I’m not sure where I’ve ignored other things you’ve written. Perhaps you can point out what I’ve ignored, and I’ll address it.

Regarding the “majorly hedges” on previous statements, I’d suggest that you’ve taken a statement from one paragraph in my original post where I suggest I’m “generally pro-life” and assumed into that statement things that are a lot deeper than I really believe. In my reply to John above, I go into more detail about the nature of my beliefs on abortion. If you read that post, I don’t think anything I’ve said to you is a major hedge on what I wrote there. Some of it is an expansion, but not a hedge.

Granted, I’m not sure why you took one paragraph of a 1600-word post to argue about abortion, given that everything except that tiny chunk was about prenatal testing, disability, and the relationship therein, not about general moral questions of abortion. Nor do I understand why you focused so much energy on questions of legally defining age.

But I guess if you think I’ve misconstrued your writings, perhaps you have identified some point within those words that simply eludes me.

I brought up questions about how life is defined, and the implications of that definition.

You brought up definitions of how age is defined. I am saying that it’s quite natural to define legal age and life by two different dates. There’s no need to assign age to the date of conception (since we don’t know when that is).

Thus, through no fault of her own, and without anyone’s prior knowledge, her actions directly led to the fetal death. Would you consider that an abortion?

Yes. Not an intentional one, of course, but at that point (implantation), the woman is pregnant. The surgery inadvertently aborts that pregnancy.

And if, as you wrote, you don’t feel strongly enough to “throw a woman or a doctor in a cage for aborting a pregnancy”, what do you believe the punishment should be?

Prior to birth, I think you have a case of competing rights between mother and baby. In the first trimester, I think the rights are biased towards the mother — I don’t think a woman should be penalized at all for a first-trimester abortion. I don’t think it should be illegal. In the third trimester, at the point at which that baby is basically viable outside the womb, I think the rights are biased towards the baby. If a pregnancy progresses to that point and the woman doesn’t want the baby, the answer should be carrying it to term and then giving it up for adoption. When you get to that point, I think a fine for the woman and jail time for the doctor are the limits. I don’t have an answer for the second trimester — some evidence shows that a baby can be viable in the second trimester, but I honestly don’t know how the dividing line between woman’s rights and baby’s rights should be drawn.

If a life has begun at conception, how is that different than the same life 1 year later, in your mind?

Again, I think that at some point after conception, the baby gains some rights. As described above, the question of competing rights between the baby and the woman carrying it are “competing” only until the birth. At that point at woman has full legal ability to give the baby up for adoption, and thus her continued responsibility for that baby is voluntary. The difference after the birth is not that the baby magically gained rights upon exit from the mother’s womb, but that the baby’s right to life no longer *competes* with the woman’s right to an empty uterus.

Trying to argue that “the point of conception” is equally concrete… now THAT is a silly and asinine argument to make.

Again, I don’t think it is. A new human life is formed at the point of conception. I’m not suggesting that the woman in your hypothetical above (baby she doesn’t yet know she’s carrying is aborted in an unrelated surgical procedure) should be penalized for that abortion. A life has been ended but I don’t think we can say a crime has taken place. Likewise, even deliberate abortions taken early in the pregnancy, though I consider them unfortunate, are questions of the woman having a much stronger claim to the right of an empty uterus than a 1″ long mass with barely the first formations of a brain stem and organs. I consider an abortion at that time sad, much as I consider the two first-trimester miscarriages my wife had prior to us successfully having children to be sad.

But again, I don’t think it’s all that controversial to suggest that life begins at conception. The real question is whether that life at that point confers any responsibility on others to maintain it. My belief is that prior to 37 weeks of gestation, there is a positive responsibility put onto a pregnant woman. But that positive responsibility doesn’t become meaningful until MUCH later in the pregnancy than at conception.

It’s relevant because it’s impossible to determine the exact moment of conception, and therefore exactly when that new life has begun. If that’s the case, then it’s therefore impossible to determine exactly what constitutes taking that life.

Let’s say a woman has a zygote that has already implanted in her uterus (ie, experienced conception), but is not yet showing any determinable chemical or physiological signs of conception (ie, it’s still within the 72-96 hour period). Then, she has a surgical procedure or operation, the side effects of which inadvertently cause fetal death, either immediately or through imminent miscarriage. Thus, through no fault of her own, and without anyone’s prior knowledge, her actions directly led to the fetal death. Would you consider that an abortion?

And if, as you wrote, you don’t feel strongly enough to “throw a woman or a doctor in a cage for aborting a pregnancy”, what do you believe the punishment should be? If a life has begun at conception, how is that different than the same life 1 year later, in your mind?

You wrote that “we use the date of birth because it’s just such an easy and concrete dividing line that anyone can figure out by looking at a calendar.” That’s precisely my point. If you wanted to look at a gestational age of something like 15 weeks, or 20 weeks, or 25 weeks, those are also discrete and identifiable lines to draw. Trying to argue that “the point of conception” is equally concrete… now THAT is a silly and asinine argument to make.

The argument you’re making is silly and irrelevant. I’m not suggesting you’re silly or asinine. To quote Aaliyah (PBUH), “Age ain’t nothin but a number.”

