[Ghostavo]

Just as you don't get arrested for squashing an ant, can you get arrested for killing an embryo? That's the point of the argument.

I doubt you'll find many people who love  and respect animals as much as I do, but even I wouldn't put a insect and a human on the same scale or worth.

That's the bloody point, is it a human or not!

[MP-Ryan]

*Interjection*

The human body produces natural abortions at all points in embryonic and fetal development, but the majority take place prior to 24 weeks gestation.  We presently consider 22 weeks gestation to be the threshold point for survivability of a premature birth.

There is a natural point at which an embryo can be considered a functional human being in development, and this tends (in most estimates) to start anywhere around 20-30 weeks gestation.

To add more fuel to the fire...

A fertilized ovum does not a human being make.  A fertilized ovum is little different from the few totipotent stem cells kicking around in some of our bones (specifically, the femur).  If anything, it's less human, because it hasn't yet proved it can survive.

No to mention, we have the interesting conundrum of how many "people" an embryo is.  Up until a few hundred cells, differentiation hasn't really occurred (yes, the axes are set by that point and regions are defined as developmental points, but it isn't yet set in stone) so if we start plucking off individual cells and growing them we find that they can in turn grow to the few hundred cell stage and beyond... does that mean an embryo at the few hundred cell stage is actually several hundred people, or just one?  That's a point some catholic groups are wrestling with given the advance of embryo splitting where we can pluck a single cell from an embryo and use it to generate embryonic stem cell lines AND grow the embryo to term (one group in particular seems to think this procedure would be better utilized to produce more good little Catholics than medically treat the living ones we've got, but idiots generally abound so that should be no surprise).

Once again, a little knowledge of biology can turn your views on their head.  Life, for any species, does not begin at conception.  Life begins at the point in development in which an indepedent viable organism is present.  People can debate until the apocalypse about when that point is, but it sure as hell is not conception.

*fans flames and retreats to shelter*

[Edward Bradshaw]

As for hte Vatican, you're wrong about that. No sex = no children. More effective than any other method you can propose, be it condoms or abortion..and a lot more humane too.

If this theory worked so well Africa wouldnt be in such a state.

[Mobius]

*Interjection*

The human body produces natural abortions at all points in embryonic and fetal development, but the majority take place prior to 24 weeks gestation.  We presently consider 22 weeks gestation to be the threshold point for survivability of a premature birth.

There is a natural point at which an embryo can be considered a functional human being in development, and this tends (in most estimates) to start anywhere around 20-30 weeks gestation.

*fans flames and retreats to shelter*

It might be correct, but TrashMan is right when he says that a human being grows up. The embryo is a human being.

[MP-Ryan]

It might be correct, but TrashMan is right when he says that a human being grows up. The embryo is a human being.

I just edited my post, so read it again.

An embryo has the potential to be between zero and several hundred human beings.  Existence of a fertilized ovum does not imply the presence of a single living human being.  Potential != destiny.

[TrashMan]

You compare a embryo with several cells from you leg. Those cells won't grow and develop into a adult human.
A embryo will. That's a cruical difference.

Once again, a little knowledge of biology can turn your views on their head.  Life, for any species, does not begin at conception.  Life begins at the point in development in which an indepedent viable organism is present.  People can debate until the apocalypse about when that point is, but it sure as hell is not conception.

When does it being then? When you say so? I find your definition of the begining of life lacking.

[Hazaanko]

Here's my take on it.  Science doesn't understand life.  Science doesn't understand consciousness.  Sure, science is cool and impressive and all... but when you get right down to it, science doesn't know jack @#$% about a whole helluva lot of stuff that is staring us in the face every second of every day.  This isn't a religion vs science thing for me.  Religion doesn't know either (but of course it generally professes that an abortion is a bad choice).

When and where does a human life -actually- begin?  Nobody knows for sure (except God if you believe that).  You can scream at the top of your lungs "Its just a fetus! Its just a fetus! Its just a fetus!" all day long, but you prove nothing.

You're taking a helluva chance having an abortion just going off the possibility that a fetus is not an individual life.  And all of that for what!?!?  For convenience.  Because you mussed it up, were lazy, inconsiderate, or just plain stupid.  I'm not talking about when both the mother's and the baby's life are in danger or the mother is a rape victim etc - that would be a completely different category.  But the mother - engaging in consensual sex must be prepared for the consequences that comes with it.  You don't start killing people on the street because it makes your life convenient or you think that they would be better off dead.  So why even take that chance with something that may very well be alive?

