My concern about abortion is the disproportionately high rate of abortion in the African-American community. Even when the data is adjusted for economic status, African-American women have abortions at far greater rates than White, Asians, and Hispanic women. Even more disturbing to me are the conclusions by economists (Donohue and Levitt, among others) that crime rates dropped post-Roe because African-American had abortions at high rates. This connection is not new. Indeed, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, believed that people of color were inferior and embraced negative eugenics. Instead of engaging in yet another pointless debate about choice, I’d like to see more open dialogue on why the abortion rate is so high in the African-American community. However, given the polarity of the abortion debate, these discussions don’t happen often enough.

Charles – it’s amusing how you say your activism rises above “simple politics” but then you all-too-simply label Planned Parenthood as an “abortion center”. You then say its “impossible” for you to understand what a woman goes through – yet you are convinced that what she is doing is wrong. Planned Parenthood has been providing vital healthcare services to women for over 100 years. They are much more than “abortion centers”. Of course, I’m sure you know that…but why let facts get in the way of a good story, right? Silently standing in front of a Planned Parenthood building is a passive-aggressive form of intimidation. What a woman chooses to do with her body is between herself and her God – not you or anyone else. I’m not calling you “anti-woman”, but if you really believed in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, then I suggest you and the rest of the conservative movement stop trying to control a woman’s vagina. Funny how conservatives don’t want anyone to regulate the financial markets or even their guns (government takeover!!!), but when it comes to vaginas they have to get their 2 cents in. Last time I checked vaginas didn’t crash the economy. And @Scott Sonntag – if conservatives were legitimately concerned about the welfare of African-Americans, the GOP could start by showing more concern for the ones that are already born. The GOP can’t be pro-life in the womb, but once the child is born cut off all funding for head-start and other childcare services. And for the record, I’m not “ranting” or calling either of you “racist”, so please don’t dismiss this as a left-wing attack. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of your commentary and why most of Penn’s liberal-leaning campus tends to disagree with you.

Caitlin, your message is very offensive. You know nothing about my politics, and making such bald assumptions is childish. Both political parties are awash in contradiction and hypocrisy, so please get off of your soapbox. And though I am pro-choice, I am honest enough to realize that the debate goes well beyond controlling a woman’s vagina. Part of the maturation process is to avoid the temptation to limit the debate in a way that allows you to assume your conclusions and demonize those with whom you disagree. Reread my message. I said nothing about limiting choice. My concern is that a portion of society (liberal and conservative alike) seems eager that African-American women continue to abort their fetuses at high rates as a means of social control. It’s a discussion worth having without resorting to hysterical rants.

“What whets these fantasies more dangerously, because more blandly, is the presentation, often in ostensibly or authentically gay-affirmative contexts, of biologically based “explanations” for deviant behavior that are absolutely invariably couched in terms of “excess,” “deficiency,” or “imbalance” – whether in the hormones, in the genetic material, or, as is currently fashionable, in the fetal endocrine environment. If I had ever, in any medium, seen any researcher or popularizer refer to the proper hormone balance, or the conducive endocrine environment, for gay generation, I would be less chilled by the breezes of all this technological confidence. As things are, a medicalized dream of the prevention of gay bodiess seems to be the less visible, far more respectable underside of the AIDS-fueled public dream of their extirpation. – How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay

In this passage from her essay, “How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay,” Eve Sedgwick points to a dangerous tendency, in the scientific rhetoric surrounding homosexuality, to seek ever-increasing degrees of normalization through technology. More than the conceptual violence of normalization described by Foucault and others, she sees the potential for a very physical sort of violence; the biological elimination of the homosexual. By extending her attack on the persecution of queers beyond theory and onto what could become very real scientific practice, she identifies a threat more insidious than simple gender normativity, and possibly more dangerous than AIDS.

