h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I am sorry Colonel Sellers, that last post should have been addressed to Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron, and I am not saying that you can't use those terms. I just will not. And yes, I think political movements have the right to call themselves whatever they want also. I assumed that you were repling to my responce to Pattern-chaser in post 54 or one like it. Perhaps this was too hasty or haughty on my part.

This post has been removed.

What was my assumption at the start of post #40? If I said that a man can get pregnant, well... I was obviously having a mental lapse of the greatest degree at that time (or I am just an idiot). I cannot find where I did though.

nosretep wrote "...but when people bring up issues about overpopulation in reference to abortion I have to wonder."

I brought up the issue in response to the unspoken implication that a human life is not just sacred, but somehow *more* sacred than any other life. Thus it's fine to kill a cow and eat it, but killing a human is a *qualitatively* different act. No! IMO, killing a human differs only *quantitatively* from killing a cow. *All* life is sacred. And humans are the destroyers of all life, which *has* to devalue the life of any individual human, doesn't it?

Yes, this is on the fringe of this discussion about the killing of newly-conceived humans, but it isn't completely irrelevant. The *value* of the life being taken is a significant part of the discussion.

Pattern-chaser

The problem is that it appears, at least on the surface, that killing an unborn foetus is less of an act of killing than, say, beheading Bill Gates, or Kofi Anan, or the Pope.

Humans don't necessarily have any intrinsic value that makes us better than other animals and more important - only because we have the capability for conscious thought and it appears to us that no other life on this planet does. Whether that's true or not I don't know, but I do not believe that humans were placed above all creatures by God, because I don't believe in God the Creator. Therefore I have no real problem with abortion (or euthanasia) - but I do have a problem with needless abortion.

If we're going to bring in the law and the legal definition of murder to this debate, fine. But let's really look at it. I'm sure someone else can tell us more about previous abortion laws in the UK. But I can speak about the US, and about general worldwide trends.

While abortion has been illegal in the United States, it has never to my knowledge been defined as "murder." The definition of the crime varied from state to state, but "illegal abortion" or something similar was pretty common. No woman has ever received the death penalty or a lifelong prison sentence in this country for having an abortion. Nor has it ever been defined as "serial murder" or "mass murder" if a woman had more than one abortion in her lifetime.

If you want to find a country where abortion is defined as murder, you must look toward countries with very poor records on women's rights. For instance, some countries in the Middle East and central Africa do (or have in the past) defined abortion as murder. Such a crime is indeed subject to the death penalty or a lifetime prison sentence in those countries. In such cultures, the life of the unborn baby (especially if male) is indeed valued over and above the woman's life.

In the US, most women prosecuted for having an abortion were fined or committed to jail for relatively short sentences (5 years or less). Probation might have been more common at the time, except that it wasn't as popular in the pre-legalization era as it is now. In general, you will find that lower income women were sentenced for abortions disproportionately. Women in higher income familes could affort to keep their little secret away from the local police.

I was under the impression that pro-choice was universally undeerstaood as refering to people who are for allowing women to choose abortion, and that pro-life were those who oppose legalized abortion.

Some people have tried to expand the definition of pro-life to anti-euthinasia etc, but the core of their belief is that abortion should be outlawed.

I didn't even know that there was a debate about that. I always assumed that those who tried to label people as pro-death and anti-choice were just trying to insult people.

As far as legal defintions of murder go, I don't think I'm not refering to a legal definition, but to what the word murder actually means. I probably cloesly quoted part of our murder statute, but it's still the plain old definition of the word murder.

Does anyone have a copy of an old criminal abortion statute? I'd be interested to see it.

This post has been removed.

"Without God or diety, life cannot be sacred." - Wrong. Definition 5 covers it. You can venerate life without any need to invoke silly superstitions. In fact, considering the track record religion has regarding the veneration of life, I think it's in our own best interest to do away with it, before it drives us to extinction. Once you reject the folly of an afterlife, you embrace this life, and you attain a new level of respect for your own life, and the lives of others. It is that respect for the lives of others that teaches me the consideration for my fellow human beings that is the root of my pro-choice stance. I don't want people telling me what to do with my body, and I'll be damned if I'm going to tell them what to do with theirs.

