NationStates Jolt Archive

This is really a question for those who are somewhere in the middle of the conception/birth ends of the spectrum. I understand why people think a life begins at birth. I understand (although disagee) those who have established birth as the defining moment. But how do you get away with saying "X amount of weeks" or "the second trimester". Surely fetuses develop differently. They're not all at the same stage at the same time. Then what exactly is that "defining moment" when it becomes a life? I'm not trying to make another flamefest on abortion---I'm curious as to how the people in the middle justify their position.

the issue isnt life. Technically, the sperm and egg are alive. The embrio is alive and the fetus is continually made up from a growing number of live organisms.

So, yes, abortion kills something, but its normally just a bunch of cells. I figure if they havent specialized into anything beyond basic embriotic cellular structure, there is no way for a soul to exist

I'm not sure, but they taste best at about 12 weeks.

I dont see the value of answering that question. Pointing to one moment in a continuous process is meaningless.

This is really a question for those who are somewhere in the middle of the conception/birth ends of the spectrum. I understand why people think a life begins at birth. I understand (although disagee) those who have established birth as the defining moment. But how do you get away with saying "X amount of weeks" or "the second trimester". Surely fetuses develop differently. They're not all at the same stage at the same time. Then what exactly is that "defining moment" when it becomes a life? I'm not trying to make another flamefest on abortion---I'm curious as to how the people in the middle justify their position.

I tend to place the cutoff (from a scientific point of view anyways) for when the fetus should be afforded *some* semblence of rights at the point of "quickening." This is the point at which the nervous system has developed enough that the fetus can move on its own and respond to stimulus as an organism. I believe that, after this point, the mother's option for abortion should only exist if continuing the pregnancy causes her a significant health risk.

The "2nd trimester" probably comes from the fact that quickening occurs somewhere around there. Yes, different fetuses will develop differently, which is why I am in favor of creating a non-invasive scientific test that will determine whether or not the fetus has nervous system function. I don't believe it would be impossible to do so.

The various weekly distinctions are what Demublicents pointed out; they refer to various stages of the embryo's/zygote's/fetus'/etc. development. Usually along lines of when it develops a central nervous system, when it starts pumping its own blood, when it develops lungs, etc. Of course not all fetuses develop at the same rate, these indicators are generalized milestones. The variances between specimens may vary, but not by any significant factor. The idea isn't to determine when "life" starts, but when the critter in there "becomes" human. Personally, I find the assertion that it becomes legally human only upon birth to be archaic and primitive.

So When Exactly Does Life Being?
Next year.

Part of the problem with the "life begins at conception" argument is that even if we discount the religious reasons for such a belief, there's still the matter of ectopic pregnancies.

If, for purely legal purposes, life begins at conception, and that life is to be protected as are the lives of humans living outside the womb, then treatment for ectopic pregnancies would be, by definition, murder.

An ectopic pregnancy is where the egg and sperm have joined and have begun to divide but the embryo has lodged in a fallopian tube rather than in the ovary. In this situation, the embryo cannot fully develop. It will never be more than an embryo. What it will do, however, is rupture the fallopian tube of the mother, potentially killing her.

This is one part of the reasoning by the Supreme Court that says that any abortion ban of any type has to have exceptions for the life and health of the mother--because the human reproductive system is far more complex than simply sperm + egg = life.

Well I'd kinda like to say it's not human until it becomes self aware, but that probably doesn't happen till it's like a year old so I won't.

As biologists define life an organism must be able to respond to external stimulus, so I would say the foetus is actually just a part of the mother until the quickening (despite being genetically distinct).


interesting related fact: when plants reproduce they actually create several genetically distinct organisms. Lower plants reproductive cells develop into multicellular (haploid - 1 copy of genome) organisms with primitive leaves and everything, which then breed and give birth to a plant like their parents (diploid - 2 copies of genome).
Flowering plants have the haploid stage reduced to a few cells (a polen grain is 2 cells plus 2 sperm) but have an adittional triploid (3 copies of genome, formed from 1 sperm and 2 egg-like-thingies) organism who's sole purpose is to feed the embryo (that's right, a plants placenta is a genetically distinct organism)

Part of the problem with the "life begins at conception" argument is that even if we discount the religious reasons for such a belief, there's still the matter of ectopic pregnancies.

If, for purely legal purposes, life begins at conception, and that life is to be protected as are the lives of humans living outside the womb, then treatment for ectopic pregnancies would be, by definition, murder.

An ectopic pregnancy is where the egg and sperm have joined and have begun to divide but the embryo has lodged in a fallopian tube rather than in the ovary. In this situation, the embryo cannot fully develop. It will never be more than an embryo. What it will do, however, is rupture the fallopian tube of the mother, potentially killing her.

This is one part of the reasoning by the Supreme Court that says that any abortion ban of any type has to have exceptions for the life and health of the mother--because the human reproductive system is far more complex than simply sperm + egg = life.

I honestly don't see why this is a problem. We make exceptions for self-defense in every other case, why not in the case of a life-threatening pregnancy?

I honestly don't see why this is a problem. We make exceptions for self-defense in every other case, why not in the case of a life-threatening pregnancy?
Looking back, I see I wasn't clear enough in the point I was trying to make.

Here's the thing--an ectopic pregnancy is proof to me that life is more than the simple combination of sperm and egg. There's a lot more to it than that--there has to be a successful implantation of the embryo in the uterus, there has to be continued growth during which a myriad of things can go wrong that can bring an end to the pregnancy, at times without the mother even being aware that she was ever pregnant.

I'm not saying that I know of some magical moment of the pregnancy when life/self-awareness/consciousness begins. I don't, and no one does, and that's the problem with any question of this sort--we're all just grasping at metaphysical straws and guessing, building rhetorical and logical structures on sandy soil on a fault line. But the fact that humans are able to have the first step in procreation work and yet still have it fail so often leads me to believe that there's more to this question than the simple equation of sperm + egg = life.

In this debate there are two things we can be sure of.
1. embryo's are not 'alive' prior to conception.
2. Babies are 'alive' at birth

Everything in between is uncertainty and no amount of debate will satisfactorily provide an answer to the question so why bother trying. I am quite happy to pinpoint a 40 week window and say that that is exactly when life begins. After all, in the greater scheme of things, 40 weeks is nothing.

sperm + egg = life.

sperm + egg = fertilised egg

capacity to respond + capacity to reproduce = life

life + sentience = soul

? + ? = sentience

I am quite happy to pinpoint a 40 week window and say that that is exactly when life begins. After all, in the greater scheme of things, 40 weeks is nothing.

True, but it doesn't help the issue of up to what period abortions should be allowed. At least the responces here are more intelligent than what politicans come up with.

No, it's definitely alive. Even the solitary sperm and egg cells are living tissue. It may or may not be human life, but it is human flesh -which can only be either alive or dead, not "in between."

Life begins when the newborn is outside of the womb...DEPENDENT of the mother.

sperm + egg = fertilised egg

capacity to respond + capacity to reproduce = life

life + sentience = soul

? + ? = sentience
Just to clarify your quoting of me--I'm not arguing that sperm + egg = life. In fact, I'm arguing that that equation is necessarily false because of the myriad steps between conception and birth during which any number of things can happen that will end that pregnancy short of a successfully alive human at the end of it.

Personally, I like Trotterstan's succint description In this debate there are two things we can be sure of.
1. embryo's are not 'alive' prior to conception.
2. Babies are 'alive' at birth

Everything in between is uncertainty and no amount of debate will satisfactorily provide an answer to the question except that I bother trying because it's something that comes up in my poetry occasionally. It's one of the great unanswerable questions, one of the great meditations.

I believe that life begins at conception.

Just to clarify your quoting of me--I'm not arguing that sperm + egg = life. In fact, I'm arguing that that equation is necessarily false because of the myriad steps between conception and birth during which any number of things can happen that will end that pregnancy short of a successfully alive human at the end of it.


Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was arguing with you - I was trying to expand your argument.


Reltaran - 99% of human cells are still functioning after most deaths (Nukes clearly lesson this figure significantly), but everyone agrees that the organism is dead. Just because a cell is alive (i.e. responding to stimuli and capable of cell division) does not mean it is part of a living organism.

And what would you say about the unfertilised egg? it's alive isn't it? surely not having as much sex as possible to prevent menstruation (and thus egg death) is thus murder?

I would say the egg is alive, but not distinct from the mother - thus no one has been murdered (atleast until we decide the foetus has become a seperate organism)

I believe in abortion right up until the fetus turns 18 and moves out of the house.

I believe in abortion right up until the fetus turns 18 and moves out of the house.

Why draw the line there? They're your kids, you own them.

I'm not making a case for the belief in the beginning of human life at conception. I'm merely pointing out that the cells(yes, the unfertilized egg included) ARE alive, by any technical definition. The issue of abortion doesn't have to do with when life begins -as the participant cells were never dead to begin with- but when human life begins.

I don't know of any people today, apart from a few extremely orthodox Catholics, who believe that the sperm/egg cells are themselves classifiable as living beings. There's no question that they don't relate this sort of discussion since their genetic code shows that they are part of the same organism as the rest of their respective host's body. The reason so many people find conception to be a viable point for the creation of human life is because at that point, the embryo has its own unique genetic code. Depending on one's standing on the issue, this may indicate that it is no longer a part of the woman's body. In purely technical terms, of course, this is true -that still doesn't actually resolve the question of whether the critter is a viable human being at this stage(after all, there are millions of foreign bacteria inhabiting your digestive tract).

In regards to the death of the organism: aye, I know what you mean. The cause of death among animals(such as ourselves) is, AFAIK, suffocation of the brain cells. The various other cells in the body continue to function independently, but they are no longer united in... purpose?

In regards to the death of the organism: aye, I know what you mean. The cause of death among animals(such as ourselves) is, AFAIK, suffocation of the brain cells. The various other cells in the body continue to function independently, but they are no longer united in... purpose?

I think you almost see my point, but I'll clarify a little just in case

- the technical definition of life, though imperfect, requires several (seven I think) things to be true. The most important are the capacity to respond, and the capacity to reproduce (others include taking in energy/food, excreting waste, respiration, etc.)
- I agree that every cell of a foetus, no matter how old, is alive.
- My point however, is that the group of cells in a foetus is not alive until the quickening. As individuals they live, but the colony is still inanimate. Only once the cells start to co-operate and fulfill the conditions of life as a colony, is the foetus truly alive. Before that it is simply made out of living material.

I'm not locked in on the quickening thing either, as I don't know much about this - just that the foetus lives once it can respond as a whole.

Clearly the definition is flawed though, as technically mules and uniks are not alive as they cannot reproduce - but we biologists tend to take that requirement as more of a 'it should be designed to reproduce, but it's ok if it happens to be broken'.

From what I learned in law classes in high school, abortion, before quickening, was legal during a large part of early US history, pretty much up until the civil war. Quickening is generally later in term than most states allow standard abortions.

I would ask whether a fetus whose nervous system is just barely developed enough to react to simple stimuli is that much more "alive" or sentient than, say, adult cows raised for meat or stray cats rounded up off city streets. But most people care more, want to protect it more. Is it because of the DNA? Is it because of the /potential/ for it to become a human being? Both of those are present from conception.

Another thing: someone commented that most people would accept self-defense as a motive for abortion. Perhaps most people would but that excuse is exactly what the ban on partial-birth abortions would negate. Partial-birth abortions are very rare and are done only when the mother's life and health are in danger.

Life began a long, long time ago. Possibly even in a galaxy far, far away.

No, it's definitely alive. Even the solitary sperm and egg cells are living tissue. It may or may not be human life, but it is human flesh -which can only be either alive or dead, not "in between."

Single cells are not in any way tissue. You need a bunch of cells clustered together that look like each other working together to perform specific functions in the body for it to be a tissue.

it's called "the human life cycle" for a reason; at no point does non-living tissue become living...that would be abiogenesis. a human is alive. a zygote is alive. a fetus is alive. an infant is alive. the infant's digestive organs are alive. your big toe is alive. there are no non-living tissues or dead organisms involved in the development of a human or our organs.

I thought that everyone knew that life begins at 40???

let them abort

No, it's definitely alive. Even the solitary sperm and egg cells are living tissue. It may or may not be human life, but it is human flesh -which can only be either alive or dead, not "in between."


amoebas are alive and are more locomotive than "babies" for quite a few months. but we don't as yet have laws against killing those.


further. if life truly is a force or a spark or whatever people describe it as, it is energy and thus it has no beginning... it must be implanted or absorbed or something.

besides the fact that life never begins... or at least it isn't actually worth the struggle in the long run.

I believe that life begins at conception.


conception is a process not a moment. do you mean fertilization?