The basis of her idea stems from the “homosexual body;” the reconceptualization of queer status as biologically essential. This in itself is a novel interpretation. Frequently, assertions of inborn homosexual tendencies are pervieved as being politically and intellectually expedient by queers. They form an effective parry to accusations by opponents that being queer is not only a choice, but also an illegitimate one. Sedgwick seems to have flipped this whole line of discourse on its head, seeing an essentially homosexual body as a tremendous danger (her analysis is consistent with Foucault’s ideas against identity, and seems to be rooted in a similar analysis).

Sedgwick, having established her concept of the homosexual body, turns her attack toward the scientific rhetoric of its homosexual gestation. In the process of pointing to terms (“excess,” “deficiency” etc) that are characteristic of analyses of “homosexual biology,” she gets in some excellent jabs against the scientific institution. Throwing quotes around the word “explanation,” she undermines science’s legitimacy in seeking any sort of biological Ursprung of the homosexual body. Her construction regarding the fetal endocrine environment is just as ferocious; by referring to it as “currently fashionable,” she gestures toward an interrogation not only of the current theory, but of the very legitimacy of science. Accusing participants in a lofty, ostensibly objective field of being influenced by the whims of fashion and discourse in their anaylses is intense (if well-warranted) criticism.

Her criticism of science is not limited to its use of language to prescribe normalcy. She is equally concerned by the possibility that the rhetoric could give way to research and practice. That the potential for “prevention of gay bodies” is within the reach of science, and that society at large would happily take up such an endeavor. Her reference to being “chilled by the breezes of all this technological confidence” evokes descriptions of the Futurists of the first half of the century, who watched with reverence as fascist Italy expanded and trotted out technology to bolster its military apparatus.

Whether or not the researchers working in these fields are as entirely nefarious as Sedgwick thinks, their work does pose serious risks. Even if a technique for stopping gay gestation by modifying the fetal hormone level or environment or what-have-you is unlikely science, the possibility of reliable identification is sinister enough. If science uncovers a reliable indicator of the fetal homosexual, the question of gay abortion would likely arise. Parents are already able to identify and terminate pregnancies that will produce severely impaired, deformed, or terminally ill children. According to Radhika Balakrishnan’s “The Social Context of Sex Selection and the Politics of Abortion in India,” in the first year after introduction of prenatal gender identification in India, 430 out of the 450 female-identified fetuses were aborted.

Though the aftermath of technology for homosexual identification would probably not lead to such immediate and sweeping elimination, the question arises of whether any such selection would be justified. How surreal to imagine, that one day the lines may be drawn between those protesting for an explicitly homosexual version of the “right to life,” and a “pro-choice” party arguing for the choice to abort nascent queers.

The 7 billionth person was just born. Instead of worrying about all the precious potential sperm and egg junctions out there, why don’t you try feeding and educating some of the starving and neglected children that have already been born in the US and abroad? Just think about how many Einsteins have starved to death in Africa since this article was written.

@Scott, nothing what I wrote was “hysterical”. (Have you been on other blogs?) Nor was it a rant (what did I say about the GOP that wasn’t factually true?) I even specifically said I’m not attacking you. Besides, pointing a gaping logical hole in an argument is not “demonizing”. The hypocrisy I’m pointing out is with the pro-choice GOP, not you. (I’m extending you an internet olive-branch.)

I was commenting on the hypocrisy of conservatives wanting to limit abortion out of “concerns” for African-Americans. If your legitimately care about the well-being of single-mothers, then kudos to you. But unfortunately that argument has been co-opted by conservatives to justify their desires to restrict reproductive freedoms.

However Scott, I do respectfully disagree with your ascertain that either side is “eager” to let African-American woman abort their fetuses as a means of social control. (That’s a very loaded statement by the way…) The GOP is all too eager to enact deep cuts on the same social and health services those poor, single (and often minority) mothers need.

Scott – rather than criticizing my tone, or creating a false equivalency between liberals and conservatives (oh there they go fightin’ again!) I wish that you and other well-intentioned, reasonably-minded people would call conservatives off their moral soapbox for the MANY logical flaws in the argument that Mr. Gray made in his Op-Ed above. The fact that Mr. Gray finds it a good use of his time to passive-aggressively intimidate women going to a health clinic to exercise their constitutionally-protected is appalling to say the least. Just sayin’….

