Very not good. If the entire argument for not giving a fertilized egg rights is that it does not have a brain or feel sensations, you run into problems when talking about aborting things that, you know, have brains and feel sensations.

Logic is important.

did you watch the whole thing? It was just a couple minutes. goodness!

Anyway, "funerals for tampons- just in case." haha.

Life does begin at conception. Just because something has no brain or feelings does not mean it is not alive. Our cells are ALIVE, bacteria is ALIVE, just as they can die they are alive. The only thing you can question is how significant you feel that life is. I kill bacteria all the time even though I know I need a certain amount of bacteria to stay healthy, I know too much is not good for me so I break out my Clorox and kill it. Our cells which are also alive die off all the time we even kills our own cells, the thing is we don't feel the life of cells or bacteria are that significant.
I consider fertilized eggs life but I don't find the life of a fertilized egg all that significant, a 5 month fetus is another story.

The "Life does not start at conception argument" does not really hold any weight when you think about it in scientific terms.

When you atually think about it life begins before conception. The egg and sperm were alive before they even came together. What they did was create a new life. Dead sperm and egg can't create life.

I also forgot to add plants to my list. Plants are alive but we don't value the life of plants that much, so we don't mind killing them or don't throw a funeral when they die.

The "Life does not start at conception argument" does not really hold any weight when you think about it in scientific terms.

Actually it does, because the sperm and egg cells are already just as alive before conception, or even sex. However, fundies don't really worry about all the billions of sperm cells that don't go on to become people.

Thanks for the link, Miriam!

HardCandy, if you watch the video, you'll see that your points about the definition of life are made, albeit in a shorter, more joking fashion.

Anti-choicers are aware that the semantics of the word "life" are easy to get around, which is why legal assaults on abortion rights and contraception define conception as the beginning of personhood. In the video, we go with that because it's what they mean by "life", often what they'll say by "life", and I think it's easy to disprove that personhood starts at conception in any meaningful sense.

Nestra, this is far from our only video, so it's far from the only argument for reproductive rights. I caution against a priori reasoning, or the appearance of it. It's not a given to most people that you're trying to talk to that abortion should be legal and that it's just a matter of rationalizing a predetermined conclusion. And, like it or not, fetal life does have value to most people and you're not going to help matters by avoiding the question.

I don't think there's much *need* for laws restricting abortion access after 28 weeks (when a fetus is capable of pain), because it's hard for me to believe that anyone would be stupid or callous enough to get an abortion at that stage for non-medical reasons. And even if you could find the woman who'd do it, you couldn't find the doctor to do it for her. I respect that legal arguments about why it should be legal make sense, but it's never going to go over well because there's an obvious moral distinction between a well-developed fetus and the barely-developed ones that are aborted in first trimester procedures. Well, at least to thinking people---fundies obviously get so confused they start thinking sperm has more rights than 8th graders. Laws banning non-medical late term abortions may not be necessary, but I suspect they'll always be in place because people cannot stomach the idea. Hell, I can't.

"Pregnant women could use the carpool lane... and we'd have funerals for tampons, just in case."

Heh, that was awesome. I thoroughly enjoyed it. And oh, how I miss Pop Up Video...

I love the bit at the end where she points out that as loudly as anti-choicers yell, they don't actually treat fertilized eggs as "lives." Not only for the hilarious reasons she offered (preggers ladies in the carpool lane), but because they don't really put it on par with murder. It is seriously so much more a restriction issue than a protection issue.

All right - I am all for legal abortion rights, AND I believe life begins at conception (which is different from fertilization IN MY VIEW and my view only, I know).

I am SICK UNTO DEATH that feminists cling as stridently to their ideas about abortion as fundamental Christians cling to theirs. And that people think being a person of faith immediately precludes you from being a person who will vote pro-choice.

In regard to the video, though, it seemed to be that mostly, the pro-choice person was as vague in her answers as the anti-choice person was in stating her position. Logical debate could have been made with any of the pro-choice lines, but instead they cut to the anti-choicer making outlandish claims.

The points about needing death certificates for fertilized eggs which slough off on their own has a humorous take, but the funeral for tampons thing was just a childish jab at the other side, and could have been done without.

(As for pregnant women riding in carpool lanes, I'm pretty sure any woman whose belly prevents her from reaching the steering wheel would insist she should be there. :) )

I agree with HardCandy and some of the other posters. I don't think the argument should be one of when life begins because some people will always believe that life begins at conception while others will disagree. I do think the argument (that I've seen others bring up on other posters) is that even if a fetus is defined as being alive in some way, it still does not have the right to be inside a woman without her consent. No living person has the right to use another living person's body without permission.

Sara, huh, I hadn't heard that argument before - the living thing using another living person's body - thanks for writing it - I am going to go marinate on it....

