Although it's obvious that life begins at conception, I cannot logically look at a blastocyst, which is an unformed blob of cells, and give it the same rights as a human being. In any 'contest' between a blastocyst and a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human, I vote for the one that's out of the womb.

However, I do find a point at which I think abortions should be severely limited. I think we should reverse our definition of death to come up with a definition for a human being. We define death as the cecession of heart and/or brain activity. So, why not say an embryo becomes a human being when there's a heartbeat and neural activity? That happens around five weeks. With the new tests that can show pregnancy even before a period is missed, that should give a woman plenty of time to have a safe, legal abortion before the embryo can sense pain.

When Barack Obama was asked by Rick Warren "At what point does a baby have human rights?", he answered, "That's above my pay grade" - in other words, only God knows. But if we use the heart/neural test, at least we can have a scientific approximation.

I agree to a point. The determination of heart OR neural activity is incorrect.

"before the embryo can sense pain"...the heart cannot sense pain.

Fetal rights have no bearing on Abortion unless you pass a Constitutional Amendment. Why?

Because nowhere in the Constitution is there any authorization for The State to regulate or control the bodies of residents you are starting out on shaky ground to regulate at all regardless of whether or not the fetus has rights. Examples of where The State is allowed to regulate are for example the "call forth the militia" clause (which allows selective service) and the 16th Amendment (Income tax).

Now add onto that the explicit protections of the host woman in the 4th Amendment:

The right ...to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable...seizures, shall not be violated

And controlling her reproductive organs is clearly a seizure of her person

and the 13th Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,... shall exist within the United States

And its pretty clear that carrying a fetus to term is servitude, and doing it so against one's will is clearly involuntary servitude

And even if the fetus has "human rights" - which means legally it is a person - it simply doesn't matter. The State (Foederal, State or local) simply has no CONSTITUTIONAL permission to regulate abortion.

So having a scientific test will give you nothing

Froglady,

Your post discusses a personal compromise with which I have been wrestling for the last few weeks. I think you're right. Life does begin at conception. But it also precedes it. Sperm is alive, isn't it. And so are eggs, right? So does that mean every time a woman has a period, she just murdered life because she failed to fertilize her egg? And if that's true of women, geez, that means I, along with about every other man, has partaken in mass murder of sperm.

I was raised as a fundamental Christian under the belief that "Life begins at Conception." The reason that's so important to Christians is they believe once an embryo is conceived, GOD gives it a spirit. That concept, I believe, is based on that Bible verse (maybe in Psalms or Song of Solomon) that says: "I knew you while you were still in the womb." My guess is God was using a figure of speech there. Regardless of the scripture's intent, I think I'm coming to agree with your stance: If you want an abortion, do it before the embryo has any pain receptors. I still believe in God--though some of his followers (those crazy McCain/Palin people) certainly challenge my faith. But I believe God is a macro-manager, not a micro-manager. It's hard for me to swallow the "spirit at conception" argument from a person who speaks in tongues, raises their holy hands and prays for God to fix their refrigerator. I just don't think God is that involved.

It's a delicate question, obviously. And I think my initial argument was strengthened over time simply out of survival: It was often the minority argument in any setting--except, of course, church. Anyway, thanks for reading my entire post. It was long, I know. Who knows, maybe even the abortion issue has some common ground. Wouldn't that be relieving.

Why wrestle with this at all? If The Government is precluded from acting regardless of the personhood status of the fetus (and its pretty clear that is the case), then where is the issue for you? All that matters then is what you would want to see done in your personal life.

If your issue is inflicting pain on the fetus (or earlier developmental stage) then your compromise could be solved through known methods of painless termination of life, which would make abortion painless for the "baby", if you will.

This way, women would be able to terminate a pregnancy in the event of rape, failed contraception, or otherwise without wrestling with their conscience.

degsme - your interpretation of the 4th and 13th amendments as it applies to pregnancy is flawed in many ways, but here are a couple:

1) Pregnancy can easily be considered (except in the case of rape) VOLUNTARY servitude, just like accepting a servant-like role in a marriage or job. All that you have to do is posit that the act of sexual intercourse is an implicit contract with nature, i.e., an understanding that a woman may get pregnant from voluntary unprotected sex. While there are criminal consequences for breaking much less meaningful, and certainly less complicit, contracts (i.e., failing to appear for a served court supoena), it is not hard to successfully argue that a woman who vountarily has sex without contraception is by no means involuntarily conscripted into child bearing.

2) Also, in regards to unreasonable seizures, the state is not taking control of a woman's reproductive organs by criminalizing abortion. Instead it is simply requiring that a woman, whose own control of her organs has been exercised when she allows male reproductive materials to come in contact with those organs, then care for the possibly resulting child from the moment of conception in the same way that current law requires parents to protect their birthed children from neglect and harm.