[MP-Ryan]

You compare a embryo with several cells from you leg. Those cells won't grow and develop into a adult human.
A embryo will. That's a cruical difference.

Stem cells from my leg COULD grow into another human being under the correct circumstances, just like a totipotent embryo can become an adult human being under the correct circumstances.  It's a matter fo probability (and for the record, the probability, even with medical intervention, is quite low in BOTH cases - extremely few preganancies actually make it to term).

When does it being then? When you say so? I find your definition of the begining of life lacking.

Just because  totipotent stem cells CAN become a human being doesn't mean they will.  Human life begins at the stage of adult viability - about 20 weeks gestation (about the same time that spontaneous muscle movement begins, indicating activation of the central nervous system).  Prior to that, a fetus merely has the potential to grow into a viable organism; it isn't actually viable YET.

I'm not going to actually convince you because abortion debates typically are about how people feel about the issue, not what they rationally think.

As it happens, I do not personally agree with the use of abortion as just another method of birth control, but that it should be used only in extenuating circumstances to terminate pregnancy.  That said:
1.  I would never presume to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body; ultimately, she is physically sharing her body and I don't think anyone should have to do that against their will;
2.  I am well aware of the social havoc unwanted pregnancies can cause (health care, crime, social services intervention, child welfare, etc) and can recite some rather alarming statistics of what unwanted pregnancies do in developed nations.

In an ideal world, very few would get pregnant by accident and of those that did, a healthy support network would be there to help, guide, and support them and the child to produce a productive adult.  In reality, that is EXTREMELY rare.  Unwanted pregnancies contribute to fully 16% of all criminal activity, either directly or indirectly, and account for more than half of the children's services interventions.

[TrashMan]

Stem cells from my leg COULD grow into another human being under the correct circumstances.

I'll belive that when I see it...in other words - never.

I'm not going to actually convince you because abortion debates typically are about how people feel about the issue, not what they rationally think.

In other words, you are rational and I am not? Typical.

I hate it when people think themselves so high and mighty, like they absorbed all the freaking knowledge of the world, and anyone who doesn't agree is ignorant, brainwashed or stupid.
I don't know for sure when life begins, and I'm not willing to take a chance with a human being. It's just not right to gamble with other peoples lives.

Also, I'd like to know where you pulled out those suspicious statistics.

[karajorma]

Stem cells from my leg COULD grow into another human being under the correct circumstances.

I'll belive that when I see it...in other words - never.

Given that human cloning is banned that's a pretty neat cop out.

[Mefustae]

In other words, you are rational and I am not? Typical.

That's not what he meant and you know it. He was talking about you approaching the issue too emotionally, letting your feelings muddy the waters of what should be a rational discussion.

I hate it when people think themselves so high and mighty, like they absorbed all the freaking knowledge of the world, and anyone who doesn't agree is ignorant, brainwashed or stupid.
I don't know for sure when life begins, and I'm not willing to take a chance with a human being. It's just not right to gamble with other peoples lives.

I like what you did there. You argue that we should all err on the side of caution, by which you mean your side. But of course you're right, because it's only the pro-choice side that feels completely self-absorbed, all-knowing, and decries any view contrary to their own.

We're not "gambling with human lives" because we all can't decide where the heck human life begins. I totally understand where you're coming from, and if I shared your view I too would be outraged at the very notion of abortion; truly ending a human life in progress. However, the fact alone that there is a significant number of people who feel strongly for one side and the other means the issue default to the person with the most invested in this: the mother. Both sides of this debacle modern society calls a "debate" continue to bicker like children with no end in sight, and therefore the only logical choice is to leave it in the hands of the parent to make a logical, sensible and responsible choice in the matter.

[TrashMan]

In other words, you are rational and I am not? Typical.

That's not what he meant and you know it. He was talking about you approaching the issue too emotionally, letting your feelings muddy the waters of what should be a rational discussion.

I am being rational.

I like what you did there. You argue that we should all err on the side of caution, by which you mean your side. But of course you're right, because it's only the pro-choice side that feels completely self-absorbed, all-knowing, and decries any view contrary to their own.

Did I say I was right? But I have to state that the consequences of, as you so eloquently put it "my view" are less dire.

We're not "gambling with human lives" because we all can't decide where the heck human life begins.

So how can you state you're not gambling if you don't know?

Remember, modern law dictates that the parent is ultimately responsible for his or her child, and must shoulder the burden of decision-making until the child reaches the appropriate age. Why should this be any different while the child is still in the womb?

