Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Seth]

Seth's a closet Catholic.

Nope. I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™. I just happen to have family and friends who are Catholic from whom I have learned a good deal about the tenets of the religion.

He's given up on "every sperm is sacred" but he's still on message with every fertilised egg.

Nope. I just acknowledge the scientific fact that once the fertilized egg becomes a zygote it's no longer a fertilized egg, it's a new and genetically unique living human being.

He doesn't say it, but it must be because he thinks they have a soul.

I don't say it because I have no opinion on the matter because, well, I don't know.

They don't have a brain, or nervous system, or eyes or ears. Just a membrane and some chemicals.

"They"... Enlightening. Oh, "they" also have the characteristic of being alive, which is rather more than just a "membrane and some chemicals."

It can only be religion that makes them so precious to him.

I have never assigned a moral or religious value to a zygote, I merely acknowledge it's true scientific and biological nature, something which you religiously deny.

Don't worry, Seth.
They've gone to be with Jesus. The aborted fetuses are the luckiest of all. They get there double quick.

And you know this how, exactly? What's your objective scientific evidence of this assertion? Or are you merely expressing your own Atheist religious beliefs by way of sarcasm?

[Seth]

I did not know that Seth was a Catholic for I always thought he was agnostic

I'm not Catholic, MM is lying. I'm not an agnostic either, I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™.

So now I understand why he is so eager to advance the anti abortion position

No you don't, you just think you do because you've bought into MM's delusional lies. I take the positions I take for the purposes of debate, the advancement of knowledge and understanding, and my own personal pleasure. It's a dirty job being the whipping boy here but I'm satisfied to play the role because otherwise there is no intelligent or rational discussion of the issue of abortion taking place here, ever. Somebody has to play the Devil's Advocate and defend the other side of the issue for there to be any true debate or advancement in understanding either way.

For the Pope says that life begins at the point of conception so it must be true
Sperm inside a vagina is not life however because it is just sperm inside a vagina

Well, sperm inside a vagina is indisputably alive, but it is not a new living human being as the zygote is.

[Brian Peacock]

For clarity...

If a woman wants to exercise plenary control over her "own being" and reproductive organs, then she must make sure that she, and only she, is affected by her decisions.

Why?

Do you think men should be sterilized when they have sex without regard to the possible consequences for women, because men can only exercise plenary control over their own being when they are sure that they, and only they, are affected by their actions?

[Seth]

For clarity...

If a woman wants to exercise plenary control over her "own being" and reproductive organs, then she must make sure that she, and only she, is affected by her decisions.

Why?

Do you think men should be sterilized when they have sex without regard to the possible consequences for women, because men can only exercise plenary control over their own being when they are sure that they, and only they, are affected by their actions?

Of course, if they don't want to be held liable for their part in creating the zygote. Men are just as responsible for the consequences of the placement of their sperm as women are for the invitation to place it in their vagina in the first place. That is in fact one of the reasons that on-demand unlimited abortion is ethically and morally wrong, because half the gametes that make up the zygote come from the male, which gives him an interest in the future of that living human being, an interest that is ignored and denied by permitting the woman to make all the decisions regarding the future of the fetus.

[Brian Peacock]

See how you have to cast this as being about a woman acting alone and demanding 'unlimited abortion' to make your blanket proscription work?

Half the DNA of a child might come from the father, but all of the cells of a zygote come from the mother - does this not give her more say, as the developing entity is fundamentally of her body, over which she has ownership and control, or over which she retains plenary rights as you put it.