So - both 4th and 13th amendment arguments are up for interpretation, and this is why a conservatively weighted Supreme Court could easily use re-interpretation to throw out Roe V Wade.

That's why people who really care about preventing abortions don't argue about Constitutional issues. We argue about more practical issues. Such as: Is it reasonable to expect that human beings, with or without conservative religious upbringing, can be convinced to abstain? Answer: Not often enough to prevent a LOT of unwanted pregnancies. Now, is it reasonable to expect that men will submit to the psychological and very real interruption of the actual purpose of their sex drives (to procreate) by using condoms as contraception? Answer: Not often enough to prevent a LOT of unwanted pregnancies.

So it comes down to the very unpopular reality: Women must exercise control of their OWN bodies via abstinence (difficult in too many cases), insistence on condom use (apparenty difficult in too many cases - perhaps due to a woman's own instincive psychological drives with respect to procreation) or the miracle of modern science: Birth control pills or other hormone therapies that do not depend on action at the actual time of intercourse.

Yes, birth control pills have risks, but it is arguably worth those risks in exchange for avoiding the humiliation and physical intrusion of abortion.

If, independent of religion or criminal law, we as a society could make abortion seem as disgusting (and avoidable) as eating your own feces. If every young girl knew that pregnancy prevention medication was available over the counter and as inexpensive as chewing gum, and all sexually active women took it for granted that not taking advantage of such a simple element of protection from pregnancy was as stupid as walking into a tiger cage at a zoo, then we could create a culture without abortion, and without criminalizing it. We could try to convince the very few women, who became pregnant despite this preventative measure and did not want to become mothers yet, that carrying that unlucky accident to term and allowing it to be adopted by those in need was considered heroic by society. We could praise them for this choice, but also understand the very very very few who still chose abortion and pity them for their bad fortune.

Then we could tackle disease prevention (the true domain of condoms and abstinence) and, after every woman was used to using birth control medication until they were ready for motherhood, some intrepid woman or group of women would invent the next miracle: male birth control pills! And then we could work on making sexually active young (and older) men seem just as stupid for not taking their daily dose.

Your counters don't work

1) Pregnancy can easily be considered (except in the case of rape) VOLUNTARY servitude, just like accepting a servant-like role in a marriage or job.

Both of these are continually voluntary. Marriage can be ended by simply walking out, as can a job. The State has no power to compell continuation of either

All that you have to do is posit that the act of sexual intercourse is an implicit contract with nature, i.e.,

All Contracts are resolved under torts. And Torts cannot be used to compel servitude. All you can do as a consequence of a tort is to levy a lien liability against the responsbile party but you cannot compell fulfillment of that lien through involutnary servitude

2) Also, in regards to unreasonable seizures, the state is not taking control of a woman's reproductive organs by criminalizing abortion.

Yes you are. Because you are pre-emptively criminalizing an action by the woman of her body, that is in other circumstances perfectly legal for her to do. Thus you are restrictin her right to control her body, which is "seizure" of her body every bit as much as removing someone's right to drive their car or live in their house is seizure of those.

Instead it is simply requiring that a woman, whose own control of her organs has been exercised when she allows male reproductive materials to come in contact with those organs, then care for the possibly

Back to Strict Liability - which is tort, which cannot compell servitude.

So - both 4th and 13th amendment arguments are up for interpretation

Well all Constitutional issues are. But Am 13 is very clear. And you haven't demonstrated an "interpretation" that runs contrary to it.

That's why people who really care about preventing abortions don't argue about Constitutional issues. We argue about more practical issues

YOU may argue that. Except that's not what the anti-choice side argues. They argue that it is acceptable for abortion to be legislated. And that requires that either there is a Constitutional basis for such legislation at the Federal level - and there is not, or that at the State Level that such legislation do not violate Constitutiona protections that the States are incorporated into via the 14th Amendment.

And on Am4, and Am 13 grounds this latter fails.

So it comes down to the very unpopular reality: Women must exercise control of their OWN bodies via abstinence

Notice your use of the word "MUST". MUST means compel. And Compel against ones will is a violation of Am 13. The State doesn't even have the right to compel abstinence of using illegal drugs - it can only regulate possession. Where then does it get a right to compel behaviour in an even more explicit autonomous right?

And this is important BECAUSE if a woman chooses to use abortion as her means of birth control, that is her CHOICE, not The States. To you an abortion is humiliating, but no so to everyone. And to you the risks posed by The Pill are lower than those of abortion, but again, that's not true of every woman.

If, independent of religion or criminal law, we as a society could make abortion seem as disgusting (and avoidable) as eating your own feces.

Well you don't have the evolutionary biology on your side here. In fact you are running AGAINST the evo-bio tide whereas feces eating is driven by the evo-bio tide. So good luck with that.