When is abortion wrong?

[Swift]

^^ What he said. With the caviat that I don't think that's were abortion should become illegal because I don't associate viable entity with rights.

Ok, then when should abortion be illegal. Actually, forget that. At what point would you consider abortion wrong?

 

[Danoff]

Ok, then when should abortion be illegal. Actually, forget that. At what point would you consider abortion wrong?

After the fetus is born (ie: physically detached from the mother). The same time that laws currently grant the baby citizenship and a legal identification. In otherwords, at no point do I consider abortion wrong.

 

[Pako]

The time when it can support itself in the outside world. Exactly.

So is that at about age 8 or 9?

Considering that you are a person who discredits over 26 definition sources that a fetus is the unborn young, that your definition is right and they are all wrong, I highly doubt that I will ever change your mind. Regardless of what the truth is, you will have your own opinion because in your mind, reality is how you perceive it to be.

danoff,

Fetus' (children waiting to be born), existing in the now. They are not just a thought or idea. They really do exist. Far enough into their development, they can even respond to outside stimulus. I just heard on the news that with a blood test of the mother, you can even tell what sex the baby is at 5 weeks. At 5 weeks we know if it's a boy or a girl. You can't do this with a egg or sperm.

A little boy or girl waiting to be born deserves the right to live.

 

[Famine]

So is that at about age 8 or 9?

One assumes you've never encountered a 7 year old who can breath, has a heartbeat, has brain activity and isn't reliant on a biological connection which drains nutrients from its mother and alters her behaviour accordingly.

Considering that you are a person who discredits over 26 definition sources that a fetus is the unborn young, that your definition is right and they are all wrong, I highly doubt that I will ever change your mind. Regardless of what the truth is, you will have your own opinion because in your mind, reality is how you perceive it to be.

As I said, evolution of language. Dictionary.com already agrees with your definition as one definition - as it does with dice as a singular. That doesn't make it any less wrong. The majority of people know no better and dictionaries and language evolve by common usage.

I've yet to see an embryologist refer to a foetus or an embryo as an unborn child though.

But I suspect people who have been speciifically trained in the field know less than the average person. Right?

At 5 weeks we know if it's a boy or a girl. You can't do this with a egg or sperm.

I'd like to bet that you're exactly 100% wrong on this.

 

[Swift]

I'd like to bet that you're exactly 100% wrong on this.

But he's not. Sure the doctor could be wrong or the sonogram misread, but yep. You certainly can tell if it's a boy or a girl by LOOKING at the fetus. So.....

 

[Famine]

Umm. Huh?

He said you cannot tell the sex of "an egg or a sperm". Which is the part I quoted and is 100% wrong.

(and he's talking about a genetic test - no ultrasound at 5 weeks will give you a foetal gender. You'd be lucky to spot it at 30 weeks).

 

[Swift]

Umm. Huh?

He said you cannot tell the sex of "an egg or a sperm". Which is the part I quoted and is 100% wrong.

(and he's talking about a genetic test - no ultrasound at 5 weeks will give you a foetal gender. You'd be lucky to spot it at 30 weeks).

Thank you....my point exactly. So, even when you can tell that it has it's own sexual characteristics, it's still not a person?

 

[Pako]

One assumes you've never encountered a 7 year old who can breath, has a heartbeat, has brain activity and isn't reliant on a biological connection which drains nutrients from its mother and alters her behaviour accordingly.



As I said, evolution of language. Dictionary.com already agrees with your definition as one definition - as it does with dice as a singular. That doesn't make it any less wrong. The majority of people know no better and dictionaries and language evolve by common usage.

I've yet to see an embryologist refer to a foetus or an embryo as an unborn child though.

But I suspect people who have been speciifically trained in the field know less than the average person. Right?



I'd like to bet that you're exactly 100% wrong on this.

Viable Entity = being able to support itself in the outside world. Sure it can breath and it's system can keep him alive for a period of time, but that time is too short to call a viable existence unless the 7 year old can learn in a hurry to sustain himself (water, food, shelter). Haven't seen any studies, but kids these days are more dependent on their parents then they ever have. Back in the day, 13 year olds were getting married and poppin' out kids left and right, now 13 year olds are crying because they don't have anything new to wear. How many babies can support itself in the outside world. Perhaps you didn't mean what you said, but meant to say something different?

Dice->Dices is a huge difference from Fetus->Unborn Young according to you. Your dice example is derived from laziness of the use of a language. The Fetus to Unborn Young is a thought out, and deliberate definition. Quite different examples I'm afraid, but I still think change is good.