Why draw the line there? They're your kids, you own them.


i totally agree.

on a side point, the original poster's comment that it seems difficult to pinpint a moment when foetuses become sentient is, in itself, a non-sensical ad infinitum argument which often rears its head in the abortion debate;

saying that foetuses develop at different rates, and therefore no cut-off point can be set, is the same as arguing that since all people mature differently, EITHER the age of consent/drinking/smoking.driving etc. should be abolished totally, or raised indefinitely. This is obviously nonsensical.

cut-off points are an inevitable part of life; the important thing is finding some vaguely justified way of setting them...

From reading the title, I thought this thread was simply about Earth's early history, not abortion. Oh well.
Life began around about 3.8 billion years ago, most likely in a freshwater lake that was recently bombarded by an iron-rich meteorite.

As for human sentience, I think it starts at birth.

From reading the title, I thought this thread was simply about Earth's early history, not abortion. Oh well.
Life began around about 3.8 billion years ago, most likely in a freshwater lake that was recently bombarded by an iron-rich meteorite.

. . .



MOTHERF... :mad:

...i was gonna say dat... :(

I thought that everyone knew that life begins at 40???
It ends right at thirty fool. Unless you’re in league with the runners.
*Starts shooting at Sanctaphrax*
:mp5:

life should have started when the sperm was made, or the egg, depending on wich was made first

Abortion must be allowed for at least up to the 26th week of pregnancy and as long after that as possible. Research should be done on how to extend this deadline as far as possible.

A reason to justify this is that if the woman withdraws permission for her DNA to be passed on, then this entitles her to have an abortion. Harvesting of foetal eggs mustn't be allowed, because then DNA would be passed on.

The right to abortion must be accepted by all countries!

life should have started when the sperm was made, or the egg, depending on wich was made first
that would make things very complicated.

you see, the egg was always made first, because a woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have already inside her ovaries. she will NEVER produce new eggs. a man, on the other hand, has no sperm at all until he hits puberty, and he will continue producing sperm for his entire life (assuming injury or illness does not damage this process).

if life begins when the egg is made, that means that my life began when my mother was still in HER mother's womb. that's a bit hard to wrap my mind around. also, because the egg that later became me would have become a totally different person if combined with a different sperm from a different man (or even a different sperm from my father), i don't think you can define me purely by the genetic material passed to me from my mother.

Ejaculating = murder !

How about defining a foetus as 'alive' at the point at which it could survive outside the uterus?

You could argue that, up until that point, it is a parasite.

if life begins when the egg is made, that means that my life began when my mother was still in HER mother's womb. that's a bit hard to wrap my mind around. also, because the egg that later became me would have become a totally different person if combined with a different sperm from a different man (or even a different sperm from my father), i don't think you can define me purely by the genetic material passed to me from my mother.

no, i am saying that a baby is made from 2 living things

The life/not life thing is a red herring, as has been amply pointed out.

When does the potential of this living thing become realized, when does it become an individual human being?

The best objective measure I've heard is a threshold level of convolution in the cerebral cortex, indicating the capacity for a level of thought regarded as human rather than animal. I am, at the moment, unable to recall exactly when this level of development occurs, but "quickening" is not a bad approximation.

Ejaculating = murder !
So if I wanted to murder somebody, I could just ejaculate on them. Alright.
:cool:
Or do I have to hit them in the right spot?

So if I wanted to murder somebody, I could just ejaculate on them. Alright.
:cool:
Or do I have to hit them in the right spot?

Somewhat risky as a means of assassination...

not really a lot of use for the 'immediate' kill, either, unless you suffer from a 'hair trigger'.

From reading the title, I thought this thread was simply about Earth's early history, not abortion. Oh well.
Life began around about 3.8 billion years ago, most likely in a freshwater lake that was recently bombarded by an iron-rich meteorite.

As for human sentience, I think it starts at birth.

Actually, afaik the current thinking is more towards underwater volcanic hot vents.

Abortion should definitely be allowed up to 18 years after birth.

Now I must go out and find this mysterious D-Spot.
:mp5:

Here's the thing--an ectopic pregnancy is proof to me that life is more than the simple combination of sperm and egg. There's a lot more to it than that--there has to be a successful implantation of the embryo in the uterus, there has to be continued growth during which a myriad of things can go wrong that can bring an end to the pregnancy, at times without the mother even being aware that she was ever pregnant.

Sure, but replace "pregnancy" with "life" and you've got a statement that's true at any point in a person's life.

I'm not saying that I know of some magical moment of the pregnancy when life/self-awareness/consciousness begins. I don't, and no one does, and that's the problem with any question of this sort--we're all just grasping at metaphysical straws and guessing, building rhetorical and logical structures on sandy soil on a fault line. But the fact that humans are able to have the first step in procreation work and yet still have it fail so often leads me to believe that there's more to this question than the simple equation of sperm + egg = life.

If we can't be certain, then, isn't it rather irresponsible to continue to allow abortions? If life really does begin at conception, whether we know it or not, we are still allowing human beings to be killed. Maybe, as you say, it's not a simple proposition of sperm + egg = life. But then again, maybe it is? Can we take the chance?

The difference in surgery to correct an ectopic pregnancy and abortion to save the mother is that one is not trying to end the life of the fetus, and one is trying to end the life.

If we can't be certain, then, isn't it rather irresponsible to continue to allow abortions? If life really does begin at conception, whether we know it or not, we are still allowing human beings to be killed. Maybe, as you say, it's not a simple proposition of sperm + egg = life. But then again, maybe it is? Can we take the chance?

Conversely, what gives another individual the right to tell a woman what is allowed to happen within her own body? To be honest, I think it somewhat immoral that there are any limitations on abortion - certainly up until the point at which a foetus can function AS a human. My argument is, if it can survive outside the uterus, it's alive. Until then, it's a parasite.

Sperm and egg = sticky mess with the POETENTIAL for a life. There is no justification for claiming that the first cell is life, nor the first division. Arguing an early foetus as alive is possible, but is it a human being while it still has gills and a tail?

I can take the chance. And I don't believe anyone else should have the right to make decisions that affect a woman and her uterus.

Conversely, what gives another individual the right to tell a woman what is allowed to happen within her own body?

Only the fact that there may be a human life at stake.

To be honest, I think it somewhat immoral that there are any limitations on abortion - certainly up until the point at which a foetus can function AS a human.

Define that last part.

My argument is, if it can survive outside the uterus, it's alive. Until then, it's a parasite.

A parasite is a separate entity, isn't it? And isn't a separate entity with uniquely human characteristics the definition of a human being?

Sperm and egg = sticky mess with the POETENTIAL for a life. There is no justification for claiming that the first cell is life, nor the first division. Arguing an early foetus as alive is possible, but is it a human being while it still has gills and a tail?

Well, it's clearly human. DNA alone would tell us that much. Would you argue that it's not a "being"?

I can take the chance. And I don't believe anyone else should have the right to make decisions that affect a woman and her uterus.

Nor do I believe that anyone has the right to end the life of a human being, no matter its stage of development, unless acting in self-defense.

That depends on how you define 'life'. The moment the first cell is a functioning cell capable of reproducing etc. is the scientific definition of life. That first cell is theoretically a human, due to it's genetic make up and origin. They are human cells.

If you are considering life in the sense of multi-cellular organisms, it would be when all of the systems are developed and functional. So that wouldn't be untill well into the development.

I personally think abortions should be limited to rape victims. Otherwise, they made a concious willing decision to have sex (or get drunk or stoned etc.) and couldn't deal with the consequences, they willingly created a life, they need to take care of it.

Only the fact that there may be a human life at stake.


The 'other human life' is only at stake because it exists within the first human body. You show me a foetus that gestates itself, and I'll accord it all the rights to self-preservation.


Define that last part.


Until the foetus can function as a human... I don't really know how much more obvious I can make it? A foetus is a potential. It will potentially become a human.


A parasite is a separate entity, isn't it? And isn't a separate entity with uniquely human characteristics the definition of a human being?


A parasite is an entity which feeds off of another entity. A foetus doesn't have 'uniquely human' characteristics. If someone arrived on your doorstep, offering to place a small lifeform under your skin, that would eat your food, and excrete into your body, you'd want more than a passing resemblance to convince you it was a good idea.


Well, it's clearly human. DNA alone would tell us that much. Would you argue that it's not a "being"?


I would argue that it is not a being. I would argue it isn't a being until it starts 'being'. And DNA means nothing here, as well you know. My hair isn't a human being. My excrement isn't a human being. My saliva isn't a human being - yet all contain my genetic code.

A skin culture isn't a human being. and yet it is 'living' human tissue.

As I said before, until it can survive outside the uterus, it is not an independent entity, so it is not a human being.


Nor do I believe that anyone has the right to end the life of a human being, no matter its stage of development, unless acting in self-defense.

It doesn't matter what you personally believe. Why do YOU have the right to impress your prejudice on another person's uterus?

That depends on how you define 'life'. The moment the first cell is a functioning cell capable of reproducing etc. is the scientific definition of life. That first cell is theoretically a human, due to it's genetic make up and origin. They are human cells.

Not true. The first cell is a cell. The DNA may be human DNA, but that is not the same as being a human. A mosquito may carry my DNA in blood, that doesn't make it human.

If you are considering life in the sense of multi-cellular organisms, it would be when all of the systems are developed and functional. So that wouldn't be untill well into the development.

I agree with this definition.


I personally think abortions should be limited to rape victims. Otherwise, they made a concious willing decision to have sex (or get drunk or stoned etc.) and couldn't deal with the consequences, they willingly created a life, they need to take care of it.

They actually usually DON'T willingly create lives. Since there is theoretically no 'rape' within marriage, women can be impregnated as many times as their husbands like, with no options or recourse - except abortion.

What if your drink is spiked? If you accidentally become drunk and consent, your judgenment was impaired. In the harsh light of day, you KNOW you are incapable of raising a child properly, why should you be forced to have the child.

What about the current idiotic process of diseducating children about sex? Abstinence is a fine concept, but doesn't protect the little girl when she first encounters a sexual situation.

What about in the Bible Belt states, where girls are raised to 'obey' men? The girl obeys the man, and ends up pregnant. By legal terms, it isn't really rape - but she's still pregnant with a baby she doesn't want.

I personally think that a woman should have the ultimate rights with regard to her body. If she doesn't want something in her uterus, she should have the right to have it removed.

They actually usually DON'T willingly create lives. Since there is theoretically no 'rape' within marriage, women can be impregnated as many times as their husbands like, with no options or recourse - except abortion.

Couldn't women sue their husbands for sexual assault. I highly doubt that husbands can simply go up to their wives and demand sex. I thought domestic abuse laws were passed back a while ago.

The 'other human life' is only at stake because it exists within the first human body. You show me a foetus that gestates itself, and I'll accord it all the rights to self-preservation.

Wait... are you saying it's not human because it doesn't gestate itself?

Until the foetus can function as a human... I don't really know how much more obvious I can make it? A foetus is a potential. It will potentially become a human.

You could start by explaining exactly what's necessary in order for a fetus to "function as a human." What specific, inherently human functions is a fetus not capable of?

A parasite is an entity which feeds off of another entity. A foetus doesn't have 'uniquely human' characteristics. If someone arrived on your doorstep, offering to place a small lifeform under your skin, that would eat your food, and excrete into your body, you'd want more than a passing resemblance to convince you it was a good idea.

And yet people all over the world are accepting a similar offer as I type this.

I would argue that it is not a being. I would argue it isn't a being until it starts 'being'. And DNA means nothing here, as well you know. My hair isn't a human being. My excrement isn't a human being. My saliva isn't a human being - yet all contain my genetic code.

A skin culture isn't a human being. and yet it is 'living' human tissue.

As I said before, until it can survive outside the uterus, it is not an independent entity, so it is not a human being.

None of those other examples are separate entities. The fetus, if it is in fact a parasite as you yourself have said, must be a separate entity.

It doesn't matter what you personally believe. Why do YOU have the right to impress your prejudice on another person's uterus?

Interesting question. Of course, I could ask you the same question about another person's life.

I personally think that a woman should have the ultimate rights with regard to her body.

I agree. A woman should only have unprotected sex if she wants to have a child. Forcing her to do otherwise is clearly a crime.

Couldn't women sue their husbands for sexual assault. I highly doubt that husbands can simply go up to their wives and demand sex. I thought domestic abuse laws were passed back a while ago.

In the US, for example, rape within marriage became a prosecutable crime in 1993. That is the 'legal' edge of the thing. However, women are conditioned by society, and by religion in particular, to 'subject' themselves to male attention, particualrly within marriage.

Consequently, many women raped within marriage do not consider the crime as rape. Oh, sure - they FEEL raped, but they do not believe they can CLAIM rape.