[surreptitious57]

Does a woman have an absolute and immutable human right to abort a fetus at any time and for any
reason or no reason at all from the moment it is formed until it is completely outside of her body or
does society have the authority to prohibit her from harming the fetus at some stage of development

This is very simple : if the law of the state or country she wants to have the abortion in allows for it then the answer is yes
And if the law of the state or country she wants to have the abortion in does not allow for it then the answer is no. Now the
authority of a society should be reflected in its laws so there should be zero conflict between the two. However the authority
should be based upon knowledge and experience and not upon prejudice or discrimination. Since once that law is passed it can
affect any one so must be determined logically not emotionally. Even if the subject is actually an emotional one such as abortion

[JimC]

Does a woman have an absolute and immutable human right to abort a fetus at any time and for any
reason or no reason at all from the moment it is formed until it is completely outside of her body or
does society have the authority to prohibit her from harming the fetus at some stage of development

This is very simple : if the law of the state or country she wants to have the abortion in allows for it then the answer is yes
And if the law of the state or country she wants to have the abortion in does not allow for it then the answer is no. Now the
authority of a society should be reflected in its laws so there should be zero conflict between the two. However the authority
should be based upon knowledge and experience and not upon prejudice or discrimination. Since once that law is passed it can
affect any one so must be determined logically not emotionally. Even if the subject is actually an emotional one such as abortion

A logical take on the time after which abortion is prohibited involves the earliest possible time that a baby has a chance of being born prematurely and (with expert care) actually surviving. The only exception could be where the life of the mother is at risk.

[mistermack]

I have never assigned a moral or religious value to a zygote, I merely acknowledge it's true scientific and biological nature, something which you religiously deny.

You lie. I haven't anywhere on this thread denied the scientific or biological nature of a zygote.
I challenge you to point out where I did.

I merely disagree with your opinion that we should call it a human being.
But even if you stretch the meaning of human being to include single cells, that doesn't automatically make abortion immoral.

It just means that if you use that meaning, then some "human beings" are so undeveloped, that it's ok to abort them, in my opinion. And more importantly, in the opinion of the women who are carrying them.
Since I will never get pregnant, I bow to their opinion, as being more relevant than mine.

I personally agree with Jim, and with the law in the UK as it stands. I think they've got it just about right.
Abortions become more restricted, the more viable the fetus. It's not "on demand" if it's late.

As an atheist, I believe morals are what we decide individually, and as a group. There are no fundamental rights independent of our human minds, as you constantly try to insinuate.

That's just the hidden Catholic in you, peeping from behind the troll.

[Seth]

See how you have to cast this as being about a woman acting alone and demanding 'unlimited abortion' to make your blanket proscription work?

Correct. And that's because that's what the women's lib movement demands and uses as justification for supporting unlimited abortion.

Half the DNA of a child might come from the father, but all of the cells of a zygote come from the mother

Not really. The sperm is a "cell" as is the egg. When the chromosomes within each combine they become something new comprised of both maternal and paternal materials.

- does this not give her more say,

Depends on what you mean by "more say." If you, as most pro-abortionists do, claim this means plenary control over the life or death of the zygote/fetus/child then no, it does not.

as the developing entity is fundamentally of her body,

No, it's just within her body, which is a natural and predicatable outcome of being a female and having an egg fertilized within you. It may suck that she's the victim of evolution and biology, but that does not grant her unlimited rights over the fetus within her.

over which she has ownership and control, or over which she retains plenary rights as you put it.

She only enjoys such plenary rights until she consents to undertaking the risks of having sex and getting pregnant as a result. Once she consents to allowing sperm into her vagina her ownership and control becomes more and more qualified as time passes and things happen inside of her. It's exactly the same as if she decides to step off of the top of a tall building without a parachute or safety line. She consents to the act and her plenary control of her body is voluntarily surrendered to the immutable forces of gravity and its inevitable consequences.

If you don't want your personal autonomy and plenary control over your body to be compromised, don't voluntarily do things that leave you at the mercy of other forces.

[Seth]

Does a woman have an absolute and immutable human right to abort a fetus at any time and for any
reason or no reason at all from the moment it is formed until it is completely outside of her body or
does society have the authority to prohibit her from harming the fetus at some stage of development

This is very simple : if the law of the state or country she wants to have the abortion in allows for it then the answer is yes
And if the law of the state or country she wants to have the abortion in does not allow for it then the answer is no.Now the
authority of a society should be reflected in its laws so there should be zero conflict between the two. However the authority
should be based upon knowledge and experience and not upon prejudice or discrimination. Since once that law is passed it can
affect any one so must be determined logically not emotionally. Even if the subject is actually an emotional one such as abortion

So the answer is "no, she does not have an absolute and immutable human right to abort a fetus at any time and for any
reason or no reason at all from the moment it is formed until it is completely outside of her body."