Charles the amount of presumption in your post is incredible. How dare you even think you have the ability to pass judgement about an issue that so clearly is personal and deeply emotional for the individual that goes through it just because your moral interpretation of “life” is different than that of science? You are not a woman. You don’t know what you would do. Would you sacrifice your penn experience, your future job, your family, and your reputation to go through a pregnancy? As someone who as helped a friend get an abortion, the laws passed in some states involving forced sonograms that provide the best possible view of the fetus, including INTERNAL sonograms (thus inserting foreign objects into a woman’s vagina for NO medical purpose) is nothing short of mental terrorism, something that this country should certainly be above. The new Mississippi amendment is abhorrent and a crime against women. Stay out of what you do not understand.

Incidentally, the United States incarcerated more people last year than it aborted. Wasted potential or good riddance?

it’s interesting that you have no data or other facts to back up your case. How many adoptions were completed last year compared to abortions? Is there any data to suggest that if abortion was illegal that adoptions would rise? What are the social & legal side effects of outlawing abortion?

If you investigate these facts, you will have a much harder time making this argument.

Caitlin, thank you for the olive branch.

I disagree with your conclusion that there is a “false equivalency” when it comes to hypocrisy between liberals and conservatives on this or any other issue. I find both parties extremely (and equally) hypocritical. Indeed, I am willing to commit the impoliteness of stating that anyone who embraces either party to the exclusion of the other is an unthinking fool. Both parties have good points; both have foolish points. Both make logical arguments; both make illogical arguments. Both have good candidates; both have bad candidates. Our tendency to treat politics like a football game and “root only for our team” is dividing this nation unnecessarily.

With due respect, concluding that the abortion issue is simply a fight about control over a woman’s vagina is at least as logically flawed as anything contained in this editorial. At a minimum, we pro-choice people need to acknowledge that many pro-life people are motivated by the belief that a fetus (particularly once viable) is worthy of legal protection. We can disagree with this conclusion, but we should at least acknowledge it (and then be prepared to argue why we are so concerned about a baby’s welfare the moment it emerges from the womb but not the moment before — a position that many conservatives find to be logically flawed).

Back to my original point. I agree that the statement about social control is loaded, but it’s not my statement. It’s a very real attitude held by many people, and we need to examine our feelings. We need to examine whether we are unwittingly damaging our community and its women. Abortion is an incredibly difficult decision and one that can lead to both emotional and physical damage. This is my only point. But as we see on this board, no one wants to discuss it. They simply want to retreat to trench warfare of the abortion debate. I find that unfortunate.

Caitlin, the main problem with your argument is that when a woman decides to have an abortion, she is not “doing something with her own body”. She is destroying a separate being with its own set of DNA. Consult any biology textbook, and it will tell you that at the very moment of conception, an independent being is created. Why should the woman get to decide that her unborn baby does not have a right to live? If she gives birth to her child and then later decides that raising him is too painful or inconvenient, she does not have the legal right to kill him, and with good reason: because that child is his own person with a right to life. Why should she get to end her baby’s life in the womb? Because it is small? Because it is helpless? Born babies are small and helpless too, and we protect them as a society. How exactly is it logical to protect life on one side of the womb and not the other? Please stop hiding behind terms like “pro-choice”. If you want to defend something, acknowledge what you are defending. You’re not defending the right of a woman to control her own body, you are defending the right of a woman to go to a clinic and have her living baby forcibly removed from her uterus in a violent process that ends the child’s life, if she wants to. Are you proud to defend this? Do you embrace it? Can you look at a picture of an aborted child, with its visible features, covered in blood, and feel good about defending abortion? Happy, even, that this is what “choice” means? I sincerely hope not. I suggest you look deep inside your own heart and ask yourself if defending abortion is a good cause. Step away from the old, worn-out talking points.