This is perpetuated by the christian church, which reinforces the image that women have agreed to intercourse implicitly in their marriage vows, and also seeks to reinforce the 'women obeying husbands' rule. The church doesn't seem to believe that it is possible to rape within marriage.

Simply passing a law isn't a solution to a crime... in many cases the woman is told that she hasn't been raped... in other cases, the wife will not ADMIT to rape, because she has been conditioned that it wasn't rape, if she is married to the rapist:


http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/mrape/mrape.html#id2635990

Couldn't women sue their husbands for sexual assault. I highly doubt that husbands can simply go up to their wives and demand sex. I thought domestic abuse laws were passed back a while ago.
I know in the UK it is illegal for a man to rape his wife, but the law only came to be in the early 1990's.

Wait... are you saying it's not human because it doesn't gestate itself?

It's not a human being, because it cannot function as one. If it could self-sustain, it might be arguable as a human being.

You could start by explaining exactly what's necessary in order for a fetus to "function as a human." What specific, inherently human functions is a fetus not capable of?

As I mentioned above, and before, the foetus is non-sustaining. If it could survive independently, a case could be made. Consequently, it seems acceptable to set a limit at the point at which a foetus COULD survive outside the uterus - I think babies have been born as early as 8 weeks premature and still survived, so that could be a reasonable cut-off.

And yet people all over the world are accepting a similar offer as I type this.

Yes. And some of them didn't want to. And some of them will decide they don't want to.

None of those other examples are separate entities. The fetus, if it is in fact a parasite as you yourself have said, must be a separate entity.

Seperate, but not independent.

And are you arguing that excrement is not seperate? I am curious to know.... no, I don't think I want to...


Interesting question. Of course, I could ask you the same question about another person's life.

I'm not trying to intefere in another's life. You argue some claim to other peoples uteri, I refute your right to that claim. It's not like I'm going out and trying to force people to have abortions, which is the equivalent of anti-abortionists trying to stop women having abortions.

I agree. A woman should only have unprotected sex if she wants to have a child. Forcing her to do otherwise is clearly a crime.

As would be forcing her to have a child, if she didn't want to have a child.

I think the 'militant right' should stop picketing abortion centres, and find a surgical means to remove foetuses from the uterus intact, and implant them in anti-abortionists.

If you are all about protecting the rights of the foetus, find some way of taking it out of the person who doesn't want it - and putting it inside someone who demands the sanctity of foetal life.

It's not a human being, because it cannot function as one. If it could self-sustain, it might be arguable as a human being.

As I mentioned above, and before, the foetus is non-sustaining. If it could survive independently, a case could be made. Consequently, it seems acceptable to set a limit at the point at which a foetus COULD survive outside the uterus - I think babies have been born as early as 8 weeks premature and still survived, so that could be a reasonable cut-off.

Ability to sustain oneself is a matter of degrees. An early fetus is dependent on its mother for all nourishment. An infant is dependent on its mother, or some other provider, for food and protection. A ten-year-old may survive alone on the street, but most still depend on families to provide for them. A single adult may be entirely self-sustaining. You say that a human being must be able to sustain itself. I ask, for what period of time?

Yes. And some of them didn't want to. And some of them will decide they don't want to.

A decision that should be made from the start, not during the pregnancy. This, of course, is the point at which you say, "What about rape?" Obviously, it's a crime committed by the male perpetrator. Having a crime committed against you does not give you justification to commit a crime of your own.

Seperate, but not independent.

And are you arguing that excrement is not seperate? I am curious to know.... no, I don't think I want to...

Excrement is separate, but not alive. My definition for human life has three parts: a 1) living, 2) separate entity with 3) a full set of human DNA.

I'm not trying to intefere in another's life. You argue some claim to other peoples uteri, I refute your right to that claim. It's not like I'm going out and trying to force people to have abortions, which is the equivalent of anti-abortionists trying to stop women having abortions.

No, you're simply giving other people carte-blanche to interfere in the lives of others.

As would be forcing her to have a child, if she didn't want to have a child.

Agreed. But who, specifically is guilty of forcing her to have that child? The legislators who banned abortion, or the rapist himself?

To me, life begins at the moment of conception when the sperm has entered the egg. Doesn't matter to me when science says it starts, conception is what I think.

It's something like 28 weeks and above the fetus is considered viable to live on its own. At that point, I feel the differentiation is made.

As grave_n_idle (?) said, it is not fully alive and human until it can live on it's own. Example: You can take a 8 month fetus out and put it on life support and it will live. You can not take a 1 month old fetus out and put it on life support. You have to find the middle of that where it becomes mature enough that you can take it out and it will survive. Until that time, it is not "fully alive" or "human" or whatever.

the issue isnt life. Technically, the sperm and egg are alive. The embrio is alive and the fetus is continually made up from a growing number of live organisms.

So, yes, abortion kills something, but its normally just a bunch of cells. I figure if they havent specialized into anything beyond basic embriotic cellular structure, there is no way for a soul to exist



My god, how many lives have I killed from masturbating? I shudder to think! :gundge:

Ability to sustain oneself is a matter of degrees. An early fetus is dependent on its mother for all nourishment. An infant is dependent on its mother, or some other provider, for food and protection. A ten-year-old may survive alone on the street, but most still depend on families to provide for them. A single adult may be entirely self-sustaining. You say that a human being must be able to sustain itself. I ask, for what period of time?

I hope this is attempting to be a parody... obviously the foetus is not going to survive outside of the uterus at all. It will die extremely quickly. It has NO ability to sustain itself. As I said elsewhere, when you can take a foetus that is premature, and it can sustain itself (I include a very premature baby on lifesupport here - because the machine HELPS the baby function, it doesn't REPLACE function) that baby is a human being.

A decision that should be made from the start, not during the pregnancy. This, of course, is the point at which you say, "What about rape?" Obviously, it's a crime committed by the male perpetrator. Having a crime committed against you does not give you justification to commit a crime of your own.

I disagree. You think that the decision must be made at the start. I think that, since the uterus is part of the woman's body - she should have the decision what happens in it. She is, after all, the one who has to deal with the sickness, the pain, the weakening of her own body, the agonies of childbirth, the dealing with her messed-up body afterwards, the ramifications of caring for another life.

All of which is not helped by the fact that our society villfies single mothers, and seems quite happy to accept that the 'father' can deposit sperm then leave.

And I do believe you just opposed the right of a rape victim to have an abortion there, also.

Excrement is separate, but not alive. My definition for human life has three parts: a 1) living, 2) separate entity with 3) a full set of human DNA.


And, if it can live as a seperate entity, we probably agree.

No, you're simply giving other people carte-blanche to interfere in the lives of others.

No - I am resisting people who assume they have carte-blanche in the lives of others.

I claim again, you have no rights INSIDE the uterus of another person.

To me, life begins at the moment of conception when the sperm has entered the egg. Doesn't matter to me when science says it starts, conception is what I think.

A balanced approach. At least you've taken in all the viewpoints, eh?

Oh no, doesn't matter "when science says it starts"...

So - twins just have one life shared two ways, then?

And an ectopic pregnancy is what, god's judgement on the evil proto-foetus?

I happen to think you are very, very wrong.

Agreed. But who, specifically is guilty of forcing her to have that child? The legislators who banned abortion, or the rapist himself?

Sure, the legislators. Sure, the rapist (if she was raped).
And the community that forces her to carry the child when she didn't want to.
And the church that trained her from an early age that she had to obey men, and yet has no way to save her from the effects of male predation.
And a society that tolerated a policy of sexual disinformation to children, that tries to apportion the blame for rape on to the victim, that places all responsibility for childbearing on the female, and that consistently fails to offer practical support or solutions.

A balanced approach. At least you've taken in all the viewpoints, eh?

Oh no, doesn't matter "when science says it starts"...

So - twins just have one life shared two ways, then?

And an ectopic pregnancy is what, god's judgement on the evil proto-foetus?

I happen to think you are very, very wrong.
of course, since we are supposed to "respect" people's views, we have to accept his opinion as being just as valid as that of science. despite the countless logical and ethical paradoxes it introduces, and the piles of evidence that disagree, we are supposed to say that his opinion is just as valid as any other.

sometimes freedom of speech is just a means for people to embarass themselves.

of course, since we are supposed to "respect" people's views, we have to accept his opinion as being just as valid as that of science. despite the countless logical and ethical paradoxes it introduces, and the piles of evidence that disagree, we are supposed to say that his opinion is just as valid as any other.

sometimes freedom of speech is just a means for people to embarass themselves.

It's still a good question about the twins, though...

that would make things very complicated.

you see, the egg was always made first, because a woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have already inside her ovaries. she will NEVER produce new eggs. a man, on the other hand, has no sperm at all until he hits puberty, and he will continue producing sperm for his entire life (assuming injury or illness does not damage this process).

if life begins when the egg is made, that means that my life began when my mother was still in HER mother's womb. that's a bit hard to wrap my mind around. also, because the egg that later became me would have become a totally different person if combined with a different sperm from a different man (or even a different sperm from my father), i don't think you can define me purely by the genetic material passed to me from my mother.


well actually the cells that will become sperm are formed in his body during his mother's pregnancy as well. you are not the child of your parents, but rather the child of your grandparents.

I have been a proponent of the "viability" approach for a while now, but actually, cutting it off at "quickening" is sounding like a good approach as well. In any case, though I can contribute to the argument, I am male, and so the ultimate decision cannot by rights be mine.

"I think babies have been born as early as 8 weeks premature and still survived, so that could be a reasonable cut-off."
Sorry for my ghetto quoting methods here, most forums allow me to stick in quotes wherever I want. Just wanted to interject that my sister recently had triplets 11 weeks premature, and they survived.

"Excrement is separate, but not alive. My definition for human life has three parts: a 1) living, 2) separate entity with 3) a full set of human DNA."
So then, a skin culture grown in a laboratory is a human being with full rights? It is living, it is connected to nothing, and it has full human DNA.

Personally, I think the pro-lifers have got it backwards. Abortion needs to be legal, because (listen up here) they are going to happen anyway, legal or not. This is proven fact (rather like how people are going to abuse drugs no matter the laws you place to keep them from doing so). Outlaw it, and you force the pregnant woman to have a dangerous "back alley" abortion, which oftentimes accidentally ends her life as well. Even if it doesn't, it will usually lead to health complications (after methods such as falling down stairs, using a coat hangar, using toxic chemicals, shooting one's own lower abdomen, and so forth), as well as extreme psychological trauma. Desperate people are going to do desperate things, and people will become desperate if they become accidentally pregnant, or never knowingly gave consent, or were raped, or any number of other things, and are not given the option to abort. Pro-lifers would have women carrying to term children of rape, a second punishment upon the woman. Pro-lifers would have women carry pregnancies to term even if the woman's health (perhaps even life?) was on the line. Pro-lifers would have women carry unwanted children (or children they simply cannot care for) to term, despite the fact that the adoption and foster care systems in this nation (I'm from the US) are a joke, and "trash can babies" are on the rise again. Many people have no other options that can be described as viable, and for them if nothing else, abortion must be kept legal. Accept the pro-life position, and ban abortion, and you will effectively be responsable for the deaths of many desperate young women, who will still be ending the pregnancies.

That's all I have to say on that for now.

Conversely, what gives another individual the right to tell a woman what is allowed to happen within her own body? To be honest, I think it somewhat immoral that there are any limitations on abortion - certainly up until the point at which a foetus can function AS a human. My argument is, if it can survive outside the uterus, it's alive. Until then, it's a parasite.

Sperm and egg = sticky mess with the POETENTIAL for a life. There is no justification for claiming that the first cell is life, nor the first division. Arguing an early foetus as alive is possible, but is it a human being while it still has gills and a tail?

I can take the chance. And I don't believe anyone else should have the right to make decisions that affect a woman and her uterus.


actually sperm=sticky mess.

Ejaculating = murder !
so, let's work with your logic...

if ejaculation = murder, then menstration = murder. After all, both are giving up one half of a life... When a women mesntrates, she is killing an egg...

As would be forcing her to have a child, if she didn't want to have a child.

I think the 'militant right' should stop picketing abortion centres, and find a surgical means to remove foetuses from the uterus intact, and implant them in anti-abortionists.

If you are all about protecting the rights of the foetus, find some way of taking it out of the person who doesn't want it - and putting it inside someone who demands the sanctity of foetal life.


i will start respecting anti-abortionists when they have all adopted some poor unwanted AMERICAN baby.

It's still a good question about the twins, though...


not really. and at that.... twins abolish the foolish idea of a clone being "soulless" identical multiples have identical genetic information. they are clones of one another. souls have nothing to do with genetics if they even do exist.