Thanks for actually answering the question. Your dicta is an expression of personal opinion and worthy of consideration, but the core question has been answered.

Therefore, whatever the collective deems to be appropriate is ipso facto and de jure appropriate and moral, including the complete outlawing of all abortion for any reason whatsoever.

And if the collective deems it to be appropriate that any law abiding citizen be permitted to carry a gun, is that okay with you as well?

In other words, how consistent are you in your beliefs? You see, if you accept that socialism (the collective) rules in one case because rights are the product of collective decision making, then to be ethically consistent you must accept the judgment of the collective in ALL situations. Do you? Or do you engage, as so many do, in situational socialism?

Now that you've made your bed, you can lie it it.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Not really. The sperm is a "cell" as is the egg. When the chromosomes within each combine they become something new comprised of both maternal and paternal materials.

Not quite up with our cell biology, are we?

The egg cell contains a great deal of important genetic material, in the form of mitochondrial DNA, which can have a significant effect on the individual phenotype; the male contributes none. In addition, recent research shows that the other cell contents of the egg also play a significant role on the biological trajectory of the embryo.

[Brian Peacock]

See how you have to cast this as being about a woman acting alone and demanding 'unlimited abortion' to make your blanket proscription work?

Correct.

At least you're honest enough to acknowledge your own strawman, which is fallacious btw.

And that's because that's what the women's lib movement demands and uses as justification for supporting unlimited abortion.

Really? So your blanket ban is being applied to make sure that people making unreasonable demands for abortions at 40 weeks don't accidentally get what they want. OK.

Half the DNA of a child might come from the father, but all of the cells of a zygote come from the mother

Not really. The sperm is a "cell" as is the egg. When the chromosomes within each combine they become something new comprised of both maternal and paternal materials.

Irrelevant. It does not change the fact that "all of the cells of a zygote come from the mother"--at least in the sense that I clearly meant above. Developing offspring are totally dependant on their hosts and made from mum-stuff all the way through.

- does this not give her more say,

Depends on what you mean by "more say." If you, as most pro-abortionists do, claim this means plenary control over the life or death of the zygote/fetus/child then no, it does not.

I mean 'more say' about what happens to her body than some other person, body, or institution deciding things for her on her behalf. You keep saying that the rights of the State should and must supersede a woman's 'plenary control' over control of her own body and what goes on therein, but your justification for the assertion is not forthcoming. Perhaps you can expand on this area of who owns and controls a woman's reproductive organs - what, when, where, who, how and why etc?

as the developing entity is fundamentally of her body,

No, it's just within her body, which is a natural and predicatable outcome of being a female and having an egg fertilized within you. It may suck that she's the victim of evolution and biology, but that does not grant her unlimited rights over the fetus within her.

See above - you're equivocating here. It's pretty clear what I'm saying and what I mean - it's a plain biological fact; the material needed for development comes from the mother (unless you are to assert that her grocer or the folks who produce her ice-cream also has a part to play in deciding on what she can and cannot do).

over which she has ownership and control, or over which she retains plenary rights as you put it.

She only enjoys such plenary rights until she consents to undertaking the risks of having sex and getting pregnant as a result. Once she consents to allowing sperm into her vagina her ownership and control becomes more and more qualified as time passes and things happen inside of her. It's exactly the same as if she decides to step off of the top of a tall building without a parachute or safety line. She consents to the act and her plenary control of her body is voluntarily surrendered to the immutable forces of gravity and its inevitable consequences.

Repeating the assertions does not illuminate whatever case you might have for disavowing women of ownership and control of their bodies. Please expand with some reasons and argument, not mere assertion.

If you don't want your personal autonomy and plenary control over your body to be compromised, don't voluntarily do things that leave you at the mercy of other forces.