(For the record, I am a woman, just so you don’t accuse me of being one of those “conservative, women-hating men”. And I believe in standing up for the rights of women, starting with the rights of those women who haven’t been born yet!)

Charles, keep fighting the good fight!

Regarding the “adoption option”, an interesting (and in my eyes, well laid out and non-partisan) analysis can be found from Professor Craig Duncan of Ithaca College.

http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/230/adoption.htm

Of course, these data are old – in 2000, there were (rounding up) 128,000 children adopted in the United States, and in 2005, there were about 1.2 million abortions performed (a decrease from the number in 2000). The reports can be found here (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_adopted/s_adopted.pdf) and here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4000608/abstract) respectively.

“It’s impossible for me to know or understand the fear that a woman feels in potentially having to be responsible for another human being, perhaps without any help at all.”

THEN DON’T TRY TO ACT AS THOUGH YOU UNDERSTAND.

@Girls to the front…Charles’ description of life is not an interpretation. It’s a fact. An unborn child is very much alive. He or she has DNA from the start. He or she is growing and changing every day. All of us started out in this same state. Can you really deny that we were alive during this time? If not conception, when is this magical moment when life occurs? It can’t be when a baby is viable outside of the womb, because several children who are already born heavily rely on the care of their parents and medical technology, and you would never classify them as “not alive”, would you? So why an unborn child? Even if it was uncertain when life began, wouldn’t it then be best to err on the side of caution and protect the child?

Also, why do sonogram laws bother you? Because you have to be bothered with seeing the child that you are about to kill? If you are such a strong defendant of the “right to choose”, shouldn’t that not bother you, since you believe the baby isn’t alive anyway but just a bunch of cells? I think your conscience is trying to tell you something…that sonograms make you uneasy because they force you to confront the fact that you are ending a human life. Why is it a crime against women to show them their unborn child? It’s not invasive, pregnant women get sonograms all the time. This is the trouble with the pro-choice movement, they hide behind lies and contradictions. For any other medical procedure, a person should get as much information as possible, but giving the woman a full understanding of what exactly she is about to do when she is getting an abortion is “abusive”? How does that make sense?
It is NOT abusive, because it can potentially save the lives of children. Maybe it will help a woman to realize that the “thing she wants to get rid of” is not a “thing” at all, but a person. A person. I only wish that your friend had been shown a sonogram, then maybe she would have felt more informed about what she was doing and would not have chosen to take away her baby’s life.

“Consult any biology textbook, and it will tell you that at the very moment of conception, an independent being is created. “

I’m majoring in the sciences, and no biology textbook I’ve ever used has said this. Nor has it been said in class, or in any out-of-class scientific discussion I have had with any of my many, many colleagues in the biological sciences.

Also, it ISN’T logical to protect life on one side of the womb but not the other, which is why I am pro-choice. Pro-choice, not pro-murder-of-innocent-babies, because most fetuses are not yet babies. Late-term abortions are not ethical, which is why almost nobody is willing to perform them. Defending life on the other side of the womb—which I may well spend the rest of my life doing, incidentally—necessarily includes access to free preventative healthcare and mental healthcare as well as abolishment of the death penalty, just to get us started. It also requires strong, immediate, and powerful opposition to initiatives such as the Personhood Amendment, which strongly defends life within the womb—even at the cost of death to the living human the womb is in. I am pro-life, where “life” refers to people already alive. Didn’t the UN just declare abortions a universal right, anyway?

It truly, deeply saddens me that we need to continue having this conversation. If you’re opposed to abortions, don’t have one. If you think adoption is the best and most loving option, adopt a child. But please don’t tread on my rights to control my own reproductive organs.

Yes, a fetus is alive and does have DNA. In fact, so do animals and plants. What is your point with this? The issue is not whether a fetus is alive, but whether it should be considered a person and therefore have legal rights, and furthermore whether those rights should be put above the rights of the mother. Moreover, in 2007, 91.5% of abortions were performed before 13 weeks gestation, when the fetus would definitely NOT be able to survive outside the womb, with or without the best medical care in the world.