HAHA! That was brilliant. I loved the funerals for tampons idea. I've always struggled with how I feel about abortion and when life begins, etc. and this has definitely cleared up alot of the confusion for me. I hate it when I voice my opinions and state that I'm pro-choice and people around me always get so...defensive? about it. They seem to think that pro-choice = pro-abortion. I'm so tired of having to explain that I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-CHOICE. I believe that women should have the right to choose what they feel is best for them. Whether it's carrying a baby to term or having an abortion, it doesn't matter and it's not my place to tell another woman what to do with her body, everyone's situation is different. And the first woman speaking is 100% right about it being religious - I have many religious friends who think abortion is wrong - but that's their opinion based on their morals and religion. I don't think their religious beliefs should impact what I decide to do with MY body. I think it's wrong that a politician's religious beliefs could take away MY rights to MY body.

If these are the best arguments that the "anti-lifers" can put forward, then I think there is good news for those concerned about unborn boys and girls. And can we get past the name calling? I think pro-choice and pro-life are legitimate.

As to this video it is filled with poor arguments. Using the history of evolution to say we really do not know when life began to justify we do not know when life begins now is weak. It follows that we cannot say those typing in this blog have life in any definitive sense. Science shows us an immediate reaction upon conception. There is no new informatin added after that. Science shows us life begins at conception, the debate is over the value of that life.

Then it is argued that the unborn baby has no brain and feelings to justify abortion. If that is a basis for abortion than after 2-3 months it could be argued that the unborn baby boy or girl has the capacity for those things, thus this argument allows for restrictions on abortions. The heart starts to beat in about 5-6 weeks and the brain is developing shortly after that. The later the abortion the more likely the unborn baby boy or girl feels pain. So you all should agree to limits on abortion after a few months if like this videos logic.

There is also a huge difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. Taking direct action to end a life has moral implications. The mocking of using the death certificate example does nothing for the argument.

The issue of one's personal beliefs digresses into complete relativism. If one goes that route than there is no stopping where it ends. Saying if you believe life begins at conception or after the first breath as mere opinion is dangerous. Philosopher Peter Singer argues that the parents should be allowed to kill their baby up to 28 days. This is purely arbitrary and the line can be moved to any point in one's life.

The closing argument is just ridiculous. As stated before science shows us that life begins at fertilization. Stop basing this argument on the Dark Ages of prenatal medicine. If this video is seen as a strong argument for abortion rights then the pro-life side of the issue should be comforted.

The last point is to another comment that was posted. The issue of not being able to use another's body without permission. This just denies biology. More importantly it confuses identity with dependence. Just because one is temporarily dependent on another biologically doesn't mean they do not have a separate and valuable identity. Following the posters logic, then infanticide is justified. The newborn is still dependent on his or her mother and father, does that mean the baby has no identity, I think not.

You cannot critique China then following the line of thought of the video. Sex selective abortions are justified. Also applying the body analogy. China probably sees their political system as an organic body, thus they can decide who lives or dies regardless of in the womb or out of the womb.

The only way to combat this logical and necessary consequence is to ground human personhood and identity at the moment of conception. If it is not then there is no logical place it can be asserted without destroying all the pro-choice arguments for abortion on demand.

If these are the best arguments that the "anti-lifers" can put forward, then I think there is good news for those concerned about unborn boys and girls. And can we get past the name calling? I think pro-choice and pro-life are legitimate.

As to this video it is filled with poor arguments. Using the history of evolution to say we really do not know when life began to justify we do not know when life begins now is weak. It follows that we cannot say those typing in this blog have life in any definitive sense. Science shows us an immediate reaction upon conception. There is no new informatin added after that. Science shows us life begins at conception, the debate is over the value of that life.

Then it is argued that the unborn baby has no brain and feelings to justify abortion. If that is a basis for abortion than after 2-3 months it could be argued that the unborn baby boy or girl has the capacity for those things, thus this argument allows for restrictions on abortions. The heart starts to beat in about 5-6 weeks and the brain is developing shortly after that. The later the abortion the more likely the unborn baby boy or girl feels pain. So you all should agree to limits on abortion after a few months if like this videos logic.

There is also a huge difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. Taking direct action to end a life has moral implications. The mocking of using the death certificate example does nothing for the argument.

The issue of one's personal beliefs digresses into complete relativism. If one goes that route than there is no stopping where it ends. Saying if you believe life begins at conception or after the first breath as mere opinion is dangerous. Philosopher Peter Singer argues that the parents should be allowed to kill their baby up to 28 days. This is purely arbitrary and the line can be moved to any point in one's life.

