Decius wrote:
Do you have a reference for a widespread argument among the left that there is some resentment of or disagreement with the scientific conclusion that human life begins at conception? I don't actually think that such a disagreement or resentment exists, or in any event I've never come into contact with it, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise if you have a reference.

This one is just my personal experience in both online and offline conversations. I've actually had arguments with individuals who take the position that a zygote is not a human being. Some even suggest that doctors who say so are being paid by "anti-abortion types." Now that you bring it up though, I'm curious as to whether there's anything in the way of an organized group that seriously argues this point. I need to run a search or two.

Decius wrote:
My understanding is that the fulcrum of the abortion argument is not whether or not the fetus is alive, but whether or not the fetus deserves the same sort of legal protections that an infant has, particularly in late trimester cases where there is a health risk to the mother, and in early trimester cases at all, given the balance of social costs associated with aborting early pregnancies versus the social costs associated with banning those abortions. There is obviously room for debate about that question.

We do have different legal standards for adults and minors, but I don't see any difference between a fetus and an infant when it comes to protecting life. As with killing adults, the killing must be justified, or it is murder. Just as we legally define justification for killing adults in certain circumstances, the same argument can be made for fetuses, such as an unusual, life-threatening complication for the mother.

In either case, that's a matter of justification of a particular action, not the recognition of human life. If a two-day old infant deserves recognition as a human being, why not a fetus two days prior to birth? What's so different about two weeks, two moths, etc. that a completely different legal status as a human being is required?

Anyway, I didn't mean to debate the abortion issue itself, but I wanted to illustrate the nature of the debate in response to your question. I think we agree on where the real debate lies, but nonetheless, I do still run into the "zygotes aren't people" argument, at least on the street.

Decius wrote:
However, the left also argues (correctly I think) that the overall combination of conservative opposition to sexual education, opposition to the availability of contraceptives, opposition to abortion, and opposition to government programs for unwed mothers amounts to a situation which inevitably puts people in hard circumstances. There are many different ways to reduce the frequency of abortion with the obvious goal of eliminating it entirely. This sort of "tough shit" approach does not constructively pursue that goal and leaves all sorts of problems in its wake that all of us have to live with.

Agreed, for the most part (and not just because I'm tired of typing). :)

RE: Clinton dismisses 'elite' economists on gas tax plan | Reuters