Gah! This argument more than any other in this entire subject upsets me:

> I personally think abortions should be limited to rape victims.
Sorry, kid. Your dad was a jerk, so you don't deserve life.

> Otherwise,
> they made a concious willing decision to have sex (or get drunk or stoned
> etc.) and couldn't deal with the consequences, they willingly created a life,
> they need to take care of it.
Yup. Children are /great/ methods of punishing immorality, and can only benefit from having careless, druggie mothers.

Of course, you don't have to be a druggie to be an evil woman who deserves her pregnancy. There's also the woman whose birth control method failed, the married woman whose husband divorced her while she was pregnant with the baby that was supposed to "save the marriage," etc.

A balanced approach. At least you've taken in all the viewpoints, eh?

Oh no, doesn't matter "when science says it starts"...

So - twins just have one life shared two ways, then?

And an ectopic pregnancy is what, god's judgement on the evil proto-foetus?

I happen to think you are very, very wrong.

The ectopic pregnancy reference is unnecessary, inaccurate, inappropriate, and simply shows your ignorance and stereotypical belief that only christians oppose abortion. Not only that, but your comment is quite offensive when made to a reasonable and rational christian.

Humans can die in a car crash, simply by accident. A fetus can die in an ectopic pregnancy, simply by accident. Random chance. Much as any baby could be born with mild/severe birth defects. It is not something that has been pre-ordained or an incident caused by God as punishment for a sinner. Neither I, nor anyone else, has claimed such a thing.

To put it bluntly, a woman who is raped is faced with something of a dilemma. However, rearing a child is not necessarily a result of this event. It is quite easy to allow the child to be born, and put it up for adoption. They will be quite glad they were allowed to live. Also, thanks to the many wonderful drugs we have today, it is also possible for a woman to have a painless childbirth. If there is an increased chance for defects, then it should not matter to you, since you would prefer that they die.

Also, I should say that science does not know when life starts. Only a couple of lawyers and a judge/jury in the Roe vs. Wade trial decided the official actions of our country by setting a legal precedent. Much as the practice of judicial review was set in the same way. As usual, the debate goes on, and no one can win. Catholic Europe is quite fine in expressing his opinion. He did not attack yours in doing so. If you are incapable of allowing someone to disagree with you without verbally assaulting them and their beliefs, then you should not debate. It is unprofessional and immature.

I have been a proponent of the "viability" approach for a while now, but actually, cutting it off at "quickening" is sounding like a good approach as well. In any case, though I can contribute to the argument, I am male, and so the ultimate decision cannot by rights be mine.

"I think babies have been born as early as 8 weeks premature and still survived, so that could be a reasonable cut-off."
Sorry for my ghetto quoting methods here, most forums allow me to stick in quotes wherever I want. Just wanted to interject that my sister recently had triplets 11 weeks premature, and they survived.

"Excrement is separate, but not alive. My definition for human life has three parts: a 1) living, 2) separate entity with 3) a full set of human DNA."
So then, a skin culture grown in a laboratory is a human being with full rights? It is living, it is connected to nothing, and it has full human DNA.

Personally, I think the pro-lifers have got it backwards. Abortion needs to be legal, because (listen up here) they are going to happen anyway, legal or not. This is proven fact (rather like how people are going to abuse drugs no matter the laws you place to keep them from doing so). Outlaw it, and you force the pregnant woman to have a dangerous "back alley" abortion, which oftentimes accidentally ends her life as well. Even if it doesn't, it will usually lead to health complications (after methods such as falling down stairs, using a coat hangar, using toxic chemicals, shooting one's own lower abdomen, and so forth), as well as extreme psychological trauma. Desperate people are going to do desperate things, and people will become desperate if they become accidentally pregnant, or never knowingly gave consent, or were raped, or any number of other things, and are not given the option to abort. Pro-lifers would have women carrying to term children of rape, a second punishment upon the woman. Pro-lifers would have women carry pregnancies to term even if the woman's health (perhaps even life?) was on the line. Pro-lifers would have women carry unwanted children (or children they simply cannot care for) to term, despite the fact that the adoption and foster care systems in this nation (I'm from the US) are a joke, and "trash can babies" are on the rise again. Many people have no other options that can be described as viable, and for them if nothing else, abortion must be kept legal. Accept the pro-life position, and ban abortion, and you will effectively be responsable for the deaths of many desperate young women, who will still be ending the pregnancies.

That's all I have to say on that for now.

Well said. And I am willing to backdate my timeline by 3 weeks to accept viable babies 11 weeks early.

The ectopic pregnancy reference is unnecessary, inaccurate, inappropriate, and simply shows your ignorance and stereotypical belief that only christians oppose abortion. Not only that, but your comment is quite offensive when made to a reasonable and rational christian.

Not unnecessary - the topic of ectopics had already been raised, and I think it a valid question.
Not inaccurate, any more than saying god exists. A question of faith, if you will.
Not inappropriate - the other fellow had made a comment applying a blanket limit on when life starts. I was questioning god's will in allowing miscarriage, etc. if this is the case.
Not ignorant - I am actually quite well educated, much of it formal - it was not I who made the blanket statement.
Not stereotypical, most people who oppose abortion ARE christians, and oppose it because they believe it to be against their christian principles.
I have no reason to suspect that my comment WAS made to a christian (either a reasonable, rational one, or otherwise). A chap swans in, makes an inflammatory comment and waltzes out again. He didn't think to leave his curriculum vitae.

Humans can die in a car crash, simply by accident. A fetus can die in an ectopic pregnancy, simply by accident. Random chance. Much as any baby could be born with mild/severe birth defects. It is not something that has been pre-ordained or an incident caused by God as punishment for a sinner. Neither I, nor anyone else, has claimed such a thing.

Then you have never encountered the wonder of Southern Baptists, or heard of Predestination or the Omnipotence of god, one assumes.

To put it bluntly, a woman who is raped is faced with something of a dilemma. However, rearing a child is not necessarily a result of this event. It is quite easy to allow the child to be born, and put it up for adoption. They will be quite glad they were allowed to live. Also, thanks to the many wonderful drugs we have today, it is also possible for a woman to have a painless childbirth. If there is an increased chance for defects, then it should not matter to you, since you would prefer that they die.

I would not wish to force a woman who has been raped to suffer nine months of punishment, carrying a child that she most likely hates the very concept of - not because of the child - but because of the act that caused it.

Only in a society this phallocentric would this be an issue you would even HAVE to discuss.

It is not EASY to have the baby and give it up for adoption. Do not make foolish comments. It is (upto) 9 months of suffering for the victim. Emotional suffering, psychological suffering. Sickness, pain, disability, the knowledge she will be 'ruined' after the fact. Not to mention the physical stresses of pregnancy, and the final "fitting-something-the-size-of-a-football-through-a-hole-the-size-of-a-lemon" bit.

And do not, pray, be ludicrous about painless childbirths. Sure, they happen, occasionally. But, it would appear they are far from the norm.

Regardless of those facts... have you ever noticed rape victims wash themselves a lot? You know why? They feel soiled. Now, imagine knowing that you are IRREVOCABLY soiled... on the inside... and as the months pass, you can ignore that less and less...

Get off your high horse.

Also, I should say that science does not know when life starts. Only a couple of lawyers and a judge/jury in the Roe vs. Wade trial decided the official actions of our country by setting a legal precedent. Much as the practice of judicial review was set in the same way. As usual, the debate goes on, and no one can win. Catholic Europe is quite fine in expressing his opinion. He did not attack yours in doing so. If you are incapable of allowing someone to disagree with you without verbally assaulting them and their beliefs, then you should not debate. It is unprofessional and immature.

This is a debate forum. If someone makes a point, they must expect that it will be confronted and debated. If they present NO evidence, they have no real complaint if someone responds in a way they do not like.

I don't think I verbally assaulted him/her - I think I pointed out that there was no basis for their contention, and then opened up from there with fairly reasonable questions, given the nature of the opening.

I do not consider that immature. Whether or not it is unprofessional is irrelevent... this ISN'T my profession.

And finally... why are YOU jumping all over me, anyhow? I didn't say it to you, and I am sure CE can fight his own battles. Since he chooses to post in a forum, one would certainly hope that to be the case.

I think when they are born.

In a world view approach, there are some cultures (I think the Yanamamo in the Amazon, but don't quote me) who believe that life doesn't begin until the child is a year old. At that point, the child is named and accepted into the tribe. This is a logical response considering the high infant mortality rate. It does the family little good to become overwhelmingly invested in a child who may not live through the first year.

At many points throughout human history, children were regarded as disposable, due to the likelihood of death before adulthood.

Of course, this concept wouldn't work in the US, but it needs to be considered that there is no easy and clear way to determine when something becomes someone.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that individuals should be able to determine what happens with his/her own body. I'd never ask someone to be forced to give up a kidney, nor would I ever ask someone to have a child they do not want.

I feel that life begins when the being is physically capable of functioning without the mother. Very young preemies' lungs don't work, they need machines to help them breathe, machines to make their hearts beat, and if still in the womb, would be reliant on the mother's body to do the physical work of being alive.

Of course, decent sex-ed and a reduction of the glorification of being a parent would help a great deal in reducing unwanted/unplanned pregnancies.

When does life begin? I dunno, when does death end?

So When Exactly Does Life Begin?
As soon as you quit debating and start living.

To me, life begins at the moment of conception when the sperm has entered the egg. Doesn't matter to me when science says it starts, conception is what I think.

And yet you ignore the implications of this statement (were it to be legally recognized). Any woman who has a miscarriage could be charged with child neglect. Why? Because something about her lifestyle made her womb inhospitable to keeping that child and so it died.

Congratulations, you have just officially made women nothing but baby-machines.

And yet you ignore the implications of this statement (were it to be legally recognized). Any woman who has a miscarriage could be charged with child neglect. Why? Because something about her lifestyle made her womb inhospitable to keeping that child and so it died.

Congratulations, you have just officially made women nothing but baby-machines.

In defence... one of the other guys said he WAS a christian - so denigrating women isn't a choice, it's part of his religion.

In defence... one of the other guys said he WAS a christian - so denigrating women isn't a choice, it's part of his religion.

As a Christian woman, I have to admit that I take some offence at that statement. If it were preceded with "fundamentalist," I'd agree with you.

When does life begin?

In the context of this thread, it doesn't.

Eggs are alive, sperm are alive.

Cancer cells are alive. Having surgery to remove cancer is murder.
We need to go down to Washing and get an anti-cancer-removal bill

[Edit]
Oh, and while i'm at it, jerking off is allowing living cells to die. Why arnt all masurbaters charged for criminal negligence?

I appologize for all terrible, terrible spelling errors

And now for no apparent reason, here is a bio-terrorism smiley
:gundge:

Ejaculating = murder !
given your chosen moniker i feel confident that you wont be charged. However, your point amuses me so i feel obliged to lighten up the thread with reference to the comic genius of monty python

*singing*
Every Sperm is sacred,
every sperm is good,
for every sperm thats wasted,
g_d gets quite irate.


(from the meaning of life if you didnt already get that.)

I hope this is attempting to be a parody... obviously the foetus is not going to survive outside of the uterus at all. It will die extremely quickly. It has NO ability to sustain itself. As I said elsewhere, when you can take a foetus that is premature, and it can sustain itself (I include a very premature baby on lifesupport here - because the machine HELPS the baby function, it doesn't REPLACE function) that baby is a human being.

It will die quickly, but not immediately. How long, at a minimum, must the fetus or person be able to live completely on its own in order to qualify as a human life?

I disagree. You think that the decision must be made at the start. I think that, since the uterus is part of the woman's body - she should have the decision what happens in it. She is, after all, the one who has to deal with the sickness, the pain, the weakening of her own body, the agonies of childbirth, the dealing with her messed-up body afterwards, the ramifications of caring for another life.

The fetus is a part of the woman's body? Earlier you said it was a parasite, and a parasite is by definition a separate entity. If you're not going to be consistent, there's no reason to continue this discussion.

All of which is not helped by the fact that our society villfies single mothers, and seems quite happy to accept that the 'father' can deposit sperm then leave.

If that is the case, society needs to change. None of this is the fault of the unborn child.

And I do believe you just opposed the right of a rape victim to have an abortion there, also.

I certainly did. "I was raped" would hardly qualify as a defense for murder of an innocent in a court of law.

And, if it can live as a seperate entity, we probably agree.

It can, and it does. It lives as a separate entity (a "parasite," as you said) within the mother, while a newborn baby lives as a separate entity outside the mother. Would you argue that the difference between human and nonhuman is based solely on physical location?

No - I am resisting people who assume they have carte-blanche in the lives of others.

I claim again, you have no rights INSIDE the uterus of another person.

No, I don't. But the occupant of the uterus does.