The closing argument is just ridiculous. As stated before science shows us that life begins at fertilization. Stop basing this argument on the Dark Ages of prenatal medicine. If this video is seen as a strong argument for abortion rights then the pro-life side of the issue should be comforted.

The last point is to another comment that was posted. The issue of not being able to use another's body without permission. This just denies biology. More importantly it confuses identity with dependence. Just because one is temporarily dependent on another biologically doesn't mean they do not have a separate and valuable identity. Following the posters logic, then infanticide is justified. The newborn is still dependent on his or her mother and father, does that mean the baby has no identity, I think not.

You cannot critique China then following the line of thought of the video. Sex selective abortions are justified. Also applying the body analogy. China probably sees their political system as an organic body, thus they can decide who lives or dies regardless of in the womb or out of the womb.

The only way to combat this logical and necessary consequence is to ground human personhood and identity at the moment of conception. If it is not then there is no logical place it can be asserted without destroying all the pro-choice arguments for abortion on demand.

Here's an interesting question. I should say from the start that I am pro-choice. But, the question is: if life doesn't begin at conception, then when does it begin? If you say birth, you're kidding yourself. Because, of course there is no major difference between a baby that was just born and a baby that is just about to be born. Just a little food for thought.

As to this video it is filled with poor arguments. Using the history of evolution to say we really do not know when life began to justify we do not know when life begins now is weak. It follows that we cannot say those typing in this blog have life in any definitive sense. Science shows us an immediate reaction upon conception. There is no new informatin added after that. Science shows us life begins at conception, the debate is over the value of that life.

Okay, we can clear this up here and now: A bacterium is alive. A tree is alive. A mosquito is alive. A sperm is alive. An egg is alive. An unimplanted blastocyst is alive. An implanted zygote is alive. A fetus is alive. A baby is alive. A twenty-six-year-old graduate student is alive.

The debate is not over what is alive in the scientific sense. The debate is over when personhood begins. The sooner we stop using the language of "life" or even "human life," the sooner we can stop pretending we don't know what everyone else is talking about.

That said, you're going to have to clarify "Science shows us an immediate reaction upon conception. There is no new information added after that." Because as things stand it makes no sense.

Then it is argued that the unborn baby has no brain and feelings to justify abortion. If that is a basis for abortion than after 2-3 months it could be argued that the unborn baby boy or girl has the capacity for those things, thus this argument allows for restrictions on abortions. The heart starts to beat in about 5-6 weeks and the brain is developing shortly after that. The later the abortion the more likely the unborn baby boy or girl feels pain. So you all should agree to limits on abortion after a few months if like this videos logic.

If you like this video's logic so much that you decide to stop watching there and ignore the fact that they followed up.

There is also a huge difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. Taking direct action to end a life has moral implications. The mocking of using the death certificate example does nothing for the argument.

Sure it does, honey. It points out that people who insist they believe life begins at "conception," whenever conception is, have nothing to say about the untold numbers of fertilized eggs or embryos that are miscarried with absolutely nobody's knowledge. Like she said, shouldn't you be weeping over every tampon, just in case? Or are you only interested in the humanity of an organism that's still inside a woman, requiring her body to sustain itself? Why would that be?

The issue of one's personal beliefs digresses into complete relativism. If one goes that route than there is no stopping where it ends. Saying if you believe life begins at conception or after the first breath as mere opinion is dangerous. Philosopher Peter Singer argues that the parents should be allowed to kill their baby up to 28 days. This is purely arbitrary and the line can be moved to any point in one's life.

Thanks for bringing that up, because obviously we're all murderous whores who would be out slaughtering children by the thousands if it weren't for your moral guidance.

Seriously, that's pointless and a red herring and insulting to anybody with a pair of brain cells to rub together. Don't do that.

The closing argument is just ridiculous. As stated before science shows us that life begins at fertilization. Stop basing this argument on the Dark Ages of prenatal medicine. If this video is seen as a strong argument for abortion rights then the pro-life side of the issue should be comforted.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here, so... pass.

The last point is to another comment that was posted. The issue of not being able to use another's body without permission. This just denies biology. More importantly it confuses identity with dependence. Just because one is temporarily dependent on another biologically doesn't mean they do not have a separate and valuable identity. Following the posters logic, then infanticide is justified. The newborn is still dependent on his or her mother and father, does that mean the baby has no identity, I think not.

Anybody can take care of a baby that has already been born. Until a fetus gets out of the womb one way or another, it's still a parasite feeding off its mother and severely affecting the state of her body. I'd say it's up to her what becomes of it.

You cannot critique China then following the line of thought of the video. Sex selective abortions are justified. Also applying the body analogy. China probably sees their political system as an organic body, thus they can decide who lives or dies regardless of in the womb or out of the womb.

Um, what?