For the very reason you point out, assigning legal meaning to the date of conception is a difficult task. While I’m sure most people would love to celebrate their legal ability to drink for a 72-96 hour period (okay, so maybe a few of us did), it’s legally ambiguous to try to define “age” at a 4-day period from the time of conception. And frankly there’s no point. Is there really any legal advantage to change the concept of “age” from date of birth to date of conception? And again, we’re MERELY talking about a legal definition of age here, we’re NOT talking about a moral principal of human or natural rights. About the only possible change that I think it would make to *anyone* is that it would slightly affect the legal age of those people born severely premature. And for those folks, it would only make them “younger” by a matter of 4-5 weeks (i.e. 37 weeks is considered “full term”, very few babies born prior to 32 weeks can survive.

Life begins at conception. Genetically that life is a unique human life. While there might be some debates over whether that’s a legal “person”, I don’t think anyone — INCLUDING the most hardcore pro-choice NARAL supporter — can claim that it’s not the beginning of new genetically unique life. Scientifically I don’t believe that’s under debate from any side.

If you really want to ask questions about secular/cultural celebrations like Quinceañera, ask yourself why that cultural practice is set at the age of 15? I’d say it has a lot more to do with the time a female transitions from girlhood to womanhood (i.e. puberty), as well as with the time (perhaps in older cultures) at which a female was expected to be ready to leave her family and join a husband. If you really want to dig into secular/cultural traditions, the age of 15 no longer makes sense for either. Most reports are that girls are entering puberty at a younger age, so maybe a Treceañera is more appropriate. And in modern times we expect women to get an education (at least HS diploma, if not college) before they leave the family to marry, so perhaps 15 is instead too young.

Are we getting silly, asinine, and off-topic yet? Nothing about the Quinceañera is a moral issue about age, it is a cultural tradition — often related to aspects of “coming of age” that change with the times. Nothing about pegging the age of 18 to voting or pegging the age of 16 to driving are particularly moral issues about the beginning of life either, it’s merely saying that at the age of 18 years from birth, OR 18 years 9 months from conception, most people should be expected to be adults, live on their own, and granted the franchise.

I hope that all the wasted words I’ve just written will fully satisfy you as to why I think defining “legal age” starting at birth or at conception is irrelevant to the moral issues of natural rights of the unborn. I hope that the fact that you’ve goaded me into wasting all these words will help you understand why I dismissed it so summarily in harsh terms the first time around. You’ve dragged me down into this off-topic tangent, and I hope that I’ve at least answered your question as to why I don’t think matters whether we assign age based upon the date of birth or the date of conception, but why we use the date of birth because it’s just such an easy and concrete dividing line that anyone can figure out by looking at a calendar.

If you believe abortion is morally wrong and constitutes a crime (specifically, murder), that’s fine — as a fellow libertarian I accept your viewpoint. Why you can’t accept my counterpoint is beyond me.

You made a statement that “at the point of conception, that is a new human life.” I took something commonly defined with the start of life, namely age, and explored the implied ramifications of your statement. I chose age since human age is typically defined as something like “the amount of time that has transpired from the start of someone’s life.”

That I used legal privileges for the examples is ancillary to the main point, so I’m unsure why you focused on that. Take a secular/cultural observation such as a Quinceañera celebration instead. Should that be celebrated at 14 years and 3 months after exiting the womb, rather than 15 years?

Even if we accept that life begins “at the point of conception”, the problem still remains of how to accurately and precisely identify when conception has taken place. Current scientific methods only allow identification somewhere between 72 and 96 hours after it’s actually occurred.

That’s a silly, pointless comment, and I’m surprised that you’d dare express something so asinine in public.

Whatever side you come down on, these are actual moral and ethical issues. The date at which various age-based legal privileges are granted is completely irrelevant.

after all, according to you that’s when their life began, right?

Good question. For me it comes down to a question of rights. At what point does a new human life (and I believe that at the point of conception, that is a new human life) deserve rights?

The line can be drawn in multiple places. Pro-choice folks draw it at birth. Hardcore pro-life folks, like Rick Santorum, draw it at fertilization (not even implantation, if you’ve ever heard their opposition to drugs like the morning-after pill which prevent implantation). I happen to think it’s somewhere in the middle.

Also, if you feel comfortable explaining, I would be interested to hear the basis of your pro-life view if it isn’t from a Christian worldview. (I’m not critical, just curious.)

First, congratulations about the new baby on the way!

“Do I think we should somehow cheer those women as being heroes, as folks like Santorum, who has a disabled child, and Palin, who has a disabled child, are cheered by the right?”

I think you and your wife are heroic for doing all you can for your child. This is such a personal issue and you dealt with it in such a personal way in this post. I think this is too personal of an issue of personal choice for government at any level (but especially the federal government) to take away from anyone who would be faced with such information obtained by prenatal testing. If my wife and I were faced with that news, I honestly don’t know what we would have done about it. I don’t think anyone knows for sure unless they are faced with it themselves.

Still, I think certain prenatal tests are good if for no other reason, expecting parents have some inkling of what they are walking into.