It will die quickly, but not immediately. How long, at a minimum, must the fetus or person be able to live completely on its own in order to qualify as a human life?



The fetus is a part of the woman's body? Earlier you said it was a parasite, and a parasite is by definition a separate entity. If you're not going to be consistent, there's no reason to continue this discussion.



If that is the case, society needs to change. None of this is the fault of the unborn child.



I certainly did. "I was raped" would hardly qualify as a defense for murder of an innocent in a court of law.



It can, and it does. It lives as a separate entity (a "parasite," as you said) within the mother, while a newborn baby lives as a separate entity outside the mother. Would you argue that the difference between human and nonhuman is based solely on physical location?



No, I don't. But the occupant of the uterus does.

How is a fetus a part of the woman's body? And if it is then she has rights over that part does she not? Its called autonomy.

Actually if I was being raped and I grabbed a birth control pill and thus aborted the egg and sperm that formed a zygot. Wouldn't this qualify a defense for murder of an innocent in a court of law?

How is a fetus a part of the woman's body? And if it is then she has rights over that part does she not? Its called autonomy.

Let's try a simple thought exercise. A woman is pregnant with a fetus that has a recognizable human form. How many feet does the woman have?

Actually if I was being raped and I grabbed a birth control pill and thus aborted the egg and sperm that formed a zygot. Wouldn't this qualify a defense for murder of an innocent in a court of law?

I don't understand the relevance of this question. It doesn't seem to involve aborting an actual human fetus.

I feel that life begins when the being is physically capable of functioning without the mother. Very young preemies' lungs don't work, they need machines to help them breathe, machines to make their hearts beat, and if still in the womb, would be reliant on the mother's body to do the physical work of being alive.

You realize you just contradicted yourself? Going by your comments, if it is able of being sustained by machinery, its life has begun. The mother is not the same entity as the machines. Even aside from that, a fetus doesn't need all 9 months to become physically independent, making extremely-late-term abortions wrong(again, under your own standards).

The fetus is a part of the woman's body? Earlier you said it was a parasite, and a parasite is by definition a separate entity. If you're not going to be consistent, there's no reason to continue this discussion.

I don't know who you were talking to, but I can possibly answer this question. Until the fetus has developed the ability to sense and respond to its environment as an organism (ie. development of a nervous system), it does not biologically qualify as an organism, and thus cannot really be a parasite either. Now, after - that's another question.

It can, and it does. It lives as a separate entity (a "parasite," as you said) within the mother, while a newborn baby lives as a separate entity outside the mother. Would you argue that the difference between human and nonhuman is based solely on physical location?

Until the nervous system is developed, it is no more a separate entity than a tumor or a freckle is.

I don't understand the relevance of this question. It doesn't seem to involve aborting an actual human fetus.

Then you distinguish between embryo and fetus? At exactly what point do *you* believe it becomes a separate entity?

As a Christian woman, I have to admit that I take some offence at that statement. If it were preceded with "fundamentalist," I'd agree with you.

I apologise for offense - but the bible is an overtly anti-female text, from the birth of the human race, through a carnival of prostitutes and dancers, it is almost impossible to find a female that is construed in a positive fashion. The enarest the book gets is the virgin Mary - and she is little except a 'vessel', and applauded for being such.

That's why I say 'part of the religion' - that doesn't mean ALL christians are guilty - but the codified text of the religion is.

.Personally, I think the pro-lifers have got it backwards. Abortion needs to be legal, because (listen up here) they are going to happen anyway, legal or not. This is proven fact (rather like how people are going to abuse drugs no matter the laws you place to keep them from doing so). Outlaw it, and you force the pregnant woman to have a dangerous "back alley" abortion, which oftentimes accidentally ends her life as well. Even if it doesn't, it will usually lead to health complications (after methods such as falling down stairs, using a coat hangar, using toxic chemicals, shooting one's own lower abdomen, and so forth), as well as extreme psychological trauma. Desperate people are going to do desperate things, and people will become desperate if they become accidentally pregnant, or never knowingly gave consent, or were raped, or any number of other things, and are not given the option to abort.

The problem with this approach is that it doesn't comment on whether abortion is wrong or not.

Scenario #1: People argue that murder should be legalized, because if murder isn't legalized, then people will commit dangerous back-alley murders.

Scenario #2: People argue that eating Froot Loops should be kept legalized, because if eating Froot Loops is outlawed, than people will go eat dangerous back-alley Froot Loops.

Whether or not your viewpoint on abortions makes sense depends on whether abortions are wrong or not.

Pro-lifers would have women carrying to term children of rape, a second punishment upon the woman.

That's because pro-lifers think that aborting the child would be an even greater punishment to the woman's health, emotionally, than carrying the child to term.

Pro-lifers would have women carry pregnancies to term even if the woman's health (perhaps even life?) was on the line.

That's because they believe the fetus is more than a convenience.

Pro-lifers would have women carry unwanted children (or children they simply cannot care for) to term, despite the fact that the adoption and foster care systems in this nation (I'm from the US) are a joke, and "trash can babies" are on the rise again.

That's a failure of a system, and abortion is a solution, but pro-lifers don't think it is the right solution.

Then you distinguish between embryo and fetus? At exactly what point do *you* believe it becomes a separate entity?

A birth-control pill would prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg in the first place, no? To answer your question, I believe that it is a separate entity from the moment of conception.

I apologise for offense - but the bible is an overtly anti-female text, from the birth of the human race, through a carnival of prostitutes and dancers, it is almost impossible to find a female that is construed in a positive fashion. The enarest the book gets is the virgin Mary - and she is little except a 'vessel', and applauded for being such.

That's why I say 'part of the religion' - that doesn't mean ALL christians are guilty - but the codified text of the religion is.

Deborah, Ruth, Naomi, and Esther spring immediately to mind.

That's because pro-lifers think that aborting the child would be an even greater punishment to the woman's health, emotionally, than carrying the child to term.



That is the first time I have EVER heard that argument from an anti-abortion advocate.

And I don't believe it. I have seen examples of girls who have been 'forced' to keep their child, only to have a pretty crappy time of it from then on, and, in one case - it lead to a suicide leaving a four year old child without a mother.

On the other hand, I have known other girls who had abortions. All have had some regrets - but none of them seem to have suffered to the same extent that those compelled to bear the children did.

Whoever said I was an anti-abortion advocate?

Your personal experience will probably not convince many pro-lifers, who hear stories all the time about women who have regretted their abortions and women who are glad they didn't abort their children.

Deborah, Ruth, Naomi, and Esther spring immediately to mind.

They do? Why?

Those are your ideas of women being portrayed in a positive fashion?

I suppose, in the context of the rest of the book that spending the night with a man in exchange for farmgoods isn't that bad...

Whoever said I was an anti-abortion advocate?

Your personal experience will probably not convince many pro-lifers, who hear stories all the time about women who have regretted their abortions and women who are glad they didn't abort their children.

I'm sorry - I thought you were speaking from personal conviction... I didn't realise you were relaying someone else's thoughts.

I'm sure that some women are glad that they didn't abort... eventually. However, that doesn't really mean they shouldn't have a choice. I'm not sure that there is any real moral reason why one person should have a legal right to the contents of another womans uterus.

Also - if the stories these anti-abortion advocates have heard are anywhere near as reliable as the 'scientific evidence' creation scientists claim, they probably made most of them up.

A birth-control pill would prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg in the first place, no? To answer your question, I believe that it is a separate entity from the moment of conception.

Some forms of birth control actually just keep the fertilized egg from being able to implant in the uterus. If you miss a pill and get pregnant, but the drop in hormones at the end of the month is high enough to still cause you to menstruate, it is very possible that the fertilized egg is unable to implant in the uterus and goes unnoticed in the menstrual blood.

I'm sorry - I thought you were speaking from personal conviction... I didn't realise you were relaying someone else's thoughts.

I might be speaking from personal conviction.

I'm sure that some women are glad that they didn't abort... eventually. However, that doesn't really mean they shouldn't have a choice. I'm not sure that there is any real moral reason why one person should have a legal right to the contents of another womans uterus.

Pro-lifers believe that a real, human, being is inside that woman's uterus. If indeed, the fetus is human, than all the rights which are considered dear by the rest of humanity also apply to this pre-born human. And they believe that no mother should take away the rights of her children, for that human being is not part of her body, but someone else's body.

Also - if the stories these anti-abortion advocates have heard are anywhere near as reliable as the 'scientific evidence' creation scientists claim, they probably made most of them up.

To lump creationists and anti-abortionists into the same pot is probably a bad thing to do.

I might be speaking from personal conviction.

Pro-lifers believe that a real, human, being is inside that woman's uterus. If indeed, the fetus is human, than all the rights which are considered dear by the rest of humanity also apply to this pre-born human. And they believe that no mother should take away the rights of her children, for that human being is not part of her body, but someone else's body.

To lump creationists and anti-abortionists into the same pot is probably a bad thing to do.

Pro-choice 'believes' that there is a POTENTIAL human life, not an actual human life. Under that premise, the human 'rights' are irrelevent, as they would be for a stool sample, for example. It is an impurity of the body.

That 'someone else' thing doesn't work on a scientific level. If the baby could survive without the placental interchange, amybe you would have a point... if you were trying to argue that the foetus is a human life after 7 months getsation, you might have a point.

And, you make a mistake that human rights are held dear to the rest of humanity. I fear the world is a much less homogenous place than you seem to believe. Look at death penalties, for example.

For me, the fact that a western society can have poverty is an argument against the 'sanctity of human life'. Every day, in western societies, people die from malnutrition - save your arguments about human rights until humans actually HAVE rights.

I am only lumping creationists and anti-abortionists together because a) most anti-abortionists object on a religious basis (whether or not they are willing to admit it) and b) the 'evidence' provided by both factions is usually equally 'reliable'.

Pro-lifers believe that a real, human, being is inside that woman's uterus. If indeed, the fetus is human, than all the rights which are considered dear by the rest of humanity also apply to this pre-born human. And they believe that no mother should take away the rights of her children, for that human being is not part of her body, but someone else's body.

Anti-choice advocates do not argue that the fetus is human, with all the rights that a human child is afforded. To do so would mean that they would have to convict any mother who has a miscarriage due to her daily living of neglect. When faced with this, they pull back from their convictions and try to posit a difference. Anti-choicers already make a distinction between fetus and human being, they just like to think they have the moral high ground.

Pro-choice 'believes' that there is a POTENTIAL human life, not an actual human life. Under that premise, the human 'rights' are irrelevent, as they would be for a stool sample, for example. It is an impurity of the body.

Well, that's something. But I believe there is potential for human life in the sperm and egg, really.

That 'someone else' thing doesn't work on a scientific level. If the baby could survive without the placental interchange, amybe you would have a point... if you were trying to argue that the foetus is a human life after 7 months getsation, you might have a point.

Why draw the line at viability?

And, you make a mistake that human rights are held dear to the rest of humanity. I fear the world is a much less homogenous place than you seem to believe. Look at death penalties, for example.

That was a little unclear of me - I meant that every human believes he has certain rights, and decries injustices against himself (and extensions of himself). You are most correct in saying that many humans do not hold other peoples' human rights very dear

For me, the fact that a western society can have poverty is an argument against the 'sanctity of human life'. Every day, in western societies, people die from malnutrition - save your arguments about human rights until humans actually HAVE rights.

Erm...so, if fetuses really are human, we nevertheless don't need to protest violations of their rights till all other rights are upheld and protected?

That's like saying, don't worry about freedom of the press right now, go for freedom to bear arms - they are both freedoms that need to be upheld, it isn't an either/or.

I am only lumping creationists and anti-abortionists together because a) most anti-abortionists object on a religious basis (whether or not they are willing to admit it) and b) the 'evidence' provided by both factions is usually equally 'reliable'.

I'd be willing to say that anti-abortionists and creationists are similar in that they tend to be more religious. But creationism belongs squarely to the scientific realm, and seems to be losing (badly) :cool: But abortion is different. Science hasn't really come back with a verdict on the beginning of humanness in the fetus. Also, it involves ethical questions such as right to life, right to control your own body, etc.

Anti-choice advocates do not argue that the fetus is human, with all the rights that a human child is afforded. To do so would mean that they would have to convict any mother who has a miscarriage due to her daily living of neglect. When faced with this, they pull back from their convictions and try to posit a difference. Anti-choicers already make a distinction between fetus and human being, they just like to think they have the moral high ground.

Oh please, that's absurd. A miscarriage is a tragedy in a woman's life, because she didn't mean for the baby to die - she was looking forward to her future experiences with a child she would love in a way no other loves are. (Well, lotsa women are like that, not all). It's an absurd claim - any woman who has a miscarriage will be consoled, not convicted. It wasn't her fault.

