off steam with some sillyness - the junk food equivelent of debate not requiring serious thought.

No problem. I can use a break as well. Maybe I will play a game of chess.

 

[Coyote]

No problem. I can use a break as well. Maybe I will play a game of chess.

Armchair General plays chess...

 

[palerider]

So what's up Coyote? Have you had time to mull over your thoughts yet?

 

[dahermit]

Are all human beings lives equal?

...Claiming that it is about her body is no more than a meaningless diversion from the fact of the death of the "other" human being...

Babies are cute, babies are lovable, babies are helpless and totally dependent. Everyone hates the thought of killing a baby.
The arguments that are against abortion beg the question for me: Why do the same people who are against abortion of a cute little baby, have no apparent responsibility for the hapless victims of poverty once they are adults? What of the street people who die from exposure each Winter in the major cities? There is no rush for legislation that would ease their suffering. It is apparent that all lives are not equal...everyone is concerned if victim is
cute.

Addendum: As a male I am very thankful that I do not have to endure the minor inconvenience of passing something the size of a bowling ball through my pelvis with the accompanying, hemorrhoids, varicose veins, diabetes, etc., etc. Why is it that I never hear a woman who has had a baby describe the experience as an: "inconvenience"? And to the twelve year old pregnant girl: Do not complain, if it was consensual.

 

[Coyote]

So what's up Coyote? Have you had time to mull over your thoughts yet?

Yes, like I said, there is some crazyness going on....but here is my first answer...

I will admit I am in a quandary - your arguments are logical, no doubt about it and while my position may have shifted towards an earlier acceptance of a fetus as a "person" (not as early as you do however) I can not get around one very important point to me: rights to my body. No one but me has any right to make decisions regarding my body. That is, to me, incredibly fundamental. Any thing else borders on slavery no matter how you twist it. The very thought that someone else may have more right than I to control my body is frankly, horribly frightening. A blastocyst has no capabability to feel fear, hope, anger, joy, pain - nothing. It has no ability to feel one human emotion. It is hope and potential and I am something now...yet it can be granted greater rights then myself to my body - against my will?

Is there any other group of humans that would be allowed control of another human's body, without regard's to that human's rights and even with a risk of mortality associated with it - against that human's will?

What if the following situation occured: A person was dying of end stage kidney failure. You have two healthy kidneys and are a perfect match, and can afford to give one. If you don't, the person will die. Can you be forced to do this?