It's not often (okay, never) is it that I get a response like this on this forum. I first applaud you and thank you for your tone and thorough analysis. Now, if I could only respond again to a few of your statements and counterarguments, and perhaps clear up any misconceptions about my own.
I'll be responding to this excerpt first:
"Now as to what you say, philosophically it has problems. It can't be true that the only difference between the cells that form the human fetus and those of other organisms, such as other species of animals, is simply the "location" as you said. If I took some of the animal cells out of their location and implanted in place of the fetus, would a human being grow? No, of course not. Thus there must be some difference in the cells themselves which differentiates them from those of other species of animals or even other cells within the same "host" organism (mother). You could take cells, let's say, from the mother's heart and implant them in place of the developing fetus and, again, you'd have no developing child. The fetus instead is a complete organism that has its own genetic blueprint that contains the details of its development all the way through to adulthood. Any eighth grade biology student would be able to show that it exhibits the characteristics of life. It is therefore a living thing, in the genus animal, and all animals must belong to some species. You can't just say it's an "animal", since nothing exists that is "just an animal", nor could anything exist that is generically an animal. It has to be some kind of animal. What kind is it? If it's not human, what species would you put it into?"
You are correct in saying that the cells that make up a fetus/embryo are unique, in one way especially, and it is the way that makes my argument valid. The fetus is constructed of stem-cells, which are unique to humans and apes. This being said, you are also correct in saying if we were to take, say, a dog's fetus and insert it into a human, or any other scenario you proposed, we would not, in fact, see any growth, because those fetuses are not constructed of stem-cells.
However, stem-cells do function in the way I described in my previous post. This is where the concept of creating organs comes into play. Stem-cells take on the characteristics of the environment, and as such, so does the fetus.
You go on to say:
"How is it that "viability" is as essential part of your definition of a "person"? What basis do you have for defining it this way? You claim that science does this. Since when does modern science claim to make a philosophical definition about "personhood" and what is involved in being a "person." I would define a "person" as a "substance of a rational nature." How would you define it? The unborn child has a rational nature. Here I'm using "nature" and "species" to mean the same thing. An unborn child, as I pointed out, can only reasonably be classified in the species "human.""
Personhood is a matter that can be described scientifically, not limited to philosophy. Philosophy is involved in the extent that religious and ethical principles will influence people in their definition of personhood. Before I describe how viability is an essential part of my definition of personhood, I would like to point out that simply because something is "human" does not imply that it is a "person."
I would define personhood as a human entity that contains a neurological consciousness. Since a neurological consciousness cannot be reached until viability, viability therefore plays a defining role. However, it must be said the idea of personhood is subjective, as the definition will vary depending upon which medium it is viewed through. I prefer a scientific view, as described here.
In response to me on the quote from scripture, you said:
"....establishes several things: first, it establishes the love of God for the being in the womb, which is expressed by his "knowing" of it. Second, it establishes that it is His work, because He is the One Who formed the child. Third, it goes toward establishing the personhood of the unborn child, since God is speaking of the unborn child as the same as the one reading the Scripture..."before I formed you in the womb." Thus the one formed in the womb in the beginning is the same as the reader, who is obviously a human person. Now of course, this argument, since it comes from Scripture, is only meant to serve as an argument for the Christian, since non-Christians cannot be expected to accept such an argument on the basis of an authority that they do not accept."
Here we have to look at what is implied by scripture. Fundamentally, I believe scripture should be interpreted subjectively. Though I wouldn't describe myself as Christian, I certainly respect and see some (not all) of the philosophical value in the Bible, as well as other religious and philosophical texts, but I digress.
I'm certainly not a Bible scholar, nor an expert in Hermenautics (if I got that right), I still fail to see how we get form God saying he "knows" us before we were in the womb, to saying that it means we are a person from the beginning in the womb. I simply can't see how it doesn't mean that he, being omniscient, had the knowledge of what our stem cells would develop into, and what life, once born, we would lead.