100% wrong on what? That they can determine the sex of the fetus at 5 weeks or that they can't determine what the sex will be from just a sperm or egg? It's the sperm that carries the X or Y chromosome right? And that's what determines what the sex will be? With this blood test, they can determine what the sex is, right now, at 5 weeks.

Is that what you mean?

[edited]
Sorry Famine, I see that you were referencing the XX/YY chromosome carried by the sperm. I hadn't seen your post yet.

Might add, just because you can tell what sex a fetus might become based on a sperm sample, there is no way to tell if that sperm will fertilize the egg. Also, in testing the sperm, isn't the sperm destroyed, thereby eliminating the chances of that sperm (1 of x^nth of sperms) from even reaching the egg? I'm not even sure how they test to sperm to determine whether it's XX or XY. Do you? Got me curious again.

 

[Danoff]

Fetus' (children waiting to be born), existing in the now. They are not just a thought or idea. They really do exist.

Thus the medical term fetus.

Far enough into their development, they can even respond to outside stimulus. I just heard on the news that with a blood test of the mother, you can even tell what sex the baby is at 5 weeks. At 5 weeks we know if it's a boy or a girl. You can't do this with a egg or sperm.

So we're to base our idea of when the fetus/child/offsrping/X is going to receive legal protecion based on when we can tell what gender it will be? Or when it can respond to stimulus? A bacteria can respond to stimulus, are we to give it rights then?

A little boy or girl waiting to be born deserves the right to live.

You're assuming that a fetus is a minature child that must be protected by law. Why?

Because it may turn into a person? No. I have refuted that extensively.
Because it can respond to stimulus? Certainly not.
Because we can tell what gender it will be if it is born? Or what eye color it will have? Or what name we will give it? Why would that make a difference?
Perhaps because you think it has a soul??




By the way, what if we could tell what gender the child would be prior to conception. Studies have shown that if the mother is experiencing high levels of stress and a certain diet she is far more likely to have one gender than another (that is, studies in certain animals have shown this). What if we could make that iron clad? Or what if we could find a way to kill off all sperm that would create a certain gender with a pill and thereby engineer the gender of the baby? Then does it have rights prior to conception? Just because we know what the gender will be?

 

[Famine]

Thank you....my point exactly. So, even when you can tell that it has it's own sexual characteristics, it's still not a person?

You can tell the gender of a sperm. Is that a person?

Some foetuses have no gender "characteristics". Are they not a person, from your own argument?

Sorry Famine, I see that you were referencing the XX/YY chromosome carried by the sperm. I hadn't seen your post yet.

Might add, just because you can tell what sex a fetus might become based on a sperm sample, there is no way to tell if that sperm will fertilize the egg. Also, in testing the sperm, isn't the sperm destroyed, thereby eliminating the chances of that sperm (1 of x^nth of sperms) from even reaching the egg? I'm not even sure how they test to sperm to determine whether it's XX or XY. Do you? Got me curious again.

First principles:

All eggs carry JUST an X-chromosome. All eggs are intrinsically female.

All sperm carry EITHER an X-chromosome OR a Y-chromosome.

There are exceptions to this. Some sperm carry no sex chromosomes - and individual arising from this has the sexual genotype XO and is female but (usually) sterile - Turner's Syndrome. Some sperm carry more than one sex chromosome. An individual arising from this has the sexual genotype XXY and is male, often referred to as "Supermale" and with a high prevalence amongst convicted murderers. Unless a sperm arises from a supermale individual, it is impossible for it to carry two X chromosomes, as you suggest, as no-one but a supermale has more than one X chromosome in their normal cells to be retained in the sperm cells. Chromosomes aren't magically created during meiosis ("Reduction division").

Testing a sperm's gender does not destroy it. You can also ensure that it fertilises the egg. I refer you to the Assisted Conception techniques of ICSI and SUZI.


And I meant exactly what I said. You're confusing "support" with "sustain".

 

[Swift]

After the fetus is born (ie: physically detached from the mother). The same time that laws currently grant the baby citizenship and a legal identification. In otherwords, at no point do I consider abortion wrong.

That is just about the sickest statement I have ever read.

 

[Pako]

You can tell the gender of a sperm. Is that a person?

Some foetuses have no gender "characteristics". Are they not a person, from your own argument?



First principles:

All eggs carry JUST an X-chromosome. All eggs are intrinsically female.

