The point of unique DNA separates the child from the mother as an entity. Wherever that unique chain occurs is the start of the process of an individual. That individual, even without sentience, can be murdered. Just because it has voice and can't express itself doesn't erase the individual.

We can agree to disagree. But a unique DNA strand, to me, is the deciding factor separating the entity from its host and that makes it murder.

A single-cell embryo is alive, but at that stage is it a human being with the same rights as an infant? Should its intentional destruction be morally and legally considered to be murder?

I'll go with that.

Late arrival. My 2 bits (and I think its reasonable) I am in no way an authority on this subject and differ to someone with better knowledge when it comes to DNA.

I contend that the moment the reaction occurs that begins the development of new DNA, uniquely independent, but comprised from, the male and female, is the moment life begins. I do not think any sentience is needed for some to be considered living it his/her earliest stages. The process begun, if left alone, would amount to a human being short of a catastrophe.

What's your definition? Moment of conception, heartbeat, brain, other?

Very simple. Specifically we disagree on the definition of a human being.

Okay, so what, specifically, do you disagree with in her quote above, and why?

I get that this is her moral stance. And I am completely unimpressed. She's not a "pope" and that stance borders to me on the religious. Then again, concerning herself with the rights of others was never her strong suit. There are plenty of things about her that I admire, but this is definitely not one of them.

Why was it Roe vs. Wade, and not "Roe vs. the State of____"? Who was Roe and who was Wade? And which state was it from?

For me, it showed up in the correct place, and I knew you were replying to me.

1) It's immoral to decide the treatment of the 99.9% based on the circumstances of the .1%, and

2) I've said it before (was eviscerated by another user, and I don't care) and I'll say it again: Kill the perpetrator, not either of the victims.

Once she wrote (this is a memory quote) "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months."

And what about rape? (This was supposed to be an answer to to gharkness, but I often can't get the machine to print my remarks where I type them.)

What about when it gets brain waves? From what I have read, this occurs at about (or shortly before) three months. That's what they go by when they pull
the plug when someone has been dying on life support, isn't it?

The 9th Amendment applies to "others retained by the
people." That means natural rights, inborn, not granted by the government, and not given over to the State (or nation.) It does not mean just rights recognized by "tradition", as Alito mentioned, such as the English common law tradition which said a husband had the right to beat his wife "in moderation" .)(see
Blackstone's Commentaries.) If all we have to depend on is "tradition", we have not much protection from the government at all. And if one is concerned with rights, there is hardly a right that could be named that is more fundamental than the right over one's own body.
There still remains the question whether there is one body there, or whether another person's body is concerned there, in the womb.But how is it considered at the end of life? I believe that when a person is dying and on life suppport, when the brain waves cease, they pull the plug. If that is the standard at the end of life, isn't it logical that it should apply at the beginning?
It is my understanding the brain waves appear in the fetus shortly before it is 3 months along. So wouuldn't that determine when it becomes a conscious being?

I'll never forget that captured on video Planned Parenthood woman sipping a cocktail and cheerfully prattling on with O'Keefe about selling the tissue of aborted babies.
What a heartless sow!

Once the product of an action becomes a sellable commodity, all the "morality" is stripped from it. Not that there's anything immoral about producing and selling a product, but to strip an unborn baby's status down to a "product" is very, very wrong. Depending on the price put on the parts, I can imagine a situation where someone who had no scruples could become a "factory" for such parts. I know that parts also aren't supposed to be paid for, but any time there's a "table," there's an "under the table situation.

The only situation that I personally would consider to be a valid reason for aborting would be an ectopic pregnancy, but in that case, there LITERALLY is no way the baby could survive. If it could, then.... we should do that.

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. It's like we don't already have enough to fight over.

There's a school of thought that abortions should be restricted within six months before there is a heartbeat.
I find myself undecided about that. So I made a blanket statement without factoring in that uncertainty.
Me dino admits that I too am not perfect. So what?
I have better things to do than quibbling over this.

I didn’t ask you to pretend you’re a big time philosopher (whatever that is). Since you made the blanket statement, “Abortion is murder,” I simply asked you whether you think that a woman who chooses an abortion six weeks into her pregnancy is a murderer.

Believe you have identified why I am having a hard time answering CBJ's questions.
Hell, with it. I've other things I need to do today.

Believe I have answered the question. I don't know if I should chose the moment of conception when the heart starts to beat after six weeks (so I believe that's what I recently heard on TV).
And what if it's determined having a baby will kill the mother? I do believe she has a right to make a choice then.
I'm not going to pretend I'm a big time philosopher who knows everything. I do know one thing. Even a big time philosopher is an imperfect human being subject to error.
Saw a photo of three women (1 black, 2 white) in a composite photo on my PC screen yesterday.
All three escaped a late term abortion by being inconveniently born at the moment they were supposed to killed.
That's three times an abortionist (a doctor or not) decided not to commit infanticide aka first degree murder. I suppose that's three times that could have been covered up with some fetus disposal procedure. Bet that has happened plenty of times.

The issue I see with the 9th amendment is that anyone can claim anything is a right. Health care, free college, 'equity'. Just for starters. Who gets to decide? On what basis?

You didn’t really answer my question, or your own. You made the blanket statement, “Abortion is murder.” Do you really believe that a fetus is a human being (with rights) from the moment of conception? That a woman who chooses an abortion six weeks into her pregnancy is a murderer? If so, then for the “sake of polite argument” you need to justify this position using Objectivist principles, especially with reference to the rights of the pregnant woman.

You have identified the 'hard question' that the activists on both sides seem to want to avoid. I wish there was a scientific, objective answer, but I have yet to hear one. A few here in the Gulch have tried to address the issue. Outside the Gulch, lots of opinions, most of them far less than objective.