We are all at the mercy of 'other forces.' It seems we should we either stay in our homes or simply accept that we have no plenary control over our bodies - that we do not own ourselves.


Let's step forward with this. Let us assume that by some means legal termination now conforms to your general standard. How and why is this a better, more desirable situation for women, men, children, and society in general than the present system? I'll grant that we can do away with on-demand abortion as a means of contraception at any stage in a pregnancy (and besides, I do not support that particular justification anyway), so let's keep this to a comparison between the limited rights of access to termination services granted under the present system and the more stringently enforced and restrictive conditions of your proposed approach.

You may find this article of interest...

Abortion Law In Northern Ireland 'Endangers Women's Lives,' The UN Warns

The Northern Irish law banning abortions in nearly all circumstances endangers women's lives, the UN has said. Unlike the rest of the UK, the province only allows abortions where the mother's life is threatened, meaning it is forbidden even in cases of rape or incest.

The UN's Human Rights Committee said this restriction put "women's lives and health at risk" and forced them to travel elsewhere to seek abortions.

"The committee notes with concern that the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland, after having held a consultation on the possible decriminalisation and legalisation of abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality and pregnancy as a result of rape or incest, indicated in April 2015 that it would propose legislation to legalise termination of pregnancy only in circumstances of fatal foetal abnormality due to 'complex issues' raised by pregnancy as a result of sexual crimes," its report said.

The committee recommended that the province should legalise abortions that were the result of rape or incest or where there was a fatal foetal abnormality. All the major political parties in Northern Ireland oppose liberalising the abortion law in line with the rest of the UK.

Around 2,000 women leave Northern Ireland every year to have abortions elsewhere. A mother and her teenage daughter this week lost their legal case where they tried to argue Northern Irish women should be entitled to abortions on the NHS elsewhere in the UK.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07 ... 64778.html

[surreptitious57]

you accept that socialism ( the collective ) rules in one case because rights are the product of collective decision
making then to be ethically consistent you must accept the judgment of the collective in ALL situations. Do you

Does not matter what I think of the law as long as I do not break it. Now the fact that some thing is on the statute means it is a restriction upon behaviour
which for whatever reason has had to be declared illegal. If I do something which has been outlawed then I have to accept the penalty if I get caught. I my
self have no problem with that so accept decisions of both law makers and law enforcers. However law is not set in stone since it is subject to revision and
modification over time. So the notion of accepting it with out reservation could mean at some point or other having to accept a contrary position. So while
I may not accept that position from an intellectual or philosophical perspective I would accept it from a legal one. Which is the most important perspective
of all. But what about you Seth ? Do you accept in principle all the laws that affect you ? For if you do not then you should not really be expecting others to

[JimC]

One can accept that one has to obey current laws or face the consequences, while at the same time engaging in a political process with others to change the laws in a direction one feels can be rationally and ethically justified.

[Forty Two]

There is nothing to resolve there. Genetically, it's human. But, that doesn't resolve the ultimate issue of abortion.

As long as we agree that it is a human being, which is to say that it is a living organism comprised of human tissue based on unique human DNA formed at the formation of the zygote, we can agree.

I agree it is human. Human being has a slightly different connotation.

Yes, it does. A scientifically correct connotation that pro-abortionists don't like because it weakens their case, which hinges on staunch and unswerving denial of the humanity of the fetus for its persuasive ability, which is destroyed if the fetus is properly and scientifically identified as a "human being."

Even calling it a human being does not "destroy" the argument in favor of abortion. Human beings are legally killed all the time. The question just becomes whether it should be illegal to kill the human blastocyst or embryo, etc. It's human. So, in discussing the issue with me, as opposed to rehashing arguments you have with folks who claim that it is not human, why not address the issue I have actually raised, which is that there are times when humans can lawfully be killed and unfortunately some legal abortions are necessary as a balancing of needs/interests of the mother carrying the human entity, the power/legitimate interests of the State in protecting life as well as protecting the health and well-being of the mother, and rights/interests of the unborn human entity.

