"Because I'd say optimal conditions for a sperm would include an egg."

OK, rephrase to "If you leave a zygote alone in optimal conditions for its own growth, it has the capability to become anything you or I could be. If you leave a sperm cell alone in optimal conditions for its own growth, it'll be dead within a week."

First:

"Do human beings have an innate 'right to exist,'"

Good question. Gotta make sure that our argument has a correct assumption as its basis.

I'd say yes. Let's define "right". I would define it as "anything that all unrestrained people will want to do". Some would call this the basic nature of the human spirit. Let us expand the definition to include the fact that people have a right to defend their rights by any means nesecary. (This includes the right to own property to defend your first ammendment rights, and your right to own a weapon to defend your property.) All humans have an innate tendancy to defend their existance. Assuming you accept my definition of "right", people have a right to exist, and thus a right to defend their existance.

"is that right more innate to man than it is to any other life form?"

Intelligence gives us the advantage of actually knowing what will help the species, as opposed to acting on instinct. We are effectively the caretakers of the whole planet, whether you believe it's by chance or it's because God made us that way. What we believe is best for the planet and ourselves is a higher authority than the rights of animals (whatever they may be).

And no, rats don't have rights.

"And does any authority other than Man recognize this so-called right?"

I didn't think you recognized any authority other than man, First.

Fructose:

"I think women should be able to decide on their own what they want."

I'd agree with you if you could show me that the child is not a living human before it's born. We're not talking about whether a woman can have her appendix removed.

If you don't give a baby food, it will die.

I'm not seeing the difference here.

Are you out of curiosity pro or anti-contraceptive? And what about the morning after-pill?

The difference is that if you "give" a sperm an egg, it becomes something completely different, whereas baby food simply keeps the baby alive. A sperm is not simply an earlier form of a zygote. There are inherant differences.

"Are you out of curiosity pro or anti-contraceptive?"

No problems with contraceptives. As I've said, a sperm cell is completely different from a living human being, so I have no objections to their death.

*remembers a scene from the Bicentennial Man movie, and bursts out laughing*

OK, I'm better now.

"And what about the morning after-pill?"

I'm not completely certain I know what the morning-after pill does, but as I understand it, it is taken after sex as opposed to before. Since it takes eight hours for the sperm cell to rendezvous with the egg (assuming one makes it), and another sixteen for the thing to make its way inside, whether I'm opposed to it or not would depend on exactly when the pill takes effect.

As a side note, are those the same as the emergency contraceptive pills that the ER is supposed to give women who are raped?

As to your definition of 'right' I might point out that some unhindered people self-destruct, while others willingly abrogate the other rights you described. It's clear from their postings that many of the induhviduals (to use Dilbertspeak) on this board don't believe in their own (or others') property rights (and copyrights), right to self-defense, or even, in some cases, rights to freedom of speech and religion.

"I didn't think you recognized any authority other than man, First."

You're right. My point is, the Universe does not respect your 'right' to exist. It will destroy you without a second thought. (and it's a subtle point at the evidence that 'God' doesn't accept that 'right,' either, but that's another flame.)

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

That's all I have to say and that's all I believe needs to be said.
*edit*
You are right First, God never garentees us a right to exist. We are not Angels in Heaven before we are born or anything like that. This is a heresy of the church. While I made that point, there is great evidence in Scripture that God can make or prevent a woman from having a child. I do think that God wants nature to run it's course in the way of normal births. He is God, not a woman or a doctor, and we should have no control over what comes out from between a woman's legs.

I don't care that I'm a guy and I will never deal with this. I don't care if you think it's a woman's issue. This is God's world and after that (in secular society) it's still a man's world!
------------------
If you don't believe in what I say or the God I speak of I guess you'll just have to meet me so the Lord and I can convert you.

"As I understand it, the morning-after pill causes a change which prevents the tiny cluster of 16 cells or so from attatching to the uterus wall, so that it exits the body the same way an unused egg would."

If that's the case, I'd be against the thing. You leave a zygote alone, at no matter what stage, it has a chance of developing directly into what is indisputably a human being. There is no reason not to give it the benefit of the doubt. It IS a human being, in it self.

"As to your definition of 'right' I might point out that some unhindered people self-destruct, while others willingly abrogate the other rights you described."

True. How 'bout we define "right" as anything that you can do that does not directly harm someone else, and anything you have to do to defend those rights? Does that sound good?

Bryce:

"That's all I have to say and that's all I believe needs to be said."

No offence intended, bud, but that's the reason this debate is still going on in the world. One side says "Abortion is murder, murder is wrong." The other side says "Abortion is the woman's right." They never have a legitimate debate like we're having now, so no one ever gets anywhere. We start with the assumptions that a human has a right to live, that infringing that right is murder, and that murder is wrong. Assuming that everyone agrees with these assumptions, the debate is over whether an unborn child constitutes a human being. We've already established that murder is wrong.

Besides, the original Hebrew would more appropriately translate as "Thou shall not kill", not "Thou shall not murder".

Did God create the whole damn universe?

I DON'T THINK SO!

"IF" God is one of the universe's creation, aren't we ultimately created by the universe in the end? If the universe created everything there is, shouldn't everything be treated as equal?