The SCIENCE of conception is this: once two gametes fuse together and form the zygote, the new cell is a HUMAN cell. He or she’s got 46 chromosomes, HUMAN DNA, and every cellular characteristic of Homo sapiens. The embryo and fetus have HUMAN cells, HUMAN metabolism, HUMAN morphology, HUMAN physiology, HUMAN genetics, etc. What about him or her isn’t considered a HUMAN? Their dwelling? The baby is not the woman’s body, as any scientist will tell you: half of the baby’s DNA is the father’s. It’s not a religious issue; it’s just an issue of facts, which pro-choicers conveniently overlook. @ uhh: Clearly you missed the part where the textbook says that cells are the fundamental nature of life, and that a cell’s DNA determines what species it is. I too am a hardcore science major, so I could argue that point all day.

The reason that plants and animals don’t have equal protection under the law as a fetus should is because they aren’t human. That DNA in there makes the person a human, and by the definition of life they are alive. Why does that not make it an alive person? Because some people want the convenient option of ending that life? Seems somewhat arbitrary to me….

Arguing from the standpoint of a fetus’ viability is just as equally flawed. Is it right to kill a homeless person just because they are dependent on others? Is it alright to murder a newborn child because he or she won’t survive without a caretaker? Of course not. So what’s the difference when the baby is inside versus outside the uterus?

And that’s the reason pro-lifers focus on the baby’s rights: theirs are the only rights being infringed upon! A mother doesn’t the right to decide whether someone else should live or die, which is exactly what pro-choicers think should happen!

Arguing that making abortion illegal will push it into dark-alley illicit murders is just as wrong. Should we legalize robberies, murders, and other crimes because their status as crimes pushes them into dangerous places? What a ridiculous claim!

As for sacrificing one’s future for a baby’s, that’s just tough luck. No one forced you to get pregnant, and killing a baby because someone wanted to “express their love” is insane. Even in the case of rape, why should the baby be murdered for another man’s crime? Some might say that is unfair, but that’s why the rapist should be the target of the justice system, not the innocent child.

All the adoption statistics really are meaningless to the argument. A life’s a life. Just because you deny it out of convenience doesn’t change the facts.

(Also, a note on Planned Parenthood. Yes they provide other services. But so do other facilities that DON’T participate in the murder of children. Funding should go to these places, not the place that covers up its work on abortion with other healthcare services.)

It would appear that I’m coming in late on this discussion and that I’m likely to get shouted down, but I’d like to throw in my two cents as a conservative who is pro choice.

Here at Wharton we’re all taught about optionality and its benefits. Calls and puts with longer expiry are more valuable. The ability to choose between jobs is more sought after than a single offer. The same is true for abortion. The fact that women can seek abortions if they deem themselves incapable of raising a child is good (I draw much of my argument from the book Freakonomics if anyone would like a more thorough treatment).

Charles, you have so succinctly and thoughtfully called for economic freedom over the past few weeks regarding Eric Cantor’s cancellation and the Occupy movement. Why now do you about face? Why is economic freedom good and reproductive freedom bad?

In addition to the “freedom argument”, I would also like to address your comment about the potential Lincolns and Einsteins that we are supposedly killing by allowing abortion to continue. You seem to believe that society in general would be made better if every woman who gets pregnant is forced to carry that child to term unless dire circumstances arise. How can this lead to a better society? The vast majority of productive citizens (whether by intelligence, artistic talent, or what have you) are born to parent(s) who are ready to care for a child. I don’t deny the myriad exceptions, but I’m talking in terms of probabilities, not absolutes…only Sith deal in absolutes. The majority of aborted children would have been born to low-income, young, single mothers. If that woman decides to get an abortion, I think she, not you or God, is the authority on whether or not she can raise that child. This may be a distasteful outcome, but the numbers are there. The crime drop of the early 90’s has been causally linked (not just correlated) at least in part, to the legalization of abortion in Roe v Wade, 30 years earlier. The ruling caused an entire generation of potential criminals (I say potential, again, because these are probabilities and likelihoods, not absolutes). Again, if this sounds distasteful or crazy to anyone reading, please read the first chapter of Freakonomics before yelling. If you’ve done that and still want to have at it, be my guest (especially if you have conflicting data or analyses).