Oh please, that's absurd. A miscarriage is a tragedy in a woman's life, because she didn't mean for the baby to die - she was looking forward to her future experiences with a child she would love in a way no other loves are. (Well, lotsa women are like that, not all). It's an absurd claim - any woman who has a miscarriage will be consoled, not convicted. It wasn't her fault.

So, you have made a distinction then.

If a woman has a lifestyle like I did my senior year of undergrad, she eats 1-2 meals a day, all out of the vending machine or fast food. She barely sleeps, gets very little exercise, and gets frequent headaches from eyestrain. Now, suppose she has sex during this time period. A miscarriage is almost certain - her body is not hospitable to carrying a child. But, for this (if she knows about it), you say she should be consoled.

If a woman has a lifestyle like that, and has a born child, the child is likely to be malnourished and unhealthy. If she is breast-feeding, the child gets the same nutrients she is getting, which is not much - and, of course, only gets them once to twice a day. It also gets very little sleep since it's always running around with her. In my world, we call this neglect. If the child dies, the woman is not consoled, she is convicted.

I'm not saying that this difference is not ok - I am pointing out that you have already made a distinction between fetus and child. You have already made the fetus a "lower" thing.

Well, that's something. But I believe there is potential for human life in the sperm and egg, really.


I also believe there is potential for life in a sperm and an egg. But, I don't see that that IS life.

Why draw the line at viability?

Because 'viability' basically delineates the point at which the foetus becomes individual - or at least, has the potential. Until that point, the placenta is just as important as the foetus - but people don't try to protect placenta rights...

That was a little unclear of me - I meant that every human believes he has certain rights, and decries injustices against himself (and extensions of himself). You are most correct in saying that many humans do not hold other peoples' human rights very dear

This is true. I decry injustices. Others may not view them as injustices, however. Human rights are a concept, and not a universal one.

Erm...so, if fetuses really are human, we nevertheless don't need to protest violations of their rights till all other rights are upheld and protected?

That's like saying, don't worry about freedom of the press right now, go for freedom to bear arms - they are both freedoms that need to be upheld, it isn't an either/or.


No - but how about fighting a war on the injustices against people who are alive, rather than fighting a war on injustices against people who are yet to be.

The way I see it. This world is far from perfect. By not making this world better, you are promoting condemning a new life to a world that is already failing the living.

Get this 'backyard' straight first.

I'd be willing to say that anti-abortionists and creationists are similar in that they tend to be more religious. But creationism belongs squarely to the scientific realm, and seems to be losing (badly) :cool: But abortion is different. Science hasn't really come back with a verdict on the beginning of humanness in the fetus. Also, it involves ethical questions such as right to life, right to control your own body, etc.

Science has come back with several verdicts on humanness of the foetus. Do not confuse science with law.

And: re the ethical question: Anti-Abortionists deny the right for a woman to control her own body. They would dictate whether or not she must carry a child... they would even like to dictate the situations under which it is acceptable to have sex. I disagree. The woman has the right to her uterus.

So, you have made a distinction then.

If a woman has a lifestyle like I did my senior year of undergrad, she eats 1-2 meals a day, all out of the vending machine or fast food. She barely sleeps, gets very little exercise, and gets frequent headaches from eyestrain. Now, suppose she has sex during this time period. A miscarriage is almost certain - her body is not hospitable to carrying a child. But, for this (if she knows about it), you say she should be consoled.

If a woman has a lifestyle like that, and has a born child, the child is likely to be malnourished and unhealthy. If she is breast-feeding, the child gets the same nutrients she is getting, which is not much - and, of course, only gets them once to twice a day. It also gets very little sleep since it's always running around with her. In my world, we call this neglect. If the child dies, the woman is not consoled, she is convicted.

I'm not saying that this difference is not ok - I am pointing out that you have already made a distinction between fetus and child. You have already made the fetus a "lower" thing.

Child abuse is neglect of those who are supposed to take care of them. The children are taken away. Recently, there was a court case about a child neglecter in some state, who was ordered to stop having children, because he couldn't and wouldn't take care of them.

If it her fault that it was a miscarriage (deliberate intention or deliberate negligence) than the woman should be treated like any other child abuser or neglecter.

You are correct, then, anti-choice advocates would have to convict a mother of negligence when she deliberately does not provide for the unborn child. Sorry for my slowness

Because 'viability' basically delineates the point at which the foetus becomes individual - or at least, has the potential. Until that point, the placenta is just as important as the foetus - but people don't try to protect placenta rights...

Viability. There are some maladies (I can't name any of the top of my head for sure...Down's Syndrome?) which require the afflicted to depend on another person for basic substinence, or that afflicted person will die.

Are these people not human, or are they merely non-viable?


No - but how about fighting a war on the injustices against people who are alive, rather than fighting a war on injustices against people who are yet to be.

The way I see it. This world is far from perfect. By not making this world better, you are promoting condemning a new life to a world that is already failing the living.

are you saying that fetuses are persons that are not yet alive, or living things that are not humans yet?

I think that they are both human and alive, and working for their rights is as important (though not always more important - between Bush and Kerry, Kerry might be a better President for our country, so I don't vote "always pro-life", like some misguided people) as working for other disenfranchised people across the globe. I'm doing several volunteer projects right now for that.


Science has come back with several verdicts on humanness of the foetus. Do not confuse science with law.

Err...a majority of scientists don't agree on an answer to that question. The answers are all over the ballpark. Unlike something like Evolution, where there is a clear majority, or chemical compostition, where anybody who disagrees will soon be laughed out the laboratory (I think).

But you are right, I should not confuse science with law.

And: re the ethical question: Anti-Abortionists deny the right for a woman to control her own body. They would dictate whether or not she must carry a child... they would even like to dictate the situations under which it is acceptable to have sex. I disagree. The woman has the right to her uterus.

And I agree, a woman should have control over her own uterus. Of course, I think that sometimes there is another human being who is carried in her uterus...

Child abuse is neglect of those who are supposed to take care of them. The children are taken away. Recently, there was a court case about a child neglecter in some state, who was ordered to stop having children, because he couldn't and wouldn't take care of them.

Yes, but some neglect leads to death before the state steps in

If it her fault that it was a miscarriage (deliberate intention or deliberate negligence) than the woman should be treated like any other child abuser or neglecter.

Deliberate intention? Neither of the two situations I just described were ones in which a woman was *trying* to kill anything. It just happened because of her lifestyle

You are correct, then, anti-choice advocates would have to convict a mother of negligence when she deliberately does not provide for the unborn child. Sorry for my slowness

Of course, many miscarriages can be caused before the woman ever knows she is pregnant. You have now made every woman out there who takes birth control (which occasionally allows an embryo to form, but not to implant) and every woman who lives a hard life but happens to have sex liable for neglect. By your rules, a sexually active woman who does anything even remotely dangerous or fails to take care of herself perfectly is possibly endangering the life of an "unborn child" and is therefore guilty of willful endangerment or neglect.

Viability. There are some maladies (I can't name any of the top of my head for sure...Down's Syndrome?) which require the afflicted to depend on another person for basic substinence, or that afflicted person will die.

However, this is not a valid analogy (and Down's Syndrome is not a good example anyways - people with Down's can lead very productive lives). The person providing the substinence to a sick person is doing it either because they are being paid or because they want to - not because the substinence is being taken directly from their bodies.

are you saying that fetuses are persons that are not yet alive, or living things that are not humans yet?

In my religious opinion, fetuses are lives. At some point, they have a soul and therefore are human beings in my eyes. However, that is a religious viewpoint which can be disputed by other religious views, so it means nothing in a legal debate.

In my scientific opion, the fetus cannot be termed as a separate organism until it can sense and respond to stimuli as a separate entity. This would be at the development of the nervous system.

Err...a majority of scientists don't agree on an answer to that question. The answers are all over the ballpark. Unlike something like Evolution, where there is a clear majority, or chemical compostition, where anybody who disagrees will soon be laughed out the laboratory (I think).

Scientists are never going to completely agree on the question. It is a philosophical question, and a scientific approach cannot determine it. However, science has certain definitions for the term organism that an early-term fetus does not meet.

But you are right, I should not confuse science with law.

No, if the law saw all fetuses as being the same as born children, women would lose all of the rights they fought for.

And I agree, a woman should have control over her own uterus. Of course, I think that sometimes there is another human being who is carried in her uterus...

I agree, but placing that cutoff at conception is ridiculous, based only on religious views, and impossible to enforce without making post-puberty, pre-menopausal women nothing but baby machines.

Viability. There are some maladies (I can't name any of the top of my head for sure...Down's Syndrome?) which require the afflicted to depend on another person for basic substinence, or that afflicted person will die.

Are these people not human, or are they merely non-viable?


I think we are having misunderstanding over the word viable... and maybe that's my fault. You used the word first, and I assumed you meant one thing, but perhaps not.

Relying for basic subsistence is one thing. A foetus of 3 months gestation CANNOT survive without the mother... it is not independantly viable. Remove it from the mother, there is no amount of 'care' you can give it to nurture it past that. That is what I mean by the early foetus being non-viable.

If someone suffers from a malady that necessiatates TOTAL subsitence, their quality of life must be shocking.. or, most likely, they are in a perpetual vegetable state. Euthanasia should be an option, but to alleviate suffering, not because they are 'non-viable'.


are you saying that fetuses are persons that are not yet alive, or living things that are not humans yet?

I think that they are both human and alive, and working for their rights is as important (though not always more important - between Bush and Kerry, Kerry might be a better President for our country, so I don't vote "always pro-life", like some misguided people) as working for other disenfranchised people across the globe. I'm doing several volunteer projects right now for that.


No. I am saying that a foetus is a potential human life. But I add no more significance to that than to the fact that a man has, on average, 200 million potential lives in his body all the time - almost all of which will be wasted, even if he tries to procreate.

Err...a majority of scientists don't agree on an answer to that question. The answers are all over the ballpark. Unlike something like Evolution, where there is a clear majority, or chemical compostition, where anybody who disagrees will soon be laughed out the laboratory (I think).

But you are right, I should not confuse science with law.


And yet, the theorists of c60+ molecules turned out to be right...

Most scientists think conception is too early to start talking about life.
Most scientists think birth is too late to be denying a 'life' status.
Most scientists agree on a roughly 16 week to 20 week ballpark figure - which I think is still short, but an acceptable model.

And I agree, a woman should have control over her own uterus. Of course, I think that sometimes there is another human being who is carried in her uterus...

And, again - I think there is a potential being inside her uterus.

The thing is... even if there IS life in her uterus, if she doesn't WANT it there (within a reasonable limit), she should have the option to remove it.

Apart from anything else, I think it is less cruel to terminate a pregnancy, than to create a newborn baby that will be resented, or even hated by it's birth mother - because of why it was born, and maybe, how it was conceived.

And adoption doesn't make that go away - that child's birth mother still didn't want that child.

This is why babies end up in dumpsters with their umbilical cords tied round their necks...

I agree, but placing that cutoff at conception is ridiculous, based only on religious views, and impossible to enforce without making post-puberty, pre-menopausal women nothing but baby machines.

Which was the state of play for most of Judeo-christian history - and which, thankfully, has finally been displaced as the key viewpoint, at least, from a legal point of view.

However, it seems there are many who just can't wait to get back to those 'good old days'.

Which was the state of play for most of Judeo-christian history - and which, thankfully, has finally been displaced as the key viewpoint, at least, from a legal point of view.

However, it seems there are many who just can't wait to get back to those 'good old days'.

Of course, there *is* a passage in the OT which makes a clear distinction between a fetus and a born human being. Unfortunately, even the fundamentalists who claim to be taking the entire Bible literally simply ignore it because it doesn't fit in with their claims.

Life does not begin untill you come out of the cloning chamber. ;)

Yes, but some neglect leads to death before the state steps in



Deliberate intention? Neither of the two situations I just described were ones in which a woman was *trying* to kill anything. It just happened because of her lifestyle



Of course, many miscarriages can be caused before the woman ever knows she is pregnant. You have now made every woman out there who takes birth control (which occasionally allows an embryo to form, but not to implant) and every woman who lives a hard life but happens to have sex liable for neglect. By your rules, a sexually active woman who does anything even remotely dangerous or fails to take care of herself perfectly is possibly endangering the life of an "unborn child" and is therefore guilty of willful endangerment or neglect.

My mom has had two miscarriages. A good friend of hers has had two children, and since then has not been able to concieve without the children miscarrying. They did not intend those miscarriages. No one faults them for the miscarriages.

However, there are some people who engage in procreating activity (heh heh) without adequately preparing for the possibility of having a child. The examples you supplied above fall into that category. If they are endangering a human life, they shouldn't be having sex, since they are being irresponsible and having sex carries responsibilities with it.

