The question of when life starts is a red herring. Life started four and a half billion years ago. The sperm and egg are alive before they fuse into a conceptus. At any stage you examine a developing human, it's undoubtedly alive. Just like a mosquito, an anthrax virus or a dalek. But people are generally happy to not worry about whether they're alive when it comes down to issues of morality.

The true question is when does a foetus gain some subset of the rights we accord to human beings? which is clearly a lot harder to answer. Framing the question in terms of life just plays into the hands of the "pro-life" crowd.

I also have a close friend who has made several anti-feminist statements without realizing that she is saying something offensive. I usually confront the topic and explain why I disagree, but it is hard not to lose respect for the person when they are so ignorant about feminism and issues involving women's rights.

I went through kind of the same thing recently with my very close friend. Except she is not religious at all, and usually has a pretty leftist view on things and so her pro-life arguments surprised the hell out of me. According to my friend, she agrees that there should be no more abortion clinics, it should be illegal to perform an abortion, insurance should not cover birth control, and they should not teach sex-ed in school because kids shouldn't have sex. Inevitably I also lost much respect for this girl, what an ignorant way to look at the subject. The most aggravating thing about it is that she is a woman! How can you support these views as a young woman who might one day be faced with the decision of having a baby or not. At the same time she has been my friend for a long time and it sucked to feel such a loss of respect for her.

I think maybe a better angle to try would be the "individual decision" one. That is, there is nothing that is stopping her from being a feminist while believing that it would be wrong to kill her pre-baby. But that little word, "her," is the key. Ask her if she thinks it would be fair if someone forced her to have an abortion. Ask her if she really wants to make that decision for someone else. Explain that it is necessary for abortion to be legal (and safe, and available) so that each woman can make that decision for herself. No one will ever force your friend to have an abortion. But some women, who do not have the same beliefs she does - perhaps you could point out that this is one of the things that makes America a worthwhile place to live, that people can have different beliefs - do not want to be forced to carry to term a fetus for whom they cannot care. For some people, adoption is not a viable option (often, after carrying a child to term, the trauma of separation that comes with adoption is more harmful to the mother than any other option, leading to excessive health care costs through therapy, etc).

There are plenty of ways for your friend to be both Catholic, feminist, and determined never to personally have an abortion. It is the "choice" in "pro-choice" that is important. And rather than trying to change her moral outlook on life, instead ask her not to impose her moral outlook on women who do not share her faith.

And this:

is not a feminist statement.

I agree with wintermute that: "The true question is when does a foetus gain some subset of the rights we accord to human beings? " not about when "life begins."

No human child or adult has a right to use another person's body against their will, even to avoid death, so why would a potential human? Legally parents do not have to give their children organs, even if the child will die if they don't, so what sense does it make to give an embryo/fetus more rights than a living child (or adult)?

Maybe ask your "pro-life" friend: if a fertility clinic was burning down with a ten year old child trapped in a closet screaming for help and several vials of fertilized eggs in a freezer and they could only save one or the other, which would they save?

If they really think all fertilized eggs have full human rights, they would let the screaming child die and save the eggs, despite the fact the child can feel pain, is clearly saying "please help me," and probably has a full life (a family, friends, pets, and goals/aspirations). The fertilized eggs (even if there were a million of them) are closer to what is left in a used condom then a single living, breathing, child.

The issue of abortion presents us with a stark dichotomy: does every human being truly have an inherent right to life, or must a human life exhibit certain characteristics in order to have rights? Those who would affirm the latter answer (which is the only possibility for those who support abortion rights) need to look at the true consequences of this belief.

The ideas of bioethicist Peter Singer exhibit these consequences starkly. Singer's ethical theory revolves around a notion of "personhood"--defined chiefly by the capacity of a human being for self-consciousness--that not all humans possess equally and at all stages of life. A human life, according to Singer, has moral status when it is a person--which a fetus or an embryo, according to this view, is not, since a person is a human being who is conscious and has an awareness of his or her existence over time.

Naturally, this view has moral implications that extend far beyond the issue of abortion. An infant, by this definition, does not have the characterics of personhood, and so the killing of an infant can never be the moral equivalent of taking the life of an adult human being. Indeed, Singer has advocated the idea that parents may choose to kill infants with Down's syndrome and other severe disabilities within the first three months of life. Similarly, severely mentally handicapped individuals do not have equivalent moral status to individuals with normal cognitive capacities, and it is not morally problematic to terminate the life of a profoundly retarded human being.