In summary, to Charles, the moral majority, and anyone else who is pro-life: I am not saying abortion in and of itself is good. It is still the taking of life, and where you draw the line on “human life” is up to you. Personally, I don’t think my sperm are self-aware, but that’s for another time. Point is, abortion is not a good thing, but not having this option available in a SAFE and AFFORDABLE manner (i.e Planned Parenthood) is a greater evil. Until the day that no unwanted children are conceived, abortion is a necessary, if distasteful measure that ensures freedom for women and a dark, but measurable, positive externality in a lower birth rate of unwanted children. If a woman chooses not to abort, she is free to, but you should not deny her the ability to do so if she deems it necessary.

The line

The crime drop of the early 90’s has been causally linked (not just correlated) at least in part, to the legalization of abortion in Roe v Wade, 30 years earlier. The ruling caused an entire generation of potential criminals

should end with “to not be born.”

Your argument on viability is flawed as well. If you gave a newborn or a homeless person food, water, shelter, medical care, etc., he or she would be able to survive. Even with the very best of these things under the very best conditions, a baby under 21 weeks gestation would not be able to survive outside the womb, period. And I don’t think anyone is arguing or would argue that abortions after 21 weeks are legally or morally allowable.

Addressing a few your other points, a woman may not have been forced to get pregnant, but in many cases they are also not getting the information they need to make sure that they have sex in a safe, protected way. Coincidentally, a lot of this information (not to mention low-cost contraceptives that prevent pregnancy in the first place) can be found at—you guessed it!—Planned Parenthood! And when we’re talking about rape and justice in the same sentence, let’s start with the fact that only 6% of rapists ever see even a day of jail time. Yeah, our justice system is doing a bang up job prosecuting rapists.

@Uhh, Here are some links to various websites that explain the process of conception/fertilization. They support my previous statement that a fertilized egg is, in fact, an independent being from the mother. Are you really arguing with this statement? If so, I request that you please show me some material that indicates otherwise.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilisation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/human-reproduction10.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26843/

In case you don’t have time to read all of them, here are a few direct quotes from said websites:

“Fertilisation (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy) is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism.”

“Once released, egg and sperm alike are destined to die within minutes or hours unless they find each other and fuse in the process of fertilization. Through fertilization, the egg and sperm are saved: the egg is activated to begin its developmental program, and the haploid nuclei of the two gametes come together to form the genome of a new diploid organism”

“The fertilized egg is now called a zygote. The depolarization caused by sperm penetration results in one last round of division in the egg’s nucleus, forming a pronucleus containing only one set of genetic information. The pronucleus from the egg merges with the nucleus from the sperm. Once the two pronuclei merge, cell division begins immediately.”

That aside, who are you, exactly, to say that an unborn child is “not yet a baby”? What exactly disqualifies him or her from being a baby? Viability outside of the womb? Again, I ask you, what about adult people who are not viable without medical intervention, or even terminally ill people who will not survive even with the best medical attention? Should we have the right to kill them too, if they are inconveniencing us? Are they not real people? If you are going to make the point that an unborn child is, at any time, not a baby, then I demand proof. But you can’t give me any, because there is no way to prove that an unborn child is not a person. Therefore, I would prefer that we, as a society, err on the side of assuming that the child IS a person, since to not do so would be quite unfair to the child if he or she IS a person. Wouldn’t you agree?

Also, who cares that the UN declared abortion a universal right? Are you aware of the number of horrible things that have been celebrated and/or legal at various points in time? Slavery? The Holocaust? Does the fact that the UN says something is good make it good? I don’t think so.

