I'll get back to you on when twinning takes place.. I THINK that what I read yesterday said 7 to 14 weeks, but I could have that wrong. Yes, I meant identical.

As a small point of order, assuming I DO marry the woman I love, I will still never be faced with that decision. She can't have kids, having endured a full hysterectomy at 24, due to damage caused by the abuse inflicted upon her as a child by her mother.

*hopes nobody else is "saved" into that fate, but I guess that's a roll of the dice*

I wonder if the pope knows what a woman is anyway.. he almost makes me as sick as the serb soldiers.

First your argument about non believingthat life gegins at conception falls down on one point. At what point is it life? When it's born? A minute before it's born? A day? A week? When do you draw the line between 'ball of cells' and 'living creature'?

First: If you did marry someone who couldn't conceive, would you adopt? And wouldn't you be grateful that someone who didn't want their baby was prepared for someone else to have it, rather than having it killed?

And how do you measure 'disability'? This person has Down's Syndrome-abort it. This embryo has only one arm- abort it. This baby is blind-abort it. This baby will be retarded-abort it. This feotus will havea low IQ-abort it. This child will have asthma-abort it.

The arguments towards legalised abortion in this counrty were very similar to those for legalising cannabis right now. Government control, eliminating risk (from unqualified people/contaminated cannabis) and so on.
They thought that if abortion was legalised, the government could control and educate people about it. And do you want to know how much the abortion rate has gone up by since then?
And as Tora said, only around 3% are rape victims. Others just use it as a drive through.

An invalid question. Before we can answer that question, we must first answer all of these: What is life? What is intelligence? Is all life to have the same rights, regardless of the level of physical or mental development? Is a tuna equal to a dolphin? Can you use "life" as a qualification for "rights" without being hypocritical, if you eat meat? Or plants, for that matter? Does a ball of cells that may one day be a human have more rights than a ball of cells that may one day be a gopher? Or a sequoia tree? Does a being that cannot survive without a life support system have an inherent right TO that life support system?
An odd analogy: If you woke up one morning and found that you'd been hooked up to a comatose person and were using your blood and bodily nutrients to keep them alive, would you have a moral obligation to stay hooked up?

"Life begins at conception" is a meaningless sound bite. Of COURSE life (basic as it may be) begins at conception. The question is where do we believe we get the moral obligation to keep that life alive? Nature does not recognize conceptions, or there wouldn't be such a thing as spontaneous miscarriages.

There exists as yet no agreement of when a being achieves "personhood."

>First: If you did marry someone who couldn't conceive, would you adopt? And wouldn't you be grateful that someone who didn't want their baby was prepared for someone else to have it, rather than having it killed?

No, I wouldn't adopt. I am not suited to be a parent, due to my economic condition and responsibility level, and am well aware of the fact. Given the choice, I'd rather not try. (That said, were it to, by some miracle - and it would HAVE to be a legitimate miracle, in her case - be thrust upon me, as it were, I'd do my damnedest to be a good father, and would never even consider suggesting abortion. Again, that wouldn't truly be MY decision to make. It'd be hers, and I'd stand by her no matter what.

Oh, and incidentally, I was somewhat off about twinning. It usually happens at 7-14 DAYS, not weeks. Which still shoots down the belief that the soul and identity as an individual exists at conception.
I'll skip mentioning those that do not fully separate, except to wonder how many people they count as.

I didn't want to get drawn into this argument. I just wanted to say what I thought. Foolish me for disagreeing. You wanna light the fire now? This stake is getting cold.

------------------
"I'm sick, like Nixon was sick, my defeated heart keeps beating on. I won't die, like Chucky won't die."
--
They Might Be Giants

------------------
"I'm sick, like Nixon was sick, my defeated heart keeps beating on. I won't die, like Chucky won't die."
--
They Might Be Giants

quote:

---

Does a ball of cells that may one day be a
human have more rights than a ball of cells that may one day be a gopher?..........

---

quote:

---

Of COURSE life (basic as it may be) begins at conception. The question is where do we believe we get the moral obligation to keep that life alive? Nature does not recognize conceptions, or there wouldn't be such a thing as spontaneous miscarriages.

There exists as yet no agreement of when a being achieves "personhood."

---

In working out an opinion on this issue I concluded that it all hinged on whether the aborted fetus should be endowed with human rights (and therefore spared), or regarded as genetic material (and thus can be destroyed with no moral problems). As you say, we need to know at what point in a human's development it becomes due human rights.

At the stage where it can survive independently from the mother?
This is unacceptable, as the case of premature babies now demonstrates. Unaided, they would die, but with the aid of medical tech they can be given life support. Noone would advocate the termination of a premature baby in an incubator. Miscarriages demonstrate how a failure of the support system can end the life of the fetus. But also babies can die of heart defects after birth, or cot death, etc. Nature reserves the right to terminate the existance of ALL lifeforms regardless of age or physiological independence. Indeed, it will do so to all of us. "Keeping a life alive" is also a different thing to atively bringing about its end.