All sperm carry EITHER an X-chromosome OR a Y-chromosome.

There are exceptions to this. Some sperm carry no sex chromosomes - and individual arising from this has the sexual genotype XO and is female but (usually) sterile - Turner's Syndrome. Some sperm carry more than one sex chromosome. An individual arising from this has the sexual genotype XXY and is male, often referred to as "Supermale" and with a high prevalence amongst convicted murderers. Unless a sperm arises from a supermale individual, it is impossible for it to carry two X chromosomes, as you suggest, as no-one but a supermale has more than one X chromosome in their normal cells to be retained in the sperm cells. Chromosomes aren't magically created during meiosis ("Reduction division").

Testing a sperm's gender does not destroy it. You can also ensure that it fertilises the egg. I refer you to the Assisted Conception techniques of ICSI and SUZI.


And I meant exactly what I said. You're confusing "support" with "sustain".

Ah yes, thanks for that refresher. So, we can find and assist a sperm to fertilize the egg. I will assume that if we go through that much trouble that we are not going to kill the baby part way through term? We will, to the best of our ability, try to sustain that life so that it can go full term right? If it's just a fetus, why go though that much trouble, unless it's also a unborn child, or unborn young according to biology dictionaries. I still can’t get past the thought of you guys not seeing that a fetus is an unborn child. How can such a simple concept be misunderstood by clearly intelligent people.

 

[Famine]

Ah yes, thanks for that refresher. So, we can find and assist a sperm to fertilize the egg. I will assume that if we go through that much trouble that we are not going to kill the baby part way through term? We will, to the best of our ability, try to sustain that life so that it can go full term right? If it's just a fetus, why go though that much trouble, unless it's also a unborn child, or unborn young according to biology dictionaries.

Because we're essentially capitalist peoples and ICSI and SUZI cost a ****load of money.


Incidentally, the only point in time I'd consider a foetus to be an unborn child is after the point at which the foetus becomes viable. Anywhere past that point it can be born and be a child. Anywhere before that point it cannot be born and be a child.

Foetus, as a term, can be used from 8 weeks post-conception up to birth, so there's a period of about 112 days where a foetus cannot be a child if born, and roughly 100 days where it can be.

 

[Pako]

I understand what your saying. This term "viable" and the definition that you gave it contradicts what your saying. A baby still needs it's mother (biological or otherwise) in order for it to survive. It can not survive of it's own resources. The mother provides food and shelter before and after birth. These things are necessary for the survival of that child until it matures to such an age where it can provide food and shelter on it's own.

There are people on full life support systems, yet they are still human. So if a human is no longer viable, are they no longer human? There are some flaws in that line of thinking.

 

[Famine]

I understand what your saying. This term "viable" and the definition that you gave it contradicts what your saying. A baby still needs it's mother (biological or otherwise) in order for it to survive. It can not survive of it's own resources. The mother provides food and shelter before and after birth. These things are necessary for the survival of that child until it matures to such an age where it can provide food and shelter on it's own.

There are people on full life support systems, yet they are still human. So if a human is no longer viable, are they no longer human? There are some flaws in that line of thinking.

Tell that to Swift - who won't abort a foetus without a brain, heart or lungs, but will cremate a dead person. That's the same comparison, only taken to extremes.

Viable means "Can live". That's ALL it means. Before a foetus develops a heart, lungs and brain it is not viable, because it cannot live. After it does it IS viable because it will be born live (unless the stress of delivery results in a stillbirth - delivery of an already-dead baby).

It doesn't mean "can live and doesn't need any external assistance". It means that it can breath by itself and its heart beats by itself.

 

[Swift]

Viable means "Can live". That's ALL it means. Before a foetus develops a heart, lungs and brain it is not viable, because it cannot live. After it does it IS viable because it will be born live (unless the stress of delivery results in a stillbirth - delivery of an already-dead baby).

It doesn't mean "can live and doesn't need any external assistance". It means that it can breath by itself and its heart beats by itself.

Then you would say that abortion is wrong after a certain point?

 

[Pako]

Tell that to Swift - who won't abort a foetus without a brain, heart or lungs, but will cremate a dead person. That's the same comparison, only taken to extremes.

Viable means "Can live". That's ALL it means. Before a foetus develops a heart, lungs and brain it is not viable, because it cannot live. After it does it IS viable because it will be born live (unless the stress of delivery results in a stillbirth - delivery of an already-dead baby).

