[1].I do not intend to lessen the psychological/emotional problems and pain that can accompany abortion for even the most fervent supporters of abortion rights.

[2]. Human reproduction and the attachment humans have to the growing being inside a woman's body is a complex issue and I do not pretend to be as knowledgeable or close to the issue as any woman. My point here is to make a philosophical argument about the status of the zygote and the status of the continually growing fetus before birth.

[3]. Abortion becomes, as the fetus comes closer to a viable human newborn, more and more questionable in my mind and my following thoughts attempt to reflect this. Abortions are not good and I am not arguing that they are. I think they become less good the further along they are and I am attempting to show that all unused sperm and eggs are very similar, in my view, to zygotes. I would prefer that humans have infallable birth control methods.

[4]. Abortion is a topic that often involves an appeal to a the existence of the soul, as most of the argument against abortion is based on the premise that the soul forms at conception.

[5]. I assume this means that the soul comes into existence after the genetic material from the sperm and the egg combines. But, even this description of when the soul may spring into being requires the use of a scientific method that has never been able to observe any separate substance other than the biological material we know of.

[6]. This concept of some other substance, like the soul, is not necessary for our understanding of the world. The way it is to be matter (or energy) is not necessarily indicative of a separate substance. The simplest possibility is that the way it is to be is merely indicative of a different mode of observation, the subjective way it is to be human.

[7]. In any case, the soul is a religious entity not held to be real by many people who are either agnostic or atheistic. Because of our separation of church and state in the United States and many other nations, I do not believe that an appeal to the soul is appropriate in the context of a secular government.

[8]. Once we can establish that the zygote does not have a human soul then we can aslo establish that it is not a human, but merely a potential human in the form of a simple cluster of cells. Respect should be reserved for sentient beings with nervous sytems, not individual or small groups of cells. To that end, where this respect is deserved in terms of a fetus is a question of at what point it is sufficiently human.

[9]. My conclusion, then, based on a certain understanding of "sufficiently human" is that during the third trimester, I would be against termination of a fetus unless some serious complication exists. But, for the first two trimesters, it should be permissable to have an abortion.

[10]. Even if arguments about the being in question are ignored, the reality is that people are designed to have sex and reproduce. The world we live in, however, is not designed for more people than the Earth's ecosystem can handle. Until foolprood methods of birth control exist and all people on Earth can be guaranteed an enjoyable existence, I think abortion should remain legal, safe, and accepted in an advanced society- like, for example, most of the rest of the first world.

From 1999:
___________________

[11]. Coal is not a diamond, but left to natural forces, it will be. Therefore, coal is a potential diamond, not an actual diamond. Like this, a zygote is a potential human and not an actual human.

[i]. A zygote is not an actual human being. This means that the fertilized egg (zygote) is, however, a potential human being. However, potentiality is discussed in detail below as not being the criteria for how we should judge something's condition. Also, 'human being' is different than merely a 'human' in terms of genetic content.

[ii]. Therefore, the zygote must become a human being at a some point in development.

[iii]. Our duty is to define at what point a group of cells becomes a human being.

[iv]. It is morally justifiable to abort a non human being, because it does not have rights. This is debatable based on what the status of animals, or lower life forms as having right is.

[v]. It is not morally justifiable to abort a human being. Abortion is not acceptable after a certain period of development.

[12]. Before starting, the debate must remain purely scientific and logical. If any reference to the existence of a "soul" or "god’s will" is made in any counter-argument then the counter-argument has completely and totally defeated itself. First, these ideas are not based on logic, or based on progressive reason. Secondly, and most importantly, this is because the debate over abortion (in this case) exists in the United States. To bring in religion would cause this to be a religious issue.

[13]. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Therefore, to bring in religion would make abortion a matter of Freedom of Religion, and the Pro-Choice factions would be guaranteed the freedom to practice abortion.

[14]. The use of "soul" or "god" negates any argument against abortion in our society and ensures the right to abortion. Any non-religious person who does not recognize a "soul" or a "god" would be exempt from the argument of those who use these arguments of the super-natural.

[15]. Definition of Abortion: Abortion is the prevention of a fertilized egg from eventually developing into a human being. When exactly is a group of cells a human being? I would say that a number of characteristics would define when the differentiation occurs. There is no "instance" that a fetus becomes a human (if there is, we have yet to know of it), so a "buffer zone" of time should be allowed for the final development of the fetus into a human being. It is therefore important to point out some definite characteristics that a human being possesses.

[16]. Definition of Human: A human being has a functioning, perceiving brain.

[17]. This brain need not be any more advanced than that of a baby. A grown human without a brain is no longer a human being. So, a group of cells with no developed brain is not, in actuality a human being.