At some specific stage in its development during pregnancy?
eg. First sign of brain and/or activity therein; first heartbeat, etc.
This is a very tricky line to draw. What level of development is enough to qualify for protection? Many would argue heatedly over varying definitions, each supplying valid arguments to support different positions. This makes this criterion highly contentious and open to later revisions as understanding of the fetal devlopment improves.

"4 weeks"?
An arbitrary deadline based on an integral number of days divisible by 7 is ludicrous. No scientific method is involved, and thus a more rigorous determination is necessary.

Conclusion
This is very serious matter. If you want to allow abortions you require a moral standpoint from which this is justifiable, as the default interpretation would be in the murder of a human life, albeit a very young one.

You asked what the difference between a frog fetus and a human fetus is. The DNA is the answer. The best scientific transition I can think of between the unimportant biological material and the protection-deserving new life form is the step at which a new, unique human DNA code is created.

Using this code, the cells require no further chemical information, merely replicating and dividing, taking in matter to fuel this process from the mother's support system. The process of growth & development inside the womb does not end with birth, as both the mental and physical growth continues until adult stage.

This new DNA code is totally unique, and cannot be recreated by another chemical process. Since it is our DNA that defines our individuality as human beings, and our individuality is the central reason why we hold human life sacred, this seems a logical "transition point" to me.

When does the new DNA appear? Conception.
Ergo, the line is drawn there. Corrolaries being that embryos should be endowed with right-to-life, and there should be no moral implications to fiddling with sperms and eggs provided they never meet and are able to form new DNA.
(This means no moral objection to contraceptive methods)

Well, that's what I think.

DNA is not a human being, DNA can be altered to still be human, but be very different, is this a new human being with all the equivilant rights?

>"It's the POTENTIAL for life. A gopher fetus will end up as a gopher, which isn't judged to be sentient by most people. A human fetus will end up as a human."

Er.. a gopher is still alive. I must assume, then, that you're not talking about the potential for LIFE, but rather the potential for SENTIENCE.
In that case...
What IS sentience?
(And if you follow the Picard-expressed concept, in "Measure of a Man," then what are Intelligence, Self-Awareness, and Consciousness?)
And can we find human beings who do not possess sentience or the further "potential" for it? Probably. The comatose, the brain-damaged, the severely disabled. Does this lack then delete their rights?

Can we find animals that appear to possess some degree of sentience? Possibly. Some animal-rights advocates (I am not one of them) believe that all warm-blooded animals are "sentient."

>" Since it is our DNA that defines our individuality as human beings"

Is it? Identical twins have identical DNA. Yet they are EACH individuals. Therefore, individuality is not present at conception.

We need to define what it is about humans that makes it a crime to kill one. Some would distinguish us by our "sentience", others by our "souls" (if you believe in them). It may be a bit metaphysical, but I prefer the idea of "souls", that is to say some spiritual extension of our consciousness that coexists with our physical presence. Sentience falls down as a definition because there are living adult humans who are not sentient, eg. severly mentally handicapped, the comatose. These cases are kept alive because of the hope that they may one day become sentient once more, i.e. their potential for sentience is considered sufficient justification for endowing them human rights. And if you respect potentiality in one case, it would be hypocritical not to apply it elsewhere.

I almost never existed. I was born into this world after survivng many unsuccessful (and different) abortive attempts.

When my mother first told me this, I didn't understand why she wouldn't want me, and she explained to me that though she DID want _ME_, it was the other things that went with it at the time. She knew that there was no way she could support me, or take care of me right. She thought abortion was her only way out. But she never loved me any less.

You think abortion is just a quick way out for people, but you're wrong. Life is sacred. These women, under different circumstances, might have carried their children.

Most of you are men, and have not been faced, in the same way, with an unexpected pregnancy. You have no idea the trouble this causes for us. You have no idea, the position it puts us in. There are very few options, and without a partner to help it gets even worse. These women have the right to make the choice that is going to be best for them.

What's best for them depends on where they grow up and what they've been taught. If you've grown up all your life with people around you who just abort thier children, then you're going to think it's right, and that you can do it too.

I am pro-life. But I am also pro-choice.

I have never been put in this situation, and I hope I never will be. But if I WAS, I would like to think that I would still have the right to choose, despite the morals involved.

Walk a mile in thier shoes, before you judge them.

As the song by Everlast states "They call her a killer, they call her a sinner, they call her a whore... but god forbid you ever have to walk a mile in her shoes, 'cause then you really might know what it's like to have to CHOOSE."

As for the moral issue, THAT'S BETWEEN THE PERSON WHO ABORTS THIER CHILD, AND THAT PERSON'S GOD.

It is not for us to say what is moral according to what religion or what doctrine or etc. Everyone's beliefs are different. You can't take away a person's rights just because You think the God is going to get pissed off. It's not your job to worry about wether or not someone else pisses off the God, just worry about yourself.

So that's what I say. I'm pro life, pro family, pro choice. Because there are circumstances beyond our control, and sometimes that IS the only choice for people, WETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.