We do that with the death penalty. Each human has a right to life, but that right is balanced against the States legitimate interest in deterring crime and meting out justice. Some humans suck so bad that they just need to be executed, so says the pro-death penalty crowd.

We do that with defense issues, too. In some societies, like the Amish, they say that self-defense killing is NEVER justified, and that they just need to sit and take it nonviolently. However, in the broader American culture, we see a person as having a right to defend himself not only against threats to his life, but also mere threats to inflict great bodily harm, and in some cases even just situations where a person thinks he's under threat but isn't correct about that. And, we can kill other humans when what they are doing threatens our lives even if the other human doesn't mean it, or even know it.

Certainly, in the context of abortion, the concept of self defense allows a mother to protect herself from death or great bodily harm or the good faith belief that she is being subjected to a risk of great bodily harm, no? Wouldnt' that make sense? I mean, a woman has that right against a grown person, so why is that right any less if the human is unborn?

Further, it can be said that certain situations would require a woman be able to defend herself from massive psychological trauma too -- like if she is raped and has to carry the rapist's baby? Or, if her father impregnates her at the age of 13 and she would have to go through 9 months knowing that her own brother or sister is inside her?

I answer all your questions -- can you please respond by directly answering the one's I pose, instead of going on about how OTHER pro-choice people seem to think that fetuses with human DNA are not human?

I've never said .....

I know, but most radical pro-abortionists do,

[snip]

I don't care what they argue, and I'm not arguing for them. So, please, when rebutting my argument, address my argument. It's not a response to MY argument to say that "radical pro-abortionists" say something that I don't say.

Not all pro choice folks use the exit of the birth canal as the point at which a human fetus becomes a human being.

Indeed. But they are still wrong no matter when they choose to draw that conclusion because they are simply scientifically ignorant and wrong.

No, because even if you say it's a human being, that doesn't mean it's wrong to have a compromise position on abortion.

I never said it was wrong. I'm merely demanding acceptance of scientific fact and logic as a pre-condition to discussing the political issues involved, for reasons I've previously mentioned.[/quote]

Yes, and then you stop there. Right now you're talking to someone who is happy to admit it's human, and I've said that several times. You then seem to stop arguing at that point. You haven't made the case against abortion by calling it human.

Two humans are dangling together from a cliff. Jane is holding on to the cliff, with John hanging on her leg. She is strong, but her strength is fading fast. She is very fit, and she knows she can do the chin up necessary to reach another hand hold and ultimately grab onto enough rock to pull herself up to safety. She believes that she might be able to pull themselves up, but she also believes that if she does not get rid of John's weight, she quite possibly will not be able to pull herself up and both of them will fall to their death. She believes her chances of survival go up to a near certainty if she can get rid of his weight. She decides to intentionally kill John by shacking him off of her leg -- she roughly kicks in wiggles -- her heel bashes John a little in the teeth as he struggles for survival -- she kicks and kicks and says "John you have to die so I can live! Get off me!" She kicks again and he slips off, begging her not to do it - he falls to a craggy death. She crawls up to safety.

She killed him. Is she guilty of a crime? Is it murder? Is it manslaughter? Is it self-defense? Is it justifiable homicide? John, clearly a human being, has a right to life. He wasn't intentionally hurting her, he was just hanging on for his own life. So, shouldn't this be murder?

You are making the leap that if we accept that science shows the embryo is a human being, then abortion must always be an illegal option.

No, I'm not. You are making the leap that if you accept the scientific fact that from zygote to death the organism involved is a living human being that I will argue that it is never justifiable in law or social policy to end that life by abortion.

One perfectly rational approach is to say that, sure, even assuming it's a human being, it makes sense to allow abortions under given circumstances.

Yes, it does.[/quote]

Why is all I've been arguing. However, you keep going on and on about how some other people say it's not a human being and that if they would agree it is a human being, then it would "destroy" the argument in favor of abortion.