So what I don't believe in Gods, so what if I have other "ideals" or "believes", I'm still a damn good person. but "IF" the judgement day is true, and when I stand infront of "The One" and said "sorry dude, I've got other believes", guess what The Almighty gonna reply, "Son, you're a nice young man when you're alive, but just because you don't believe me, guess what, into the fire of hell you go!"

Every read the Animal Farm? Remember one of the rule set up by the pigs in the end? Isn't it something like "everyone's equal, but some are more then equal".

You gotta wonder, is God the almighty perfect being? Or is He the "pigs" rising above equality and taking advantages of the less educated public.

------------------
If a diamond is a woman's best friend, why does a man has to settle for a dog?

You could say that Hellen Keller lacked a functioning brain? Wow.

------------------
It's not my birthday
It's not today
It's not my birthday so why do you lunge out at me?
--
They Might Be Giants
****
Read chapter one of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! I'll give you a cookie.

Hm. I have a 'right' to make paper airplanes?

Actually, if we go by that above definition, people have the 'right' to be, and act on being, homosexuals, which would set the R-R's agenda back a peg or two...

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

Sol:

I refered to Keller in response to this:

"A fetus/embryo/unborn child isn't independent or even conciously aware of it's surroundings let alone able to think and reason as a human does."

She would have been able to fit that description as a child. And my point about vegetative children still stands. They're still human.

First:

"Hm. I have a 'right' to make paper airplanes?"

Sure. Ammendment 9 guarentees it.

"Actually, if we go by that above definition, people have the 'right' to be, and act on being, homosexuals"

Yes, they do. Just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean that it isn't wrong. But let's not start that again.

"which would set the R-R's agenda back a peg or two..."

If there are people out there who want to outlaw homosexuality, I'd help you fight them. That's way overboard, and they give people like me a bad name.

Still waiting for a reason not to give a zygote the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, it DOES mean that. by inherent definition, a right cannot be wrong. I will not accept a definition of "wrong" rights. The only things that are "wrong" are those which hurt other people, in other words, things that one has no "right" to do.

I also want to say that I find Bryce's concept of a "can do anything he wishes, and your rights, your very lives, are of no consequence"-type of God frightening, verging on revolting. Selfish MAN acts that way. God should be better than that.

Since we're trying to establish a "right" to exist, we must consider the belief systems of the people making such assertions. I don't believe we have an INHERENT 'right' to exist, because the universe clearly does not respect it. In reality, we choose our 'rights' by consensus.

To be honest, I can think of fully GROWN human beings who don't have a right to exist, much less zygotes. That's why I'm in favor of capital punishment. At least give the zygotes a chance.

The differences between a zygote and a fully functional human being are numerous and considerable. A zygote, at least at an early stage, has no more awareness than that cow/chicken/fish you had for lunch. Considerably less, in some cases. A zygote cannot survive without a complicated security and life-support system. It is, essentially, a parasite.
However, given time, it will (probably, but not always) develop sentience. At this point, it begins to exercise its will and effect the world around it.

Does a being with the potential for sentience deserve a chance to live up to that possibility? I dunno, maybe.

It's my indecision on this whole question (just about the only issue I haven't concretely made up my mind on) that leads me to be personally in favor of "pro-life," but socially in favor of "pro-choice." I wouldn't tell someone to have an abortion, I wouldn't even like to suggest it. But I wouldn't stop them, either. I don't believe I have that right.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

Depends on your definition of wrong. I consider things that harm yourself as wrong as things that harm others. But you have a right to harm yourself. Therefore, by harming yourself, you do something wrong that you still have a right to do.

"I don't believe we have an INHERENT 'right' to exist, because the universe clearly does not respect it."

'Course it doesn't. The universe is not a consious entity. It can respect nothing. Some people don't respect my right to own property or to defend it. That doesn't mean that I don't have those rights.

"To be honest, I can think of fully GROWN human beings who don't have a right to exist"

It is possible to forfeit your rights by certain actions, mainly by voilating other's rights. Some would say that by killing someone you forfeit your right to exist.

Basically, we've gotten it down to the question of whether the fact that you will become what everyone agrees is a human being makes you a human being already. I have seen no reason why not, being basically optimistic and prefering to give the benefit of doubt.

Sorry, that was catty.

A woman has the right to her body, in the legal sense. That is why legislators can't deny it. Also, when the child is concieved, it is still a life, and therefore morally wrong to kill it. The right to her body is second to the right of the being growing in her womb.

That being said, the decision to have an abortion is not just a legal issue, it is a moral one. When a woman decides to have sex, she takes the risk of losing the right to her body for this child. Even if it does not happen, she takes that risk.

"Sorry, that was catty."

It also made no sense. People who want to take guns away from the populace are the ones who refuse to give the benefit of the doubt. I believe that people can use guns responsibly and safely, remember?

But that's for another thread.

Jeff:

"A woman has the right to her body, in the legal sense."

"The right to her body is second to the right of the being growing in her womb."

From these it would follow that legislators COULD, and SHOULD, in fact, deny the woman the right to do whatever she wants to her body. Your argument on why abortion can't be outlawed (It seemed that was part of what you were saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.) is self-contradictory.