True, but the decisions are not of the "should you kill your child yes/no" type, now are they?
Also note the bolded word.

[Mefustae]

True, but the decisions are not of the "should you kill your child yes/no" type, now are they?
Also note the bolded word.

Again, you're going under the pretense that your view is right and the foetus constitutes an actual human life. What is so obscene about leaving it up to the mother to decide whether her situation warrants the abortion, whether she believes it is right to have an abortion, and whether or not she considers what's growing inside her to be a human life?

[Mobius]

*Summons Blaise Russel Pascal*

That "we lose nothing" thing can be easily applied to this subject. We should consider an embryo a human being, it's the best thing to do

The mother can't decide. She's not going to guide her child for the rest of his/her life, she's important only for the first years of life. In other words, she's not in the right position to condemn a child to death. No one can do it.

[karajorma]

Blaise Pascal's the twat behind Pascal's Wager. That hardly qualifies him as a deep thinker.

And yes that's an ad hominem but he's dead and I couldn't give a stuff.

[Mobius]

I don't like Blaise Pascal, either...he's the way too religious for a philosopher. Ops, he was...

But his principle can be applied in this situation. It's better to consider the embryo a...human being.

[Flipside]

It's certainly better to judge the Embryo as a Human Being if you are anti-abortion, however, if you are pro-abortion/choice, you would believe otherwise. That's the root and soul of the problem, if we decide in one direction, we suddenly are ignoring everyone who doesn't agree, that is why it has been left up to choice for the first stage of pregnancy, so we don't have one set of beliefs dictating to another.

[TrashMan]

Embryo is human 

IF STATEMENT IS TRUE
* best consequence -    Human lives on, is a productive member of society
* worst consequence -  Human lives on, turns into a criminal or is miserable

IF STATEMENT IS FALSE
* best consequence - less humans on planet. Less responsibility for parents
* worst consequence - death of a defenseless human being                                           

                                                                   

[Goober5000]

The problem is that morality is not subjective.  You can't say, "Oh, okay, if you believe life begins at conception, then it begins at conception for you.  But I believe the mother should determine that for herself."  No.  Life begins when it begins, regardless of what you or I or the mother or anyone else thinks.  The mother's beliefs and feelings are irrelevant.  Fire is still fire whether you believe it's caused by oxygen or phlogiston.
 
So, you may justify aborting a 10-week old fetus based on your belief that it's not yet a living person.  But are you willing to take the chance that you could be wrong?  Are you comfortable with the possibility that you may be ending a human life without knowing it?
      
Are you willing to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, without knowing whether the gun is loaded?

[Mobius]

It's certainly better to judge the Embryo as a Human Being if you are anti-abortion, however, if you are pro-abortion/choice, you would believe otherwise. That's the root and soul of the problem, if we decide in one direction, we suddenly are ignoring everyone who doesn't agree, that is why it has been left up to choice for the first stage of pregnancy, so we don't have one set of beliefs dictating to another.

No. I'm against abortion because I see it as a barbarian action. Mefustae's statements, according to which many babies shouldn't be born, is unacceptable. Damn it, I suffered a lot...but I'm here! When a person becomes old tries to forget everything and...succeeds. No one has intention of passing his/her life thinking to the past! Why would you prevent a human being from trying to have a normal life?

And the word "abortion" doesn't refer to the act of putting an end to a pregnancy on its first stage only. It's more generalized.

Embryo is human 

IF STATEMENT IS TRUE
* best consequence -    Human lives on, is a productive member of society
* worst consequence -  Human lives on, turns into a criminal or is miserable

IF STATEMENT IS FALSE
* best consequence - less humans on planet. Less responsibility for parents
* worst consequence - death of a defenseless human being                                                                                
                              

Perfect application of Pascal's principle

I have to say, however, that it is incomplete. The research would benefit of the use of embryos.

The problem is that morality is not subjective.  You can't say, "Oh, okay, if you believe life begins at conception, then it begins at conception for you.  But I believe the mother should determine that for herself."  No.  Life begins when it begins, regardless of what you or I or the mother or anyone else thinks.  The mother's beliefs and feelings are irrelevant.  Fire is still fire whether you believe it's caused by oxygen or phlogiston.
 
So, you may justify aborting a 10-week old fetus based on your belief that it's not yet a living person.  But are you willing to take the chance that you could be wrong?  Are you comfortable with the possibility that you may be ending a human life without knowing it?
      
Are you willing to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, without knowing whether the gun is loaded?