Tell me if I still am not answering your question. I'm trying.

I think we are having misunderstanding over the word viable... and maybe that's my fault. You used the word first, and I assumed you meant one thing, but perhaps not.

Relying for basic subsistence is one thing. A foetus of 3 months gestation CANNOT survive without the mother... it is not independantly viable. Remove it from the mother, there is no amount of 'care' you can give it to nurture it past that. That is what I mean by the early foetus being non-viable.

If someone suffers from a malady that necessiatates TOTAL subsitence, their quality of life must be shocking.. or, most likely, they are in a perpetual vegetable state. Euthanasia should be an option, but to alleviate suffering, not because they are 'non-viable'.

Oh, you're proabably right, we did mean two different things.

Viable - 1. Able to live, develop, or germinate under favorable conditions. 2. Able to live outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

Your idea of viability is more correct than mine. By defintion number two, a fetus is viable at somewhere between months 5 and 7, I think.

But, I don't understand why the inability for an organism to survive without the mother makes that organism not a member of its species.



No. I am saying that a foetus is a potential human life. But I add no more significance to that than to the fact that a man has, on average, 200 million potential lives in his body all the time - almost all of which will be wasted, even if he tries to procreate.

And why isn't a post-born baby a potential life?




The thing is... even if there IS life in her uterus, if she doesn't WANT it there (within a reasonable limit), she should have the option to remove it.

Apart from anything else, I think it is less cruel to terminate a pregnancy, than to create a newborn baby that will be resented, or even hated by it's birth mother - because of why it was born, and maybe, how it was conceived.

And adoption doesn't make that go away - that child's birth mother still didn't want that child.

This is why babies end up in dumpsters with their umbilical cords tied round their necks...

Ending slavery, then segregation, meant a lot of resentment, disparagement, and violence on blacks from whites. That doesn't mean that ending slavery and segregation were wrong. If abortion is wrong, if the fetus is truly human, than those lives shouldn't be ended without those lives' consent.

However, this is not a valid analogy (and Down's Syndrome is not a good example anyways - people with Down's can lead very productive lives). The person providing the substinence to a sick person is doing it either because they are being paid or because they want to - not because the substinence is being taken directly from their bodies.

A good clarification. Down's was probably a bad analogy.

But, a sick person in need of substinence shouldn't be denied substinence. What we are advocating is denying substinence to a group of people who need it - pre-born children.



[quote]In my religious opinion, fetuses are lives. At some point, they have a soul and therefore are human beings in my eyes. However, that is a religious viewpoint which can be disputed by other religious views, so it means nothing in a legal debate.

In my scientific opion, the fetus cannot be termed as a separate organism until it can sense and respond to stimuli as a separate entity. This would be at the development of the nervous system.

You're right about religous opinions - if my religious opinion was what I'm arguing from, than it wold neither convince you nor allow me to change my opinion. That's why I try to argue from science and ethics (ethics being distinct from religious morals), allowing either you to be convinced by me, or me to be convinced by you.

The ability to sense and respond to stimuli as a seperate entity is a indication of life, and I"m not sure how to demonstrate that a fetus has that capacity at or around conception. I think you've got me there. But I also don't know that possessing a nervous system is the only way to respond to your environment.



Scientists are never going to completely agree on the question. It is a philosophical question, and a scientific approach cannot determine it. However, science has certain definitions for the term organism that an early-term fetus does not meet.

It becomes a religious question only if argue about souls and stuff like that. We aren't arguing about souls. We are arguing about when life begins as we can reliably and conclusively test it, which is squarely in the domain of scienc, and whether the fetus meets that test to make it an organism of the human species, a squarely scientific question.

My mom has had two miscarriages. A good friend of hers has had two children, and since then has not been able to concieve without the children miscarrying. They did not intend those miscarriages. No one faults them for the miscarriages.

However, there are some people who engage in procreating activity (heh heh) without adequately preparing for the possibility of having a child. The examples you supplied above fall into that category. If they are endangering a human life, they shouldn't be having sex, since they are being irresponsible and having sex carries responsibilities with it.

Tell me if I still am not answering your question. I'm trying.

I understand that a miscarriage can be a harrowing experience for a mother, but I would like to point out that they do happen - and it is usually because something about the mother made her body think that it was not the right time to support a fetus.

*Every* female on this planet, whether she is trying to get pregnant or not, does things that might cause a miscarriage if she were to become pregnant. A woman whose work involves heavy lifting might abort a fetus before she even knows about it - or do enough damage to it before she knows that it cannot survive. A woman who goes horseback ridiing could abort a fetus. A woman who does anything after sex other than lie on her back and hope a fetus implants may be spontaneously aborting the fetus. If we legally place the beginning of life at conception, we have told females that, if they are sexually active, they cannot live their lives otherwise without neglecting a possible child.

The ability to sense and respond to stimuli as a seperate entity is a indication of life, and I"m not sure how to demonstrate that a fetus has that capacity at or around conception. I think you've got me there. But I also don't know that possessing a nervous system is the only way to respond to your environment.

For humans, the only way we sense and respond to our environment is through the nervous system. If it is not their, our individual cells can do some things, but a human being as an entity cannot do so without a nervous system.

It becomes a religious question only if argue about souls and stuff like that. We aren't arguing about souls. We are arguing about when life begins as we can reliably and conclusively test it, which is squarely in the domain of scienc, and whether the fetus meets that test to make it an organism of the human species, a squarely scientific question.

Well, I said philosophical, which is not *necessarily* the same as religious, but close enough. The best I can say is that there is no scientific reason to pinpoint the beginning of a separate human life at conception any more than to pinpoint it at the production of a sperm. There *is* scientific evidence to place it at the time of quickening, which is why I support that definition.

I understand that a miscarriage can be a harrowing experience for a mother, but I would like to point out that they do happen - and it is usually because something about the mother made her body think that it was not the right time to support a fetus.

*Every* female on this planet, whether she is trying to get pregnant or not, does things that might cause a miscarriage if she were to become pregnant. A woman whose work involves heavy lifting might abort a fetus before she even knows about it - or do enough damage to it before she knows that it cannot survive. A woman who goes horseback ridiing could abort a fetus. A woman who does anything after sex other than lie on her back and hope a fetus implants may be spontaneously aborting the fetus. If we legally place the beginning of life at conception, we have told females that, if they are sexually active, they cannot live their lives otherwise without neglecting a possible child.

Every mother on the planet would then be neglecting her children by exposing them to colds, kidnappers, heterosexual trolls, and worse. There are risks with every venture - but that doesn't mean that the venture shouldn't be undertaken, and pro-lifers know that. As long as the dangers don't out weigh the benefits, then a danger (conception) taken by a person doesn't constitute abuse or neglect.

Every mother on the planet would then be neglecting her children by exposing them to colds, kidnappers, heterosexual trolls, and worse. There are risks with every venture - but that doesn't mean that the venture shouldn't be undertaken, and pro-lifers know that. As long as the dangers don't out weigh the benefits, then a danger (conception) taken by a person doesn't constitute abuse or neglect.

You are still making a distinction. If a woman knowingly took her kids somewhere where there would be kidnappers or trolls, would you not say she had done something wrong?

Any woman who goes horesback riding or lifts something heavy after having sex knows that she might be miscarrying a child. Yet you do not hold her responsible. If you believed that killing a fetus was like killing a born human being, then there is no way to argue that "the dangers outweigh the benefits" - a life is still being taken.

Of course, there *is* a passage in the OT which makes a clear distinction between a fetus and a born human being. Unfortunately, even the fundamentalists who claim to be taking the entire Bible literally simply ignore it because it doesn't fit in with their claims.

I also seem to remember there is a verse in there that says it is basically okay for a woman to abort, provided the father says it's okay...

I'll have to see if I can find the reference...

There we go... Exodus 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman WITH CHILD, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine".

But, I don't understand why the inability for an organism to survive without the mother makes that organism not a member of its species.


Because we are talking about allocating rights to a life-form... and it can be clearly shown that a foetus is not a viable life-form until pretty late in the pregnancy. That isn't to remove it fro the human species... if it goes to term, it will be a human, eventually.

But, if it is not a viable form, it is not an 'living' human, it is a 'potential' human. It does not merit the same 'personal protection rights' that a 'living' human gets.


And why isn't a post-born baby a potential life?


It is, in a way. But a new-born baby (or, even a premature new-born baby) has viability outside the uterus - so it makes one of the required steps toward the establishment of life.



Ending slavery, then segregation, meant a lot of resentment, disparagement, and violence on blacks from whites. That doesn't mean that ending slavery and segregation were wrong. If abortion is wrong, if the fetus is truly human, than those lives shouldn't be ended without those lives' consent.

Conversely, maybe the Pro-Choice faction is fighting the same side here that finally ended slavery - since a mother who is forced to carry an unwanted foetus to term is, in effect, a slave to the system that favours the uterus over the woman.

I suppose a philisophical way of answering the question would be to say that life only begins from the instant it is acknowledged or recognised as such.

when yu speak of viability, a newborn can not survive on its own, it to needs to be taken care fo by someone. is this to say that sinece its not viable on its own, its acceptable to kill it? How about a disabled person, say one on a breathing machine, he/she is not viable off said machine, therefore is it not a human life? or is a human life that needs some assistance, just like a fetus?

Life begins the minute you decide to have children. If you have a period after that, you are a murderer.

Oh ... I've also heard that life begins at 40.

when yu speak of viability, a newborn can not survive on its own, it to needs to be taken care fo by someone. is this to say that sinece its not viable on its own, its acceptable to kill it? How about a disabled person, say one on a breathing machine, he/she is not viable off said machine, therefore is it not a human life? or is a human life that needs some assistance, just like a fetus?

I don't know who you were asking... but I'll jump in anyway.

The Foetus absolutely cannot survive without the placental interface... you might get a moment of activity, but basically, it is dead.

The newborn can survive for a short while, at least - and the care provider doesn't have to be the mother... the same is basically true for the disabled.

Of course, the new-born has already passed the 'viability' point... it is already qualified, if you will.

Life begins the minute you decide to have children. If you have a period after that, you are a murderer.

Oh ... I've also heard that life begins at 40.


So, if you decide that you're not going to have children... they should try you then, right?

Murderers! Urinating and menstruating away precious lives...

The problem with this approach is that it doesn't comment on whether abortion is wrong or not.

Scenario #1: People argue that murder should be legalized, because if murder isn't legalized, then people will commit dangerous back-alley murders.

Scenario #2: People argue that eating Froot Loops should be kept legalized, because if eating Froot Loops is outlawed, than people will go eat dangerous back-alley Froot Loops.

Whether or not your viewpoint on abortions makes sense depends on whether abortions are wrong or not.
That's a logical fallacy. Removing the laws banning murder would (in all likelyhood) drastically increase the number of murders. Outlawing Froot Loops would do nothing other than making a few kids and breakfast cereal execs pissy. Neither one has any relation to the abortion argument.
There is, on the other hand, researched proof (not dependant upon one's position on abortion) that states that, in locations wherein abortion is illegal, it will continue to occur regardless. Illegal abortions being inheritly more dangerous than legal ones, that is a problem.


That's because pro-lifers think that aborting the child would be an even greater punishment to the woman's health, emotionally, than carrying the child to term.
Utterly rediculous. Explain to me how DECIDING of one's own free will (even if somewhat conflicted on the matter, as most women would be) to abort the pregnancy would be a greater psychological punishment than being FORCED to carry to term a living reminder of the extreme psychological trauma of being raped, a trauma which the woman will carry with her for the rest of her life even without being reminded of it every day when she sees her belly, her baby, or her child. You obviously have never encountered a rape victim before, if you hold this position.


That's because they believe the fetus is more than a convenience.
It IS more than a convenience. Nobody's arguing against that. However, in dangerous cases, the mother's life trumps the fetus's. Period. She is a person, she has full rights, and nobody (save mysoginistic, reactionary freaks) will argue otherwise. The personhood of a fetus is in debate. Additionally, as I see it, the mother's life is inheritly more valuable than that of a not-yet-viable, no-neural-system fetus, which may or may not abort itself before reaching either of those stages. The mother, in that scenario, is a conscious, sentient, thinking, feeling organism. The fetus is not.


That's a failure of a system, and abortion is a solution, but pro-lifers don't think it is the right solution.
Fair enough. Repair the system before complaining about one of the only solutions currently plausible.

That's a logical fallacy. Removing the laws banning murder would (in all likelyhood) drastically increase the number of murders. Outlawing Froot Loops would do nothing other than making a few kids and breakfast cereal execs pissy. Neither one has any relation to the abortion argument.

That's not the point.

