Gyroscopic Investing

The reason I choose birth is because it is only objective point of reference where a majority can compromise upon as a society.  How else can science and faith be bridged?  There is no prima facie evidence that a "human being" is a fetus, embryo or zygote, only circumstantial.

Now maybe I'm wrong, but its been my impression that anti-abortionists do so for faith-based reasons, whether because some pompous divine Pope says so or because it contradicts religious texts, neither of which used the scientific method to arrive at a social consensus.  Most people are sheep and do not think critically, especially on such weighty matters as abortion.

Furthermore, opinions of a self-selected few are not scientific fact, only a consensus from widespread reproduction and verification by society.  My personal opinions about abortion and the social utilitarian argument for abortion are not the one and the same.  It seems to me anti-abortionists conflate the two endlessly. 

Bottom line: so what if abortion is done as a matter of convenience?  It beats the unethical alternative of large numbers of neglected, unwanted and/or orphaned children.  Which is the greater crime?  Killing potential or killing actual?  There is no perfect harm reduction of 0%.

MachineGhost wrote: The reason I choose birth is because it is only objective point of reference where a majority can compromise upon as a society.  How else can science and faith be bridged?  There is no prima facie evidence that a "human being" is a fetus, embryo or zygote, only circumstantial.

You do realize saying something is "objective" without providing a single supporting argument or fact, does not actually make said position objective, yes?  In what way is abortion up to birth a compromise?  Is there some contingent that is pushing for post-birth abortions I'm not aware of?  Do they wish to have the right to terminate their toddlers?

In addition, your assertion is completely false unless you live in a country where abortion up to the moment of birth is already legal.  In the U.S. a very large minority describe themselves as Pro-Life.  Also, society has clearly taken a position that late term abortion is unacceptable.  The idea that a fetus is a human being prior to birth is reflected in our legal code.  It's why partial birth abortions are illegal.  In addition, we treat the fetus as a person in the event of a mother's murder.  You are the only person I've ever interacted with who was pushing birth as the acceptable limit for termination.

There is plenty of scientific evidence supporting the idea that human life begins at conception.  Do you have any to support birth as being even remotely significant?  See here for the conclusion of the American Bioethics Advisory Commission http://www.all.org/abac/cwk004.htm.  If the majority of human embryologists conclude that human life begins at fertilization and you hand-wave that away as speculation or the opinion of a select group, who is engaging in "faith based" reasoning here?

Now maybe I'm wrong, but its been my impression that anti-abortionists do so for faith-based reasons, whether because some pompous divine Pope says so or because it contradicts religious texts, neither of which used the scientific method to arrive at a social consensus.  Most people are sheep and do not think critically, especially on such weighty matters as abortion.

You're not wrong, many people oppose abortion for religious reasons.  However, no one in this discussion has been arguing from a religious viewpoint, purely a scientific one.  Your consistent attacks against "religious extremists" smacks of a strawman.  If you expect me to believe that you have thought critically about this issue, I'd again like to see some evidence backing up your assertions.

Bottom line: so what if abortion is done as a matter of convenience?  It beats the unethical alternative of large numbers of neglected, unwanted and/or orphaned children.  Which is the greater crime?  Killing potential or killing actual?  There is no perfect harm reduction of 0%.

I accept the validity of this argument, even if I reject the actions dictated by it.  Purely utilitarian arguments are dangerous.  Utilizing them means walking the razor's edge to prevent abuse and atrocity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lOG3rD5CrQ

Pappi and Kramer had a similar debate twenty years ago...

I wasn't aware partial birth abortions were illegal.  If the line of legality has shifted rightwards from moment of birth to some point before that, then it invalidates the argument.