I suspect most people (including those who support abortion rights) would find Singer's ideas repugnant, but they are simply a logical consequence of the notion that the human right to life is not innate but dependent on certain contingent characteristics. The feeling of disgust toward Singer's beliefs is entirely natural, because our traditional morality maintains that all human beings have an inherent right to life, not based upon their capacity for consciousness, or their ability to feel pain, or indeed any other characteristic, but simply by virtue of the fact that they are human beings. If one chooses to support abortion rights, one must accept the moral and philosophical framework that is implied by such a decision--the notion, as put succinctly by Singer, that "[a]fter ruling our thoughts and our decisions about life and death for nearly two thousand years, the traditional Western ethic has collapsed"--and proceed in the sobering light of that understanding.

No, RM, that is NOT the only way that one can be pro-choice. I am pro-choice because I believe that a grown woman has more rights than a blastocyst or fetus. Once the fetus becomes a baby, an individual in its own right, it has a complete right to life because it is an individual human being, separate from the woman.

aas711, I would try to remind your friend that there is a woman involved. Try to remind her that pregnancy can be a harrowing experience even for those who want to go through it, so forcing someone to do it is akin to torture. It will probably take a lot of work and patience, but if you can try to stay calm, ask lots of questions to figure out why she thinks what she does (and listen to the answers!) and slowly lead in that direction, you might be successful. It's definitely not easy, though, so good luck.

The way I see it, the issue at hand is not how to convince your friend that she's wrong, but how to come to terms with her beliefs. Not all people who are pro-choice are feminists just as not all feminists are pro-choice. I think that your friend is entitled to her opinion on reproductive rights and calling herself a feminist at the same time. Unfortunately, as feminists, we don't always agree on every topic, and we don't always understand the other person's point of view. It sounds like her beliefs are probably based on religious dogma, which rarely relates to anything logical, which I mention because a logical argument may not matter to her. Although I think that the aspect of individual choice might appeal to her and that the implications of outlawing such a practice would be that the government can decide what medical procedures women can and cannot have.

Respect for a friend can sometimes be exclusive to what they've done in their lives and the progress they've made when friends don't have the same beliefs. It's hard to deal with people who are anti-choice, especially because it is such an emotional issue on both sides and you're entitled to your opinion on whether or not feminism by definition allows for reproductive freedom (I think you can probably tell from my language my beliefs match yours as opposed to your friends). There are as many definitions of feminism as there are feminists. While we may not agree on everything, we work towards our common goals when we can, and don't do what we don't agree with. That's not to say that you should come to agree with her opinion, just with her right to hold that opinion. Just as I'm sure you wouldn't want her trying to convince you that you're an immoral person for "killing babies" or whatever her concept is. Embracing the diverse opinions of a diverse movement can only strengthen our sisterhood.

Oddly enough, I just wrote a rant about the "Christian" attitudes about abortion, particularly the confusing theology of it. You might, by asking her some simple questions, help her see the contradictions:

1. Does she believe in original sin? In other words, that human beings are inherently sinful, and you have to believe in Jesus and be baptized in order to get into heaven? That is the Catholic position.

2. Does she believe that a fertilized egg has a human soul? That is also the Catholic position.

3. If both of these are true, then every abortion sends a soul to Hell. As does every egg that fails to implant, and every miscarriage, and there's no one to blame for that but God. Or the Devil, but God lets it happen.

I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but someone on this board probably does know by what degree the number of miscarriages and failed implantations exceeds the number of abortions in this country, but I'll bet it's considerable.

There are strong legal and moral arguments to be made against outlawing abortion, but they don't tend to fare well against the religious belief that abortion is killing an innocent baby.

My solution is to go into the religious side of things and point out that either God sends millions of innocent souls to hell for no reason, or there's some flaw with the theology. The key is using the Socratic method to do it, so they don't feel bullied.

For the record, I consider abortion to be a moral gray area, and I'm vehemently pro-choice because the law only provides false clarity, not actual moral certainty. I really don't want to live in a world where women need to register their pregnancies with the gov't and call in an investigator if they miscarry.