It truly saddens me that we need to have this conversation too, but for different reasons. I would not like to live in a society where we are indifferent to one another’s suffering as human beings. I refuse to be indifferent to the suffering of the unborn children who are killed all over the world every day. And I don’t care what you do with your reproductive organs, only what you do to the independent being growing inside them.

@ The person who said animals and plants have DNA…obviously they do. But…they’re not humans. Whether you’re coming from a religious or evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense for us humans to think of our species as the most valuable. I seriously hope that if you had a choice between saving a person or your favorite houseplant from a burning building, you would choose the person.

And yes, people (sadly) do argue that the fetus is not alive (see the commenter above you). Why shouldn’t a young, growing human being be considered a person and have human rights? Because he’s smaller than you or me? Please see the comment I just submitted, which deals with this aspect of your argument as well.

Right on Laura! Preach on Charles!

Yes please. Let’s criminalize one more thing that largely affects a disadvantaged population, just to make sure to kick them while they are down. Make abortion illegal and then when they do it anyway, which studies suggest they probably will, throw tons of women and doctors under the jail and throw away the key to the jail, just in case.

And then let’s get those women that think they could get out of their child-bearing duty with those pesky miscarriages! Yes, we have to lock them up too. Don’t they know ending a life is a crime??

And those rape victims? They’re just going to have to get over it. They have been lucky enough to become pregnant, they better go through with the excruciating close-to-ten-month, life altering, body altering, possibly life-threatening process. They didn’t have a say in the matter? Who cares! Life is the most important thing!

Why can’t these left wing pro-choice people see that? Giving birth is a privilege that everyone should be forced to enjoy, no matter how wholly unprepared, deeply traumatized or generally disinterested they are! How dare they argue otherwise??

My problem with your statement was not whether or not something was created at inception, but whether or not that created thing was an “independent being.” As a commenter stated above, many things have their own DNA. You dismiss concerns about animals and plants. What about mitochondria? They’re certainly a part of human life, and they have their own DNA. Yet I don’t, and I doubt you do, shed a tear every time someone loses a skin cell, no matter what stage of division that cell is in. A bundle of cells that completely relies upon its host or mother for absolutely all life-giving functions cannot possibly be independent. It is, by definition, highly dependent. Arguments relating the elderly and homeless to this issue are likely rather offensive to the elderly and homeless, but regardless of parallels drawn to those who cannot provide for themselves, most or all of those individuals are conscious beings.

There is information about this at the links you provided, but not in paragraph form, so here’s a quote from Scientific American:
“Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.”

Abortions are performed after 24 weeks in only the most rare and extreme cases; as a commenter stated above, most abortions are performed at or before 13 weeks of development.

Many things have DNA, but very few things are human people. Blastocysts and embryos just don’t make the cut. They are not “independent beings” just because they have their own genome, and they are certainly not conscious individuals.

It appears you have misunderstood my use of the word “independent”. I use it to mean “separate”, like how a person in a coma is independent from other people because he is a separate human being with a separate life, though he may still be dependent on other beings to care for him.

The problem with your argument is that a skin cell is not a good comparison for a human being in the earliest stages of life. A skin cell, or even a cluster of skin cells, will never turn into a human being. The “bundle of cells” in the womb already has everything it needs to be classified as a human being, just in tiny form. Its entire human code has already been written. You started out as a little “bundle of cells”. So did I. So did everyone else on the planet. In fact, if you really want to look at life this way, we are all just big “bundles of cells” even as adults. So unborn human children don’t have rights because they are bundles of cells, but smaller? How does that make sense?

So now human life depends on consciousness? Is a person in a coma not a person, even though he can still breathe, eat, and perform other functions? Is a severely mentally disabled person not a person if he is impaired to the point where he can’t really function on his own? Infant children can’t think for themselves the way adults can either, does that make them not real people? In all of these cases, the person is wholly dependent on others for survival. But I don’t think that gives me the right to disqualify them as human beings.

It’s dangerous when a society can go around picking and choosing who is worthy of living and who we can kill.