So, what is your stance on abortion? Assume it is human --- when should abortion be legal and when shouldn't it be?

Law does not have to track morality.

Laws are the codification of the moral beliefs of a particular society, which is why laws differ so much from culture to culture.

Laws codify SOME moral beliefs, but most societies do not equate immorality with law. Some cultures find that it is "immoral" to have sex outside of marriage, even today. Yet, even in many of those cultures, it's not illegal to have sex outside of marriage. Adultery is generally considered immoral, but it has mostly been decriminalized int he west. Many people think excessive drug and/or alcohol/tobacco use is degenerate and immoral, yet that's not illegal in many cultures that view it as such. Prostitution can be legal without being considered moral.

That kind of thing. You seem to think that calling it a human being means any legal abortion is scientifically "Wrong." That's not logically the case.

You seem to think that that's what I think, probably based on your inherent bias against those who argue against unlimited at-will abortion, when that is not factually the case. I suggest you examine your prejudicial biases for a moment.

I have a bias against those who argue against "unlimited at-will abortion?" Seth -- I do not think all abortions should be legal, or at will. I have argued for a compromise position, wherein some abortions are legal and some are not.

Perhaps the issue is that you keep evading stating your position on abortion. When do you think abortion should be legal and when illegal, and why? Maybe we actually agree.

Well, I meant "pro abortionists" in general rather than "you" in the specific sense.

When trying to rebut my argument, address the argument I actually made, and not the argument made by other people. If other people refuse to acknowledge something, but I don't refuse to acknowledge it, it's not a rebuttal to my argument to say that they refuse to acknowledge it.

There is, inevitably, balance-tilting no matter what. But, the fact remains that humans can be legally killed for lots of reasons. Calling it human doesn't mean that we have to make all abortions illegal. Isn't that correct?

It's possible that we might make a law imposing the death penalty for littering.

Yup. Or killing a lion in Africa for trophy reasons. Then again not all such laws are axiomatically rational or just.

Laws need not be axiomatically rational or just to be laws. In fact, most laws are not AXIOMATICALLY rational or just. Most are, at best, compromises between competing interests, and competing opinions as to what is rational or just under given circumstances.

Only by squarely facing the true facts involved, all of them, no matter how disturbing they might be to your political and social ideas, can a truly rational balancing of the competing "necessities" (I prefer "interests") be made.

Yes, and you should take your own advice. I've said that even if it's a human being, abortion should still be legal.

I have never said it shouldn't be.[/quote]

You did say that if people who are pro-choice admit that it is human, then that admission will "destroy" their argument? What did you mean by that?

Also, again, please be specific as to when you think aborting human beings should be legal, and when illegal, and why? That way, you and I can isolate any areas of disagreement.

As a philosophical exercise, try examining your pragmatic stance on abortion from the position of fully acknowledging that in authorizing abortion you are in fact authorizing the killing of a living human being.

Yes, and I support the legal killing of lots of human beings. So do you.

Indeed. The general distinction however is that where I support the legal killing of human beings (who are legal persons) it's always because the individual involved has committed some act against others that justifies the use of deadly physical force in self defense. I fail to see how in the course of a normal pregnancy such a justification could be found. [/quote]

So when do you think that abortions should be legal?

Do you think that if someone unintentionally does something that you honestly believe puts your life at significant risk that you can kill them?

Under what circumstances do you think it is rational and logical, and moral and ethical, to end a human life, any human life?

Oh, under many different circumstances. But, first off, moral and legal are two different things. I think that cheating on one's spouse is immoral, but I don't think it should be illegal.

I support legal killings of human beings in a variety of circumstances -- punishment of some heinous crimes, self-defense, defense of others, to save one's own life in the "stater of nature," to protect oneself when one's life is accidentally threatened, under circumstances where one person's life might save millions of people -- that sort of thing. There are many many instances.

