@LukeN,
"They are persons. They will definitely become a human being and a person. All their traits are defined at conception."
Obviously, we define person differently.
the classical definition of person is "a human being regarded as an individual"
Of course, in current times, there's a lot of debate as to what the word means. Some good current definitions include things such as personal identity, self-awareness, individuality adn a sense of self.
John Locke emphasized that a person is a living being is that is conscious of itself as persisting over time. (and therefore, able to have conscious preferences about its own future.) Embryos don't even have brains.
Boethius, a CHRISTIAN philosopher of the sixth century, said "Person is an individual substance of rational nature. As individual it is material, since matter supplies the principle of individuation. The soul is not person, only the composite is. Man alone is among the material beings person, he alone having a rational nature. He is the highest of the material beings, endowed with particular dignity and rights. "
Let's use those things for a moment. My hand, for example, is human life. It's not a person, based on that.
The embryo will not BECOME a human. It IS one already. However, it is not a person.
A child is a person. An adult human is a person. A mentally challenged adult is a person. My hand is not a person. A one week old embryo is not a person. A brain-dead human being which cannot regain consciousness is not a person.
Said one week old embryo, about nine months later, is definitely a person. It will BECOME one. But at the one week, it's not.
at that point in time, the clump of cells can separate and become several individuals, each of which can become a person. How can an entity following my definition, designated by things such as continuation of self, individuality and self-consciousness, split into two? It cannot.
Speaking of which, your words about cloning are false. This is because identical twins are, in effect, a natural form of cloning.
Also, how are you defining nature, precisely? Something occuring in the world without human actions? Cloning happens all the time in nature, actually, when I think about it. Not in humans, but in certain lizards, and in many, many kinds of micro-organisms.
Back to the embryos, they have no brains. They cannot be conscious. They have no more say than an ameoba. And at that early stage, about as much potential for pain.
You also said, above, that their traits are all preset. Not true at all.
First of all, much of human traits are based on experience and choice, not genetics. Those things aren't set in the womb. Whether the clump of cells will become one or five separate individuals is not set, either, due to twinning. Their education will decide much. Their physical traits will be affected by their environment, outside chemical influences. Besides which, they don't have most of those traits THEN. I wasn't conscious when I was concieved, nor were you. We weren't people under those definitions above.
I'll concede, that that definition of persons does not anywhere state that only people are allowed rights. In the rights of animals, which are not people, we have some interesting things to think of.
But, in this regard of whether or not that definition matters, let's go on to the next portion of your arguement.
"The mother doesn't own the child, does she. "
The mother doesn't own the child, of course. However, she owns her own body, and has a right not to allow another entity to use it.
You, for example, have no right to my blood. If I gave you blood that you needed to survive, that would be entirely voluntary on my part, for I have no moral obligation to give it to you. Blood is, of course, minor compared to what a woman gives her unborn child. Blood is a minor inconvenience in comparison.
A fetus uses the mother's body for survival, and at those early stages won't really survive unless implanted. As time goes on, that baby uses more, and the use becomes much more straining. In the end, childbirth occurs, and the mother's body may be heavily damaged or killed. The natural process is, of course, incredibly painful.
Just as I have no obligation to give you blood, a woman has no obligation to give a fetus her own nutrients.
But, I'll concede that after a large number of months, when that fetus has grown, can potentially feel pain, can live outside of the mother (and grow, not as a frozen cell-cickle.) and the mother has, naturally, known about the fetus for a number of months, that to decide to terminate that baby then should not be tolerated.
As for your talk of Democrats, you clearly lack a sense of accuracy in history.
The Democrats of the time of the civil war are not the same as today. The Democrats then, if they were taken to today's times, would be roughly closer to Republicans in ideology (you know, the part that matters.). And vice-versa.
Southern Democrats, that is, the ones who through much of the 20th century fought against civil rights and whatnot, were only democrats because of historical reasons, NOT ideological ones! Why would, eighty years ago, when people from the Civil War could have potentially still been alive, southen Democrats have joined the Republican party, whose viewpoints more closely matched their own?
I know I wouldn't have joined my "conquerors."
Also, in the current age, Republicans don't support civil rights for groups such as homosexuals.
To say that Republicans, ideologically and currently as an organization, supports civil rights is a falsehood! I don't believe you were intentionally lying, but it was certainly false, regardless of your beliefs.
Panderers. Ha. Conservatives pander to evangelical Christians, many of whom would turn this country into a Christian flavored, Iranesque theocracy! Have you even heard the eyewitness accounts of the scorn the current Republican leadership has for those they're taking support from in those quarters?
Also, read up on Dominionism, also called Christian Nationalism. It's frightening. Not something to be overtly concerned about at the moment, as they aren't about to go try to take over through violent means, but they're a group to be aware of. A group that, if they had their way, would make our nation the same kind of theocracy as Iran has. (Only, you know, Christian instead of Muslim.)
In this case, in many ways, I'll concede perhaps that both parties pander. It's politics, both sides do it. To say one side is a panderer while the other is not is, again, a blatant falsehood. It's unchristian. (remember what Jesus said about the log in your own eye, et al.)
"Do you know most early feminists were anti-abortion?"
Why should I care? I disagree with them. Who said I was a feminist, anyway?
I f you can't afford one, you surely can't afford two. If you want us to help you out, agree that this is your last kid. Simple.