The only way to combat this logical and necessary consequence is to ground human personhood and identity at the moment of conception. If it is not then there is no logical place it can be asserted without destroying all the pro-choice arguments for abortion on demand.

Personhood begins at birth, when the resources the baby requires to survive are located elsewhere than inside the reproductive system of an independent and already living human being.

Oh dear. What have I done?

Misspelled - OMG, I can't believe you took on that bluecollar rant. Good for you! I was with you until the fetus as parasite comparison. I have never liked that one, nor, after two pregnancies and research (particularly Bradley method of childbirth) do I think it's accurate. BUT that's a personal quibble and not anything that should affect the legality of a woman choosing to have an abortion. Major kudos for your response.

Misspelled's post DID clear up something for me - why I get all upset when the feminist tack is "I can do with my body what I want."

(NOTE: I am 100% legally pro-choice, 100% pro-life - I'm against the death penalty - 100% Christian and 100% against fundamental Christian idiots.)

I think my contention is that while I can do with my body what I want, I don't think a fetus is "my body." It is other than my body. HAVING said that, I think I can choose what to do in terms of a fetus in my body, and that certainly, all women deserve the legal right to do the same.

I know this rhetoric wouldn't work in fighting the political battle to keep abortion legal, but it helps me in reframing what seems like an endless pig-headed debate (yes, on the part of feminists, too.)

misspelled- excellent rebuttal! and I'm sorry Aerin, but just because you don't personally like the parasite reference doesn't make it any less valid.

Just to be clear, I don't view all pregnancies as being on par with tapeworms or anything. It would be in pretty bad taste to give that impression when so many women look forward to having children and are thrilled to get pregnant. But it kills me that so many people -- and so many of them men -- talk about it as if from the time the egg is fertilized, it's just another person in the world, and oh look, that person happens to be located inside that lady for the time being, and what's the big deal about leaving it there for a little while until it comes out on its own. The location of the fetus isn't a side issue. It's the issue.

Inside the uterus of a real live living breathing woman appears a thing that settles in to stay for nine months and grow from a single cell into several pounds of flesh and blood, all the while screwing with her hormones, causing her pain and sickness, sucking nutrients out of her, kicking and poking at her, and requiring all kinds of expensive and time-consuming medical attention. That's a big deal whether you want a baby or not. Planned or unplanned, wanted or unwanted, it's an intrusion. You have to make room for it, both literally and figuratively. You have to put up with the limits it imposes on your own life. You have to spend money on it. And unlike the care of a baby, the burden of sustaining it -- and it is a burden, even if it's one you're glad to have -- can't be passed on to anyone else. It has attached itself to you. It is inside you. It is depending on your body alone to make adjustments and sacrifices for its well-being. For all intents and purposes, it is a parasite.

That, to me, is the operative issue. Any discussion of the fetus has to be framed in terms of what's going on with the woman. All this talk you always hear of "well, the fact that it's still in the womb doesn't negate the fact that it's an existing person" -- let's look at it the other way for once. Let's make the woman's health our first concern. What is it about the fetus that negates the fact that it does such a number on somebody's body and life, often without her consent or prior knowledge, often without any favorable outcome for her? What's so magical about this particular organism that we're declaring it untouchable even as it totally usurps her ownership of her body? We wouldn't grant that kind of indulgence to anybody or anything else that tried to claim absolute rights over someone else's body. Why is it only okay when the body in question belongs to a woman and the controversy has arisen from her decision to have sex?

I'm not saying you think this way, Aerin. You've shown good faith, and as far as I'm concerned, if you're publicly pro-choice then your private feelings about pregnancy and abortion are none of my business. But this view of pregnancy that consistently glosses over the woman's experience to focus on the fetus is incredibly prevalent, and the practice of using it to argue the immorality of abortion needs smacking down hard.

Sorry so long. This thing was never meant to be four (now five) paragraphs.

and I'm sorry Aerin, but just because you don't personally like the parasite reference doesn't make it any less valid.

jro, what? Did I miss that this is a feminist page? That I don't personally like it shouldn't affect the legal issue of the matter, but my own experience should be valid enough in terms of discussion. I thought that's part of feminism - giving women their voice and credit to their opinions?

I appreciate your posts, misspelled. I will have to do some thinking. I had hoped that a feminist rhetoric of abortion could include positive experiences of pregnancy, too - it seems like the most logical way to defend the debate. But perhaps not. Thanks for the dialogue.

That bit about Peter Singer was taken out of context. It's not a license to run around committing infanticide, it's a theory regarding quality of life and euthanasia. It's also a method to question our ideas that all life is sacred, and it must be prolonged even if it does cause great suffering.

I think that's where this debate often goes wrong- we are attempting to force science to define what is truly an ethical question.