winstonjen

But then they would (and do) call us anti-lifers.

Elaborate

I, like AJ and Long Winded Fool am an anit-abortion atheist. I disagree with the idea that anti-abortion is equal to anti-chioce, because chioces would still exist. Safe sex techniques should be taught by every parent to their children. There is any real way to prevent teens from having pre-marital sex, but, if they know how to have sex safely, the chance of pregnancy and STDs decreases sharply.

I consider a fetus a human (disregarding the idea of "souls"), because, if it is not interfered with, it can develop into an adult.

Doubting Didymus

Gotcha! So can an egg, or a sperm.

OR: now with cloning technology, even a human cheek cell nucleus has the potential to become human.

Where are you going to draw the line?

Philosoft

This isn't ultimately about when a fertilized egg becomes a human. It's about the rights of existing humans. The statement, "embryos are unquestionably human life, therefore they cannot be killed" lacks sufficient breadth. The actual pronouncement is "embryos are unquestionably human life, therefore the mother-to-be has no right to terminate and must allow the embryo to utilize her body with or without her consent." Now, I'm not saying this isn't a prima facie defensible argument, but the argument is not 'is an embryo a human life?', the argument is 'if the embryo is a human life, do its rights supercede the mother-to-be's rights?'

Elaborate

No, an egg or sperm cannot be considered a human, because they do not have their own specific, complete genome. Cloning, I admit, is a sticky subject, but that "potential" would not exist without modern techniques. That cheek cell is apart of a human, but not an individual human in and of itself, and cannot naturally develop into a human without a major special effort. I draw the human/non-human line at conception, because I think that's the most distict point to put it.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Elaborate ]</p>

Opera Nut

I have seen Randall Terry, Flip Benham, Don Treshman and those guys in state civil court. I took some of their testimony in the case that started iwth protests at the '92 Rep convention in Houston, with TROs, and went to trial in '94. Planned Parenthood of SE Texas et al v. Operation Rescue, et al. Planned Parenthood won over $200,000 in damages for extra security, volunteer patrols, etc.

I was traumatized by having to look at those people. One leader was asked if they condemned the murder of Dr. David Gunn. On the stand this guy said "We neither condemn it nor do we condone it."

And the jury's jaws hit the floor and they almost slid out of their chairs in shock.
Those people are very very scary.

I had late periods in college when I was not taking any thyroid hormone, and married, so I guess that maeks me a killer because the incompetent doctors I went to took me off thyroid and I nearly died from it. Or does it make the doctors killers? Who knows.

Or maybe we should all have funerals for maxi-pads and wads of kleenex that guys have shot their load into........

Doubting Didymus

When a fertilised egg fails to embed, and thus cannot develop into a human, has a tragic loss occurred? Do you have issues with the morning after pill?

The line drawn at conception is baseless. How is a fertilised egg more 'potential' than, say, an unfertilised egg that is about to be fertilised? If, in theory, you could access an egg that is surrounded by competing sperm and put a stop to it, wouldn't that be just as much of an interruption of potential? And yet you have destroyed nothing but eggs and sperm.

fcuk

one of my online fundamentalist christian 'friends' had to go through some sort of therapy or counselling because her husband admitted to having a 'masturbation' problem to their pastor. apparently it's the lady's fault if the man can't keep his hands off his wanker and subsequently waves buh-bye to all the drain-o babies.

Elaborate

Yes, a miscarriage or failed embedding is a tragic loss. The morning after pill is an easy way out for those who did not think ahead of time. If that pill is merely a spermicide, there is no problem with it.

The egg-about-to-be-fertilized has no more potential because destiny does ont exist. That egg cannot develop into a human until it is fertilized. In the same manner, a attempted assault is not nearly as serious as actual assault.

long winded fool

It seems that they must. No human has the right to destroy another human except in a clear case of self-defense. If this is the law then I think it is a given that a human embryo's right to life supercedes the mothers' choice on what to do with her body. No matter how much I would like to murder a human being who is causing me extraordinary pain and grief and using my body without my consent, I cannot murder them until they clearly are threatening my life. If that human being happens to be my child, then I must either give him up for adoption, or learn to live with him. Though pregnant women don't have the choice of giving their fetus up for adoption, it is illogical to arbitrarily grant them the right of murder. They MUST allow use of their body and learn to live with their embryo until it is born. Their consent doesn't come into the argument. To make a law that allows a segment of the population to murder another segment of the population under the assumption that the murdering segment has more rights than the murdered segment is to be, at the very least, inconsistent and hypocritical. At worst this sets a dangerous precedent that this country hasn't seen in well over a hundred years. Therefore the ONLY argument that needs to be addressed is whether or not an embryo is a human life.

If the rights of existing humans are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and if it is always wrong to murder an innocent human, then all one needs to do is to determine whether or not an embryo is an existing innocent human in order to solve this controversy. As much as we hate to hear this, I'm afraid that if embryos are human, then the mother's bodily rights are completely irrelevant except in the rare case of life threatening complications. No one human's inalienable rights can supercede another's in this country. If a mother can survive her pregnancy, then logically it should be a capital crime if it is purposely aborted.

This is not one sexist man's personal preference, this is simply logical deduction.