Again, I toss the matter of scripture in the air to interpretation. I respect your interpretation of it, and I will no longer attempt to refute that.
You also said:
"With all due respect, I urge you to read the founders and the Constitution more closely. First, the Constitution does not protect the country from religion. Rather, it protects religion from government coercion and interference. It does not follow that because the government may not establish a religion that religious arguments are not "valid." Many of the founders, from Jefferson to Madison to Franklin and Washington, made arguments from Scripture with regards to the new Republic. They certainly were not, for the most part, unreasonable enough to make the outrageous recent claim that the citizens of a predominantly Christian nation should ignore the teachings of Scripture, as if they were one being on a political level and another on a religious level."
I've done much research on this issue; I have a copy of the Jefferson Bible, a pocket Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and several letters written between James Madison, John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson during the drafting of the Constitution.
However, long gone are the days we can view the words of the Founding Fathers as valid sources (outside of the Constitution of course). There writings have been manipulated, twisted, and molded into propaganda by liberals and conservatives for years. The last 3 chapters of the Jefferson Bible were fabricated by neo-liberals in the early 1800's. Even more recently, famous letters (their nickname has left me at present) between Jefferson and Washington during Jefferson's time in France have been altered as late as the 1990's by liberals hoping to hide Jefferson's Unitarian religious beliefs.
Regardless, it is my opinion that religion and politics should remain separate entities. I feel if a religious opinion influences a law, like with abortion, that it's murder because God "knew" us before/whilst we were in the womb for instance, violates the clause that "no law shall be made in respect to any religion."
I could be wrong about that, but it's my feeling. Even if I am wrong about that though, I simply feel beliefs on such sensitive matters should be formed based on some form of tangible evidence. And again, I mean no disrespect toward your religious opinion on the issue.
You said:
"The Constitution does NOTHING of the sort. I again urge you to read the debates on the ratification of the document and all of the founders. These matters are left to the states, if they are to be political issues at all. They are not at all under the purview of the federal government. Matters that are so close to the lives of so many people as the institution of marriage were never considered federal issues since the powers delegated to the Constitution, as the Federalist points out, "are few and defined." The powers of the states are "broad and indefinite." Such an understanding of the Constitution turns our federal system on its head. Marriage, family issues, internal things of that matter are state matters. The federal government has no authority whatsoever to dictate to the states how to handle it."
This was correct when the Constitution was drafted, but the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, the Equal Protection Clause; does guarantee that all are equal under the law, and it is therefore unconstitutional to discriminate against homosexuals their right to be married, just as it would be wrong to discriminate against African Americans, Mexican Americans, etc. in the same light.
In response to the rest of your post, I've shown why I don't think that abortion is murder when performed pre-viability. And I admire your view of child bearing and birth, however, it is a view that does not reflect upon reality. Many women do not welcome the experience, as sad as that is. I wish the reality were that abortions weren't needed, but banning them is the wrong idea.
My stab at the pro life movement is a just one. I hope you wouldn't consider yourself a part of that movement, rather, consider yourself a part of the "anti-abortion" movement. The pro life movement is run completely by radicals. The same radicals that push for the draft and cut funding to adoption agencies. It goes without saying that the pro choice movement is also run by radicals. I wouldn't consider myself pro choice, rather, a person who wishes to, as the Democratic party's platform states, keep abortions safe, legal, and rare, and providing access to contraception and making sex ed a mandatory class in our schools.
Abortion is by no means pleasant. Abortion isn't something that I smile about. I don't get any feeling of joy to know that a potential person has been aborted. I do hope the abortion numbers come down. But I still feel that abortion is an issue that should be discussed between a doctor, a woman, and her family.
Again, thank you for your thorough reply and civil tone. I was surprised to read such a reply. Generally I'm damned to an eternal hell and told "I hope I'm never around you." Apparently I'm stuck in some blasphemous rut.