It doesn't mean "can live and doesn't need any external assistance". It means that it can breath by itself and its heart beats by itself.

The fetus, or unborn child doesn't breath until after it's born, but it could breath once the birh event happens, although the heart is beating on it's own. Although not fully developed, by day 21 the heart begins to beat on it's own.


Information taken from here.

 

[Danoff]

That is just about the sickest statement I have ever read.

I suppose then that you haven't read much. I basically said I like the laws the way they are - unless partial birth abortion is already illegal (is it?) in which case I'm against that part.

 

[Swift]

I suppose then that you haven't read much. I basically said I like the laws the way they are - unless partial birth abortion is already illegal (is it?) in which case I'm against that part.

I just want to make one thing clear. I'm not worried about what the law says, I'm interested in your personal opinion.

I just can't understand how you could condone aborting a 7 month old fetus.

 

[Famine]

The fetus, or unborn child doesn't breath until after it's born, but it could breath once the birh event happens, although the heart is beating on it's own. Although not fully developed, by day 21 the heart begins to beat on it's own.


Information taken from here.

Umm... And?

Heart muscle cells beat without any electrical input whatsoever. What makes a foetus viable is not whether the heart beats by itself, but whether it beats under the influence of the brain in a coordinated fashion, which at 21 days it most certainly does not.


Swift - yes. I wouldn't accept abortion past the point at which the foetus has a developed brain and nervous system. If it can feel the needle and react to its insertion it's not okay in my book.

But at the same time it depends on the woman. If the delivery or gestation of the foetus would cause significant physical injury to the mother, that's an acceptable exception. If - and it's possible - the woman was unaware of her pregnancy and would have aborted had she known, that's an acceptable exception. There's a big list of them - although don't start listing hypotheticals and asking if I'd be okay with them or not.

danoff's opinion is also just fine by me. I wouldn't be able to do the abortion myself, nor would I wish it on my other half - but if it's what she wanted, it's what she should have. Though it'd be done outside the UK, where 24 weeks is the legal limit.

 

[Swift]

Swift - yes. I wouldn't accept abortion past the point at which the foetus has a developed brain and nervous system. If it can feel the needle and react to its insertion it's not okay in my book.

But at the same time it depends on the woman. If the delivery or gestation of the foetus would cause significant physical injury to the mother, that's an acceptable exception. If - and it's possible - the woman was unaware of her pregnancy and would have aborted had she known, that's an acceptable exception. There's a big list of them - although don't start listing hypotheticals and asking if I'd be okay with them or not.

danoff's opinion is also just fine by me. I wouldn't be able to do the abortion myself, nor would I wish it on my other half - but if it's what she wanted, it's what she should have. Though it'd be done outside the UK, where 24 weeks is the legal limit.

Wow, so you thinks it's not cool but at the same time say, "why not?" That's interesting.

 

[Famine]

I wouldn't be able - even with my legendary emotional detachment and unflappability - to terminate and suck out what is, essentially, a small baby. Doesn't mean I should force a live delivery on someone who doesn't want one.

 

[Danoff]

I wouldn't be able - even with my legendary emotional detachment and unflappability - to terminate and suck out what is, essentially, a small baby. Doesn't mean I should force a live delivery on someone who doesn't want one.

I wouldn't want to perform any abortion, let alone a partial birth abortion. But until the fetus is detached from the mother, they share a body and her's is the established control over that body - also it makes good practical legal sense.

My opinion about abortion is that it doesn't really matter. To me, the big thing about death is the loss of conciousness - a conciousness which doesn't really develop in humans until well after birth. It's the loss of a thinking, aware mind. So while I wouldn't be happy to do it, abortion doesn't bother me. I wouldn't want to kill lots of things that were actually born (like dogs, or monkeys), but their death doesn't really bother me from an ethical standpoint.

Legally, of course it makes sense that every single (the word single is important) human being deserves to be protected by law from abuse and murder. So the question comes down to when human beings develop into an individual that has rights. It makes the most logical and practical sense to define that at birth.

 

[Swift]

I wouldn't want to perform any abortion, let alone a partial birth abortion. But until the fetus is detached from the mother, they share a body and her's is the established control over that body - also it makes good practical legal sense.

My opinion about abortion is that it doesn't really matter. To me, the big thing about death is the loss of conciousness - a conciousness which doesn't really develop in humans until well after birth. It's the loss of a thinking, aware mind. So while I wouldn't be happy to do it, abortion doesn't bother me. I wouldn't want to kill lots of things that were actually born (like dogs, or monkeys), but their death doesn't really bother me from an ethical standpoint.