In sum, might we say that you support legal killing of human beings under circumstances where there are competing rights such as the right to life and safety that come into play that would justify the taking of one life over another? Might I extend that example to include circumstances not of the life-taking individual's creation or instigation?[/quote]

First question, in many cases, but not all cases, yes. There are times when life and safety come into play, but also the "honest perception" that significant bodily harm may occur. There are other situations too. Self-defense goes far beyond the notion of life and safety actually being threatened, but into the realm of honest beliefs -- and "bodily harm."

As for the the second question -- it is not a necessary feature that the person not instigate or create the situation. For example, a person can start an altercation, but not do anything deserving of death, and if the other person turns the tables and begins threatening life or bodily harm, then the instigator can have a right of self defense.

Now, please answer my questions, too. O.k.? I give you that courtesy. Please return the favor.

In the case of an unborn human embryo, if it is determined that carrying it poses a significant risk to the life of the mother, I very much think it should be legal to abort it.

So do I.

So we agree on that. Good.

That's one example. If during childbirth, there is a situation that arises where the mother or the child is going to die, then I think that someone has to make the decision to save one of them. These are unsavory decisions, but realities of life.

Indeed. But in that situation the need to decide is not occasioned by something the mother did to create that need, correct?

When viewed from you "continuum" analysis, it may well be that the mother created the need by getting pregnant in the first place. Had she not gotten pregnant, the threat would never have occurred. It's not the baby's fault, is it? so why not choose the baby over the mother?

I don't view it as controlling that she did or did not "create the need." She created the need by getting pregnant, but she is allowed to defend her existence even against that unborn human that she created.

Further, if she was raped, then she would not have created that need.

Also, I don't think that a small child of 10 or 12 who is raped and impregnated should have to bear 9 months of carrying her rapists child, when an early abortion can save her that trauma. Those are some examples.

I think there is adequate medical justification inherent in such a pregnancy and the severe risks of harm to the mother to justify an abortion in that circumstance. On the other hand, one must consider the fact that it is medically possible for a young girl of that age to successfully carry and deliver a child, which is not at fault, which can then be turned over for adoption. I also note that there are plenty of examples of young girls of similar or slightly older ages who CHOOSE to carry such a child to term and deliver it. Some of them actually CHOOSE to get pregnant specifically for that purpose.

Sure, so it's a balancing test. You strike one balance, others may just as rationally strike another.

This raises the question of female reproductive autonomy from the other side of the coin. Should such a "child" (who is demonstrably not a "child" but is a sexually mature person capable of bearing children) be FORCED to have an abortion because she's deemed "too young"? It's a conundrum, isn't it?

Force? Oh, I don't think she should be "forced" to have an abortion. But, I do think she should be able to choose, as best she can, to have one. It's never going to be a perfect choice, and her maturity or lack thereof is a reality, but it doesn't change the fact that the situation exists. So, hopefully with consultation from caring family members and doctors, she will make a decision that she can live with. Or, perhaps she just goes to the clinic and gets it done and lives with the trauma.

It is a conundrum, but in that situation, I don't think it's a conundrum that can be solved by the State commanding her to either have or not have an abortion.

I certainly believe that there are circumstances in which it is justifiable, moral and ethical to end a human life. The question that remains here is whether, or at what point it becomes immoral, unethical and unjustifiable to end a human life inside the womb.

Sure, and there are lots of reasons why it would be justifiable to end a human life. Heck, one can think of it as horribly immoral to ever do it, and yet still be of the mind that it should be legal. Law and morality are not the same.

They should be, since law is the codification of morality and very little else.[/quote]

The Internal Revenue Code has about 75,000 pages, very few of which codify morality.
The United States Code has about 350 volumes of laws, totalling something like 350,000 pages, and they certainly cover many areas having little to do with morality. It's arguably MOSTLY not dealing with morality. Does the National Labor Relations Act deal with "morality?" The what? Morality of labor relations procedure? The Fair Labor Standards Act deals with "morality" rather than pragmatic attempts to help or protect workers versus employers? You think the setting of the minimum wage, or the determination of which employees are exempt from overtime compensation is a moral issue? Commissioned inside sales people get overtime compensation, but commissioned outside sales people do not is a function of morality?