11. Who Makes the Rules? Abortion: Law, Metaphysics, and Moral Neutrality [Ethics at the Edge...] 

Has this Professor published academic work? Wanna read it

If the essence of the argument boils down to "when" a human becomes a human, why bring religion into it? If you make this about religion, you shut all the doors to rational discussion...

As one who paid a large price for being most apparently full of stool, what reason do his opponents have for agreeing with him in attitude, even if they agree with his conclusions? Thus, what conclusions his opponents derive and what arguments they make have no reasonable disagreement with him but have total contrast in contingent outcome. Reason is not a solution here.

Actually the pro abortion crowd isn't trying to impose their views on christians. They are saying each one is free to choose which means all those who find abortion offensive do not have to choose to have or condone an abortion, those who disagree are free to make their own personal decisions.

Mildred Hanson, M.D. A featured speaker at several congressional briefings on abortion, Hanson spent 30 years as the medical director of what was then Planned Parenthood of Minnesota and South Dakota. Today, she oversees her own Minnesota clinic, where, at the age of 82, she provides abortions to women from Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. "In 1935, when I was 11 years old, my mother left our Wisconsin house on a bitter February night and dashed to the farm next door to help an ailing woman who'd had an illegal abortion. Our neighbor was writhing in pain so severe that she was having convulsions and was chewing her lip raw. It took her two days to die of blood poisoning. She left six children behind - and left me with firsthand knowledge of the injustice of illegal abortion. "Fresh out of medical school in 1959, I developed a reputation for being the only doctor in this region who would treat women with bleeding, lacerations, and other complications stemming from back-alley procedures. Illegal abortionists would refer their clients to me in the event of complications. In addition to helping these patients, I offered legal abortions to women within the hospital system, which sanctioned the procedure if it was deemed medically necessary. I coached these women on how to get approval. 'Tell hospital officials you are destitute,' I said. 'Tell them you are devastated and will commit suicide if you can't terminate this pregnancy.' If Roe v. Wade were overturned today and if medical exceptions were still allowed, I would tell my patients the same things all over again. For the first time in my life, I would also perform illegal abortions. I didn't do so before Roe v. Wade because I was a divorced mother with four children to support. But today I have nothing to lose and believe reproductive rights are so important that I'm willing to risk whatever legal action or prison time I might face."

The foundation of this whole argument relies upon rights by virtue of humanity but why is simply being human significant? The significance of human life rests upon our relative intelligence to other forms of life. Many would not question the termination of animal life in similar circumstances, however if a lifeform of similar intellectual capacity as humans existed (the defining factors of intelligent life are again arguable), many would consider it unethical to terminate in the case of abortion. In this line of argument, human life itself is not of significance. Personhood and what defines a 'person' is of significance here.

30:20 interesting point about the 14th amendment.

@fearthespear34x And upon reading the rest of the title you realized there was no need to question him, since his thinking was lucid and correct.