Legally, of course it makes sense that every single (the word single is important) human being deserves to be protected by law from abuse and murder. So the question comes down to when human beings develop into an individual that has rights. It makes the most logical and practical sense to define that at birth.

Well, you just said that you have problems with killing a conscienceness but that babies don't develop one until well after birth. So why is it wrong, from your point of view, to kill a newborn?

 

[Danoff]

Well, you just said that you have problems with killing a conscienceness but that babies don't develop one until well after birth. So why is it wrong, from your point of view, to kill a newborn?

Because it is an individual human being with rights and privilages thereof. Same reason that it's wrong to kill a severely metally retarded person. That's from a legal point of view.

Also, from an ethical point of view it's wrong to kill a newborn because nobody has any claim to be able to any longer. The newborn is not part of someone else's body. Prior to birth, the only person that has any claim over a fetus is the person who's body it is attached to - because we all own our bodies and the things growing on them. After the birth - who has an right to touch this legally recognized human being?

After the birth, it is a successfully born human being in the early stages of life. Prior to birth it was part of someone else.

 

[Pako]

Umm... And?

Heart muscle cells beat without any electrical input whatsoever. What makes a foetus viable is not whether the heart beats by itself, but whether it beats under the influence of the brain in a coordinated fashion, which at 21 days it most certainly does not.


Swift - yes. I wouldn't accept abortion past the point at which the foetus has a developed brain and nervous system. If it can feel the needle and react to its insertion it's not okay in my book.

But at the same time it depends on the woman. If the delivery or gestation of the foetus would cause significant physical injury to the mother, that's an acceptable exception. If - and it's possible - the woman was unaware of her pregnancy and would have aborted had she known, that's an acceptable exception. There's a big list of them - although don't start listing hypotheticals and asking if I'd be okay with them or not.

danoff's opinion is also just fine by me. I wouldn't be able to do the abortion myself, nor would I wish it on my other half - but if it's what she wanted, it's what she should have. Though it'd be done outside the UK, where 24 weeks is the legal limit.

To summarize, as long as the fetus (unborn child) can't feel pain, then abortion is ok to you. After the unborn child can feel pain, abortion is wrong unless there are circumstances that would inevitably kill the mother. Is that what you’re saying? I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some detail that I'm missing before I respond. First you say it needs to beat it's heart on it's own, I show that it can do that at 3 weeks, and now you say it needs to be able to do that with brain stimulus. You claim that fetus' aren't unborn children because they are not viable, yet I can show you people that aren't viable by your definition, but you ignore that scenario. I have shown you that because a fetus is an unborn child, it has a ethical right to live regardless of what the present law states. You say that children should have a right to drive because they can, I say they don't because they aren't mature enough, and even when they are mature enough to drive, they can't drive legally until the law says they can by earning their right to drive. Regardless of tax law, an unborn baby is alive and well under the protection of it's mother. This same protection and nurturing continues well after birth, even when the child is no longer attached to it’s mother. I have shown that we can tell what sex the baby is at only 5 weeks, you tell me that we can tell what sex the fetus will become if a particular sperm fertilizes an egg. What might become and what is are two different things, although this is the same point you are trying to make to me, it is the same point that I am trying to make to you. The inherent difference is that you don’t except the fact that a fetus is an unborn baby. This is your stumbling block on this issue. I have an email off to an embryologist to see what her definition of a fetus is. Maybe when that comes back as an "unborn child" you will be able to accept that fact and move on. I'll let you know how she responds.

 

[ledhed]

danoff's opinion is also just fine by me. I wouldn't be able to do the abortion myself, nor would I wish it on my other half - but if it's what she wanted, it's what she should have. Though it'd be done outside the UK, where 24 weeks is the legal limit

Shouldnt 24 weeks be long enough to make a decision ? If at a later date complications arise and the mothers life is threated then so be it , Abortion should be an option .

 

[Famine]

Line breaks! Must have line breaks!

That was tough to read, Pako. Tell you what though - don't bother with the e-mail. Just pick up a copy of Embryology at your local library. That's written by professionals for professionals, not by professionals for laymen.

As usual, the summary by someone who doesn't understand the issue is inaccurate. I've not "first" then "now" anything, or said children should drive cars.