Wax ghost--the trouble with your argument is that you are using a human being's dependency on its mother for survival (yet another external factor, like the capacity for consciousness) serve as a criterion for judging whether it possesses an innate right to life. Scientifically speaking, human life does indeed begin at conception: a blastocyst is not a part or extension of the mother's body, but a separate, distinct, newly formed human organism. It is the logically sound conclusion that it possesses moral rights at this point.

I should note as well that is of no help to pose the question "when does a fetus gain some subset of the rights we accord to human beings," because such a question is in principle impossible to answer. It is the kind of question designed to avoid, rather than seek, understanding.

RM, you are assuming that everyone believes in such a thing as a "right to life". I don't. I believe that death is as essential to life as living and that often (more often than most of us would like to admit) one life has to be extinguished for another. If I believed in an innate "right to life," I wouldn't wear deodorant (kills bacteria), feed my cat (they're carnivores), eat (plants are alive too), etc. Instead, I have a much more balanced view of the world which recognizes that death is not inherently bad and killing is not inherently immoral.

A blastocyst may not be part or extension of the mother's body, but it cannot survive without it. The mother can survive without the blastocyst. Therefore, whether you like it or not, the ultimate decision is the woman's. Whether we like it or not, the ultimate decision lies with the superior being, the independent woman who does not depend on the blastocyst for life.

And there absolutely IS a point when a fetus gains some of the rights that we give all human beings; it's called birth. It's when it stops being a fetus and starts being a baby, a being basically independent from its mother. That isn't hard to understand.

RM, making abortion illegal doesn't grant equal rights to the fetus, it actually suborns the rights of another person, the pregnant mother. To make abortion illegal would destroty two legal principles: the right to privacy and the assumption that the body is inviolate without due process, and even then only under extreme conditions.

If the most virtuous person in the world needs a kidney, and the best donor is a death row inmate, the government does not have the right to take that kidney. To force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term actually is, medically, more risky than forcing someone to donate a kidney.

And your statement that "Scientifically speaking, human life does indeed begin at conception: a blastocyst is not a part or extension of the mother's body, but a separate, distinct, newly formed human organism." depends heavily on how you define your terms. A blastocyst cannot and will not survive if does not attach itself to the hosts body, and it will be many weeks before it is anything other than an undifferentiated bunch of cells. The fact that it depends upon another human being entirely for its survival is not "yet another external factor" it is the crux of the problem, in that you cannot force one human being to risk their life or health for another.

It is laudable when we choose that path for ourselves, but we cannot, morally, force it on someone.

Rereading my comment, "suborn" is clearly not the word I wanted to use, and I can't think of the right one now. Damn.

I would be careful about assuming too much about Catholic theology, especially regarding theology of the body. I am a proud pro-choice Catholic, as are approximately half of all American Catholics, who, even if they are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion and struggle with it, support its being legal.

Not all Catholics are cookie-cutter, after all, there are over a billion of us. Not all feminists agree about an appropriate way to "do feminism", either, as seen just by the responses to your post. I think it's really detrimental to dismiss people of faith as somehow delusional. My faith is incredibly important to me, and yes, I know I can't prove it, but that's not what it does for me. Your friend's faith, while it may seem ridiculous to you, is very important to her.

Also, if you're completely comfortable about your stance on every single issue, I guarantee you haven't considered it enough or seen all the data. I am continually unsure of my positions and re-evaluate them constantly, comparing and contrasting them to the new and the old, other insights, anecdotes, and on and on. I don't necessarily change them often, but they have changed as I've grown older, hopefully for the better as I've challenged them.

Your friend may come around, but then again, she might not. I think it's also a mistake to always assume that feminist issues are about abortion, as people tend to pigeonhole Catholics into being fundamentalist right-to-lifers (many of them don't even see us as Christian, by the way). You might want to approach feminism from a human rights kind of perspective, with the goal of eliminating poverty, which is incredibly important to Catholics, and access to health care, also important, so that women can make informed decisions about their bodies and hopefully only become pregnant when they want to be.

I hope this helps.

Peace!

It's when it stops being a fetus and starts being a baby, a being basically independent from its mother.

That is true at birth, but it's also true before birth. A sufficiently developed foetus can survive independently of the mother. It does happen to be inside her at the time, but it doesn't require her to live.