We actually do agree on many points. First, you note that the “fetus is human” and that “it contains human DNA.” Although unstated, you would probably agree that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. And you’d probably also agree that in cases where we are not sure if something is a human, we probably shouldn’t kill it. So what we need then is some meaningful and objective way that the unborn, which is human and has different DNA from its mother, is different from a human being, such that it’s okay to kill this human, but not okay to kill a human being.

You suggest in point one (and expand in point three, which is really a continuation of point one) that the unborn has no means of “independent physiological existence”. In point three you differentiate between this and being “socially dependent”. However I don’t see any practical difference; leave a newborn to its own physiological independent existence for awhile and see how long it lasts. So dependence is not a meaningful and objective difference between a human and the proposed second category of “human being”.

Regarding point two, that the unborn is human, distinct, and life, but not protected life. I find the acorn/oak analogy a little off-putting, personally. We chop down oak trees without giving it a second thought and turn them into kindle, but we don’t do that to human adults. Therefore, I don’t think the analogy is apt, so it does not apply in this case.

You are correct of course though when you say that possession of life is necessary but not sufficient. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that it’s quite difficult to come up with a necessary set of criteria by which it’s okay to kill an unborn child but not okay to kill a born child.

Question: Do you favor abortion at any time during the pregnancy (and possibly partial-birth abortion)? If not, why do you favor killing of the unborn at point (A) but not point (B)? Say, in the first trimester but not afterwards? (Ie, why its it okay to kill it on day x but suddenly not okay on day y?) Viability is a criteria that is often suggested; but when a baby is viable is constantly changing. One of my professors was born extremely early, to the point where if he had been born only a decade or so previously, he would have died. However due to advances in technology he was able to be kept alive and grow to adulthood. Another is feeling pain; but how do we know exactly when it can feel pain? And there are certain humans who cannot feel pain (either temporarily, due to medication, or permanently, due to a condition like leprosy) but that is not adequate justification for killing them.

As you’ve noted, scientific textbooks are clear that life begins at conception. (I could cite them but you already agree with this.) This life (which is human life) begins its unbroken stream of development. There is no non-arbitrary cut-off point whereby the fetus/zygote/unborn suddenly switches from merely human to human being.

For those interested in the topic, a decent summary & informational website is Case for Life, which contains no religious arguments whatsoever.

First of all, a fetus is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA; however, a fetus, like an embryo, is not a human being, as it has no means of independent physiological existence (as does a baby, child, toddler, or adult). As such, it is a potential human being, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. It contains all of the DNA of an oak tree, but it is not an oak tree.
God has nothing to do with this process. It’s biology. I highly recommend studying it in University.

Second of all, life is a state of a cell or organism characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A fetus is life, just as an embryo, a sperm, an ant, an acorn, and a tree, are all life. All these forms of life have no rights. How on earth can you bring religion into this basic argument?! The characteristic of life is necessary to possess rights, but it alone is insufficient.

Finally, a being is a physically independent entity. A fetus is physically/physiologically dependent on the woman (host) for its survival—especially during the early stages of pregnancy. Only upon birth is it physically independent of the woman’s body, an actual independent being. A baby, in contrast, though ‘socially’ dependent on the actions of other human beings for its survival, is physiologically and physically independent of the body of its mother.

And one last thing to sum up this website and the individuals posting: It is not ignorance, but the ignorance of ignorance which is the death of knowledge.
The only evil is ignorance, and this website has plenty of it. Enjoy.

-S

If it is NOT a human being, then no justification is necessary for denying it life.

However, if it IS a human being, then it should not be denied life, and no justification is adequate for doing so. (Except the cases where the mother’s life is in danger.) And if it actually is a human being, I certainly don’t think it should be denied life for something trivial like “I don’t feel like having a baby right now.” (It may not seem trivial to the child-carrying woman; but if it actually is a human being, it seems trivial in proportion to killing the other human being.)

A website I recommend is Case for Life which presents a reasoned argument for a pro-life position.

Considering that the first young woman is 18 and fresh out of high school, I would wager that she is completely unprepared to be a mother. And I would completely disagree with the notion that her pregnancy is not an accident, that God intended for her to be a mother. By that logic, it is just as likely that God intended for her to eventually end a pregnancy.

I would also strongly recommend that she visit the site for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (http://www.rcrc.org/index.cfm).