For clarification on the heart issue. Someone in a state of fibrillation has their heart beating on its own. They will die unless treated. The treatment is an electrical shock to stop the heart and allow it to reset and receive stimulus from the brain via the vagus nerve. Heart cells will contract and relax on their own at their own rate in a petri dish. This does not make for a good situation as far as staying alive is concerned.

For clarification on the gender issue. You determined that, since we can perform genetic tests on 5-week blastulars and find out the gender, they shouldn't be aborted. I pointed out that we can determine the "gender" of sperm - directly contrary to your claim "you can't do that with a egg or sperm" (sic) - yet you don't find sperm-termination distasteful.

For clarification on the car issue. You stated that since a foetus WILL become a child (which it might not) it should have all of the rights of a child. I pointed out that if one were to follow this logic to its conclusion, since a child WILL become an adult (which it might not) it should have all of the rights of an adult - of which I chose driving as an example, though I could easily have chosen the right to marry, have sex, smoke, have a beer, join the army or vote.

For clarification on the viability issue. I did not "ignore" anything. I directly responded to it. Did you not notice? A viable organism is one which has its own brain-regulated heartbeat and can breathe on its own. A foetus which does not have a brain cannot be a viable organism. A person on full life support WAS a viable organism, though is no longer, and retains those rights as such since they are not yet medically dead. However, we are allowed, by law, to turn off the life support if they are medically unlikely to recover their own independance. How this helps your argument escapes me, since it seems perfectly consistant that you can abort a non-viable foetus AND allow a non-viable human to die - but consistancy hasn't been a strong point thus far in your logic.


And no, not "inevitably kill". I said no such thing. I DID give two examples of acceptable exceptions, and a third with which I would be uncomfortable but would understand.

 

[Pako]

Line breaks! Must have line breaks!

That was tough to read, Pako. Tell you what though - don't bother with the e-mail. Just pick up a copy of Embryology at your local library. That's written by professionals for professionals, not by professionals for laymen.

As usual, the summary by someone who doesn't understand the issue is inaccurate. I've not "first" then "now" anything, or said children should drive cars.


For clarification on the heart issue. Someone in a state of fibrillation has their heart beating on its own. They will die unless treated. The treatment is an electrical shock to stop the heart and allow it to reset and receive stimulus from the brain via the vagus nerve. Heart cells will contract and relax on their own at their own rate in a petri dish. This does not make for a good situation as far as staying alive is concerned.

For clarification on the gender issue. You determined that, since we can perform genetic tests on 5-week blastulars and find out the gender, they shouldn't be aborted. I pointed out that we can determine the "gender" of sperm - directly contrary to your claim "you can't do that with a egg or sperm" (sic) - yet you don't find sperm-termination distasteful.

For clarification on the car issue. You stated that since a foetus WILL become a child (which it might not) it should have all of the rights of a child. I pointed out that if one were to follow this logic to its conclusion, since a child WILL become an adult (which it might not) it should have all of the rights of an adult - of which I chose driving as an example, though I could easily have chosen the right to marry, have sex, smoke, have a beer, join the army or vote.

For clarification on the viability issue. I did not "ignore" anything. I directly responded to it. Did you not notice? A viable organism is one which has its own brain-regulated heartbeat and can breathe on its own. A foetus which does not have a brain cannot be a viable organism. A person on full life support WAS a viable organism, though is no longer, and retains those rights as such since they are not yet medically dead. However, we are allowed, by law, to turn off the life support if they are medically unlikely to recover their own independance. How this helps your argument escapes me, since it seems perfectly consistant that you can abort a non-viable foetus AND allow a non-viable human to die - but consistancy hasn't been a strong point thus far in your logic.


And no, not "inevitably kill". I said no such thing. I DID give two examples of acceptable exceptions, and a third with which I would be uncomfortable but would understand.

Trust me, it was hard to type. There are so many spins and tangents, it was rather difficult to summarize. I'll look up that book, although being written for professionals, I might not be able to understand it so you can help me with the big words.

 

[Danoff]

Shouldnt 24 weeks be long enough to make a decision ? If at a later date complications arise and the mothers life is threated then so be it , Abortion should be an option .

What is "long enough" in your mind for someone else to make a decision is beside the point. Abortion law should not be made out of convenience, it should be made on principle.

The inherent difference is that you don’t except the fact that a fetus is an unborn baby.

Are you seriously still on this Pako? You still argue that all abortions should be illegal because a fertilized egg may eventually grow into something that has a conciousness? What difference does it make what it might become? The only issue is what it is in the present.