[18]. A human being has the ability to survive on its own- or has "viability". While a human infant may not be able to survive on its own for a long period of time (more than a few days), it can live outside the womb until it is deprived of nutrition. However, a fetus relies on the oxygen and blood of the mother directly. To remove the fetus before it develops into a human would mean instant death. It has no capability of surviving on its own, for even a few minutes.

[19]. A human being can perceive with one or more of the following senses: Sight, smell, touch, hearing, taste. These sense require complex organs and development past a certain amount of time in the womb. [20]. If there is no sight, smell, touch, hearing, or taste, what is the difference between this and a brain dead human, or any type of cell, or even an inanimate object? [21]. Zygote not Human: Can a zygote meet this criterion? Any one of these criteria? No. Therefore, it is not human. So what is the zygote/early fetus before it becomes a human? Does it have rights? [22]. We do not give rights to a brain dead human. We do not give rights to cells, whether they be a human cell, or an E. coli. We do not give rights to inanimate objects. So, it is an extension of the mother, a tissue in the womb, that has no more rights than any other tissue in the mother. [23]. If one says that the zygote, after conception is different than a brain dead human, then a logical fallacy is being committed. The actual condition of the zygote is without a brain. It does have potential, given time, to develop a brain.

"Gift From Prometheus", 2006, by Anthony Peter Iannini

[24]. But, potential does not change the condition of the zygote. The same is true of the independence of the zygote and the perception of the zygote. Each has potential to develop, but none actually yet exists. And it is the actual state of existence, not the potential state of existence that is important.

[25]. Potential not Actual: "Potential" to be life exists in more things than the zygote alone. The sperm and egg have the "potential" to be a human being. With genetic technology, the somatic cells of any human have the "potential" to be a human being. With sufficient future technology, the elements of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, (and some others) themselves have the "potential" to be a human being.

[26]. Potential is defined as the ability to do something. Do the sperm and egg have the potential to be a human being? Yes- if….they come together. Do the somatic cells of any human have the potential to be a human being? Yes- if….genetics is involved. Do the elements of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, (and some others) have the potential to be a human being? Yes-if…. sufficient technology exists. Does a zygote have the potential to be a human being? Yes-if…it is not prevented from doing so, or if it is not Aborted.

[27]. A potentiality is not an actuality, and actuality is what should be looked at in cases of definition. If a man is tried in the courts for murder, and it is determined that he was insane at the time of the crime but is now mentally stable, do we judge him as a "potentially mentally stable" individual at the time of the murder? No, we judge him as he was at the time, mentally unstable or insane. Do we call a caterpillar a butterfly? Do we call coal a diamond? No, certain things must first happen before these entities become something else.

[28]. Must Become Human: If it is correct to say that the zygote can not meet the criterion of a human being, then it must develop, at some point, into a human being. That point must exist later than one cell, later than one hundred cells, later than one-thousand cells. Once the fetus has developed to the point of being able to live outside the womb, it is then an individual.

[29]. Only then, does it become wrong to abort, because this would be the taking of life from an individual. This ability to live autonomously, even for a short time (of a few days) does not come about until the third trimester. Therefore, a "buffer zone" should be given that would ensure that a human being is not being terminated.

[30]. Before the second trimester, within three months, it is definite that the fetus does not have the ability to be autonomous. This lack of autonomy continues into the beginning of the third trimester, so the "buffer zone" of time could even be extended if we know at what point the fetus is capable of survival. It would make sense to place a specific time period on when an abortion can be had. Perhaps three months, maybe four, maybe five. As long as there is sufficient time between autonomy and lack of autonomy, the abortions could be conducted without the termination of a human being.

In the end, my position concerning abortion can be summed up as:
______________________________________________________________________________

[31]. Pro-choice until the mid to late third trimester, at which time I would say that only in cases of rape, incest, very serious defects, or concern for the mother's health should abortions be normally permitted. Basically, I am pro-choice until reasonable viability, or the ability of the fetus to live reasonably well outside the womb. I am not saying this should even be firm law but an ethical guideline that may inform law.

[32]. Given my understanding, these guidelines are the basic premises of most abortion practices at least where they are legal at all. Not allowing abortions, I would argue, results in a number of detrimental problems for society, including unwanted children that are not able to be cared for as has been the case under regimes that have not allowed the practice strictly speaking. Most pro-life proponents are happy to demonize abortions while not creating the environment necessary for a quality life for every non-aborted birth.

[33]. Overpopulation of the Earth is the fundamental and critically important aspect of global warming, wars, resource depletion, pollution, and famine. If there were much less people, there would be much less scarcity. But, the constant growth models of western and emerging eastern economies demands an ever-increasing population base to feed the wealthy industries who seek to sell to the highest number of people. It is a self-defeating model in the long run though it seems to create prosperity in the short-term.