My point is you can't say, "X should not be outlawed because it won't be safe when it's outlawed", if X is the wrong thing to do. If X is the wrong thing to do, then it should be outlawed no matter the consequences.



Utterly rediculous. Explain to me how DECIDING of one's own free will (even if somewhat conflicted on the matter, as most women would be) to abort the pregnancy would be a greater psychological punishment than being FORCED to carry to term a living reminder of the extreme psychological trauma of being raped, a trauma which the woman will carry with her for the rest of her life even without being reminded of it every day when she sees her belly, her baby, or her child. You obviously have never encountered a rape victim before, if you hold this position.

I have encounted a rape victim, and gotten to know her.

Deciding to do things can result in psychological damage. Especially if what you decide to do is a mistake. The subconscious can decide what's bad for you without you consciously knowing it.



It IS more than a convenience. Nobody's arguing against that. However, in dangerous cases, the mother's life trumps the fetus's. Period. She is a person, she has full rights, and nobody (save mysoginistic, reactionary freaks) will argue otherwise. The personhood of a fetus is in debate. Additionally, as I see it, the mother's life is inheritly more valuable than that of a not-yet-viable, no-neural-system fetus, which may or may not abort itself before reaching either of those stages. The mother, in that scenario, is a conscious, sentient, thinking, feeling organism. The fetus is not.

Unless the fetus is not human, then it's person Y's convenience against person X's life (excepting the cases of possible damage to the health of the mother or danger to her life). In the cases where the mother's health is not threatened, you cannot say that she has the right to kill her child just for her convenience. Unless, it isn't her child.



Fair enough. Repair the system before complaining about one of the only solutions currently plausible.

You mean, we should commit injustices to help fix a system, or just that we should let those injustices sit until other injustices have been solved?

That's not the point.

My point is you can't say, "X should not be outlawed because it won't be safe when it's outlawed", if X is the wrong thing to do. If X is the wrong thing to do, then it should be outlawed no matter the consequences.

Here's the real problem. In a case where people's civil rights are involved - the burden of proof is on the one who wants to abridge the right. I understand that makes you uncomfortable because you think the zygote is a separate human life and the fetus most definitely is. However, "I think" is not a valid reason for making a law that affects other people. The burden of proof is on you, and you have no proof to show that this thing qualifies as a separate human life. Therefore, the law cannot be changed until you do.

I have encounted a rape victim, and gotten to know her.

And should she have been pregnant and wanted to abort the fetus, would you have been the one to stop her?

Deciding to do things can result in psychological damage. Especially if what you decide to do is a mistake. The subconscious can decide what's bad for you without you consciously knowing it.

I have talked to people on both ends of the spectrum (those who have had abortions and those who have not). Strangely enough, only one regrets her decision. One. The others, despite the psychological damage incurred by making *either* decision, still to this day believe they did the right thing. And I cannot argue successfully that they did not, as I have never been in their situation.

That's not the point.

My point is you can't say, "X should not be outlawed because it won't be safe when it's outlawed", if X is the wrong thing to do. If X is the wrong thing to do, then it should be outlawed no matter the consequences.


The thing is, if they outlawed 'surgical' abortion, women would go back to the herbal abortions they have used for millenia. How do you PREFER that the unwanted foetus be removed.


I have encounted a rape victim, and gotten to know her.

Deciding to do things can result in psychological damage. Especially if what you decide to do is a mistake. The subconscious can decide what's bad for you without you consciously knowing it.


I lived the earlier part of my life in blissful ignorance of the concept of rape.

As a young teen, I heard of occasional stuff about rape on tv, the news, etc.

As I got older, I met girls who were rape victims. A lot of them. It never had occured to me that rape was so prevalent in our societies. It is not a monster under the bed, it's a monster that fills up the whole bedroom, and the bed is halfway out of the window.

That is a fault in our society.

It is YOUR opinion that a girl having an abortion is a mistake. In some cases, it may be, in many cases, it is probably the right thing to do. But, that is for the girl to decide, not you, not some outside source.


Unless the fetus is not human, then it's person Y's convenience against person X's life (excepting the cases of possible damage to the health of the mother or danger to her life). In the cases where the mother's health is not threatened, you cannot say that she has the right to kill her child just for her convenience. Unless, it isn't her child.


Its not just a matter of convenience. All pregnancies are a threat against life- so by your reasoning, all abortions should be allowed.

I could say that she has the right to kill her child - but I will not. Because it isn't a child. There are certain characteristics that would make it a lifeform in it's own right (such as a functioning nervous system). Until the foetus acheives that level of development, it is a sperm with delusions of grandeur.


You mean, we should commit injustices to help fix a system, or just that we should let those injustices sit until other injustices have been solved?

Sure. Fix the system FIRST. Then decide who is allowed to bring people into it.

I think your opinion is unjust - I think you represent injustice, but that is my opinion, and I'm not looking for a way to legislate my opinion over you.

Now, if only the anti-abortionists could grasp THAT concept.

I would say post-birth. Probably life doesn't really begin 'till you are about two years old. Can anyone remember anything before then? So if your life was cut short before then you wouldn't really miss it.

The point is moot. If life is goin to happen, but you prevent it, you're a killer in my book. It's a mystery novel I'm writing based around abortion. It's cool.

The point is moot. If life is goin to happen, but you prevent it, you're a killer in my book. It's a mystery novel I'm writing based around abortion. It's cool.

Yes you are a killer. but that wasn't the orginal question. It was when does life begin. Life begins when you start remembering things. Before then you just exist.

Here's the real problem. In a case where people's civil rights are involved - the burden of proof is on the one who wants to abridge the right. I understand that makes you uncomfortable because you think the zygote is a separate human life and the fetus most definitely is. However, "I think" is not a valid reason for making a law that affects other people. The burden of proof is on you, and you have no proof to show that this thing qualifies as a separate human life. Therefore, the law cannot be changed until you do.

Please tell me what civil rights are denied to a woman who cannot abort her baby. I'm sure there are some, it's just that they haven't been clarified yet, while "you're abridging their civil rights" has been tossed around a lot.

THe burden of proof lies with me. I'm not so sure. Take this example. A hunter is in the woods, attempting to get some food for his table, and sees a bush shaking, with an obviously large animal behind it. Does he shoot, thinking it's a deer, or worse, a bear about to charge him? How can he shoot, without knowing for certain that it is wildlife, and not a person back there?




And should she have been pregnant and wanted to abort the fetus, would you have been the one to stop her?

No, I would not "stop" her. I would attempt to illuminate other options, and provide support in whatever way I could, but if she was determined and could not be swayed then I would have no legal basis to "stop" her.



I have talked to people on both ends of the spectrum (those who have had abortions and those who have not). Strangely enough, only one regrets her decision. One. The others, despite the psychological damage incurred by making *either* decision, still to this day believe they did the right thing. And I cannot argue successfully that they did not, as I have never been in their situation.

I can be cold-hearted here and say, "Lots of people do bad things and think that they did something right", or I can be patronizing and say, "I fall before your dominating reason and great world experience", but really, I can't respond well to what you just said, because it is so personal and, ina way, subjective.

The thing is, if they outlawed 'surgical' abortion, women would go back to the herbal abortions they have used for millenia. How do you PREFER that the unwanted foetus be removed.

I don't prefer any way for babies ot be killed. Think in my shoes. That's like someone saying to me, "Which was better, the ovens or the "showers"? From my point of view, the fetuses are quite human, and there's no "better" wya to kill them.

I lived the earlier part of my life in blissful ignorance of the concept of rape.

As a young teen, I heard of occasional stuff about rape on tv, the news, etc.

As I got older, I met girls who were rape victims. A lot of them. It never had occured to me that rape was so prevalent in our societies. It is not a monster under the bed, it's a monster that fills up the whole bedroom, and the bed is halfway out of the window.

That is a fault in our society.

It is YOUR opinion that a girl having an abortion is a mistake. In some cases, it may be, in many cases, it is probably the right thing to do. But, that is for the girl to decide, not you, not some outside source.

It is the right thing to do only if it doesn't do greater harm than keeping the baby unaborted.



Its not just a matter of convenience. All pregnancies are a threat against life- so by your reasoning, all abortions should be allowed.

That's like saying climbing all trees is life-threatening, and so cutting down all the trees should be allowed.

And I didn't say that abortions should be allowed in the context of danger to the health of the mother, all I said was that those scenarios didn't fit into the analogy I set up.

I could say that she has the right to kill her child - but I will not. Because it isn't a child. There are certain characteristics that would make it a lifeform in it's own right (such as a functioning nervous system). Until the foetus acheives that level of development, it is a sperm with delusions of grandeur.

Whether or not the fetus is a child is a factor of this debate you have given me some good points on. But, if you sometime do come to the opinion that it is a human, a child, than you cannot say that she has the right to kill it. You absolutely cannot. Because that's murder.



Sure. Fix the system FIRST. Then decide who is allowed to bring people into it.

I think your opinion is unjust - I think you represent injustice, but that is my opinion, and I'm not looking for a way to legislate my opinion over you.

Now, if only the anti-abortionists could grasp THAT concept.


Err. Umm.

My injustice is legislated against right now, in the way that abortions are being allowed. Do you not support those laws? Do you think there should be no laws about abortion?

A balanced approach. At least you've taken in all the viewpoints, eh?

Oh no, doesn't matter "when science says it starts"...

So - twins just have one life shared two ways, then?

And an ectopic pregnancy is what, god's judgement on the evil proto-foetus?

I happen to think you are very, very wrong.

That's fine, you can think I am wrong the same way that I think you are wrong, but there is certainly no need for you to get nasty about it.

That's fine, you can think I am wrong the same way that I think you are wrong, but there is certainly no need for you to get nasty about it.
aren't you going to respond to any of the points he made?

aren't you going to respond to any of the points he made?

Okay, I will....so terribly sorry!

So - twins just have one life shared two ways, then?

Well, no. I don't believe they do. They may start off as one but they become ,very early on, two seperate beings. But, they will always share a very close and unique bond (I believe that twins have very close bonds such as knowing when another is hurt etc).

And an ectopic pregnancy is what, god's judgement on the evil proto-foetus?

No, unfortunately it's just 'nature gone wrong' and I don't want to sound too harsh when saying that.

Okay, I will....so terribly sorry!



Well, no. I don't believe they do. They may start off as one but they become ,very early on, two seperate beings. But, they will always share a very close and unique bond (I believe that twins have very close bonds such as knowing when another is hurt etc).



No, unfortunately it's just 'nature gone wrong' and I don't want to sound too harsh when saying that.
gracias. i always like to move people back to issues, when pure opinions are clashing...especially when i know the parties involved are people who actually THINK about those opinion, since that feature is so very rare these days :).

gracias. i always like to move people back to issues, when pure opinions are clashing...especially when i know the parties involved are people who actually THINK about those opinion, since that feature is so very rare these days :).

Erm...okay, that's a bit sadistic you know! LOL!

I mean, you want us to argue over fundamental beliefs that we hold! We could be arguing for ever and day and still not manage to agree!

Life begins when you become a valuable contributor to the state's prosperity.



Just kidding.... man, pretending to be a Stalinist is scary. Almost didn't make it out alive there.

I think life begins when sentience begins. For a while (I think it's 24 or 28 days or something), the foetus isn't aware of itself. I forget the details but in GCSE R.E. we were taught that in the first 24 days, the foetus doesn't have 'viability' (I think that's the term).

Life begins when you become a valuable contributor to the state's prosperity.



Just kidding.... man, pretending to be a Stalinist is scary. Almost didn't make it out alive there.

I think life begins when sentience begins. For a while (I think it's 24 or 28 days or something), the foetus isn't aware of itself. I forget the details but in GCSE R.E. we were taught that in the first 24 days, the foetus doesn't have 'viability' (I think that's the term).

And also, you're taught that life begins at conception (or any other time that something thinks it begins).

And also, you're taught that life begins at conception (or any other time that something thinks it begins).

Yeah I know, I mean we're taught that the foetus doesn't have viability until 24 days, amongst other theories. The viability one is the one I agree with.

Surely fetuses develop differently. They're not all at the same stage at the same time. Then what exactly is that "defining moment" when it becomes a life? I'm not trying to make another flamefest on abortion---I'm curious as to how the people in the middle justify their position.A good question. By "life" I'm going to read "personhood". And my answer is that becoming a person, a being, is a gradual process, and there is no defining moment when it occurs. Which is an awkward situation ethically, but not unprecidented. Where is the dividing line between a person who is competant to handle their own affairs and one that is not? When does a person die? (Most of the time there's not a possibility of debate for very long, but not always). Sometimes a dividing line of necessity is going to be somewhat arbitrary.

Life starts at 12, man I wanna be 12