Before you go on with this thread of conversation any further, I suggest you read my article on Atheism, especially the part that deals with its ethical side. By and large, I've found my atheist friends to be more reliable in making ethical decisions than religious types, and I've found the fundamentalist religious types to be the most UNreliable.

http://www.h2g2.com/a142804

>>"Without God or diety, life cannot be sacred." - Wrong. Definition 5 covers it. You can venerate life without any need to invoke silly superstitions.<<

Definition 5 is for sacred is. Worthy of respect; venerable.

venerable is

1. Commanding respect by virtue of age, dignity, character, or position. See Synonyms at elderly.
2. Worthy of reverence, especially by religious or historical association: venerable relics.
3. Venerable. Abbr. Ven., V.
a. Roman Catholic Church. Used as a form of address for a person who has reached the first stage of canonization.
b. Used as a form of address for an archdeacon in the Anglican Church or the Episcopal Church.

Definitions 2 and 3 rely on religion. Definition 1 refers to virtue. Are you saying that a cow is virtuous? Realize that I said

>>You do not have to believe in a God to uphold the value of all life<<

This is true. My concern is that I believe that the word sacred was use incorrectly in saying

>>*All* life is sacred.<<

As far as ethics and religion, you can have your opinion. I am not trying to impose my religion upon you or anyone else here. I have not used religion until now, and I am only bringing it in play now because I feel that we need to avoid decieving rhetoric.

This post has been removed.

This argument is headed down the path to pedantry. Venerable is yet another word that has been hijacked by the religious, but, once again, it is not all religious. Especially your definition 2: Worthy of reverence, especially by religious or historical association. This is not ENTIRELY religious... it allows for veneration of historical, secular figures like Jonas Salk. It also says it can be religious or historical, but not necessarily so, which is why that "especially" is thrown in. But then, life is sacred based in some way on history, some way in most religions, but not entirely through either.

I called you on the religion issue early on because it was quite clear to me that that was the source of your arguments. Only in religion do people see ethical dilemmas in entirely black and white, right and wrong, true and false ways. Luckily, religion is NOT the basis of our current legal system, or we'd all be in prison for something or other. Unless we were clergy, of course... then we could do as we damned well pleased.

So, I can't argue this subject matter without bringing the source of your ethics to the fore. But even you have admitted that ethics are situational, in the arguments on killing. You say that all life is sacred, and then you tell me that there are times when killing is right. You've already admitted that you accept killing for food. Now consider the following dilemmas:

1) You're in a bank in a burglary gone horribly wrong, which has quickly turned into a hostage situation. They have threatened to kill one hostage every hour until their demands are met, and the first hour has expired. For effect, the burglar chooses a young boy as his first vitim, and is dragging him towards the door. The burglar's body is interposed between you and that of the child as he approaches the door, and his back is turned to you. The dead security guard's gun is nearby. What do you do?

2) You're personally against the war, but you got drafted, trained, equipped, and sent off to the front. In your first action, you see a man who speaks another language charging at your position, firing shots that you can hear passing over your head by mere inches. What will you do?

3) With knowledge of foresight, you find yourself in Nazi Germany during the Berlin Olympics. You find yourself the center of attention of a cell of revolutionaries that are anxious to topple the government. They have the weapons and the flawless plan to assassinate Hitler as he watches the games and escape cleanly, but only you can get to the position, as only you have the necessary secuirty clearance. They need you to be the triggerman. Will you do it?

And now, let us turn this to abortion:

1) You and your lovely wife are about to have your first child. However, in the 5th month, she begins to have serious complications, and you rush her to the hospital. While there, the doctors tell you that the child and mother are in serious danger, and that unless they abort the child immediately, your wife and child both will die. What do you do?

2) Your wife is pregnant again, and this time, it is twins. Unfortunately, one of the babies has wrapped the umbilical cord around its neck, and is likely to die. It is too soon for a Cesarean birth to save both, and if the one dies in the womb, it will likely kill the other. The only solution is to abort the one child. Will you do it, or risk killing both?

2) Your mother is raped by a gang of thugs, and she conceives. Your mother cannot bear the pregnancy, since it reminds her every day of the horror of that moment. Driven to the brink of insanity, she swears that if she cannot be rid of the life within her, she will take her own. Will you support her desire for an abortion?

To the incarnation of the only pro-lifer here which currently calls itself Anthony:

I don't think your pro-lifers are much help. Out of 48 members who designated themselves as pro-life, only 8 of them chose your complete abolition stance. The other 40 granted exceptions for the health of the mother, rape, incest, and deformed children. That sounds like rather reasonable to me.

As for your questioning my validity, I believe it was you who said "All life is precious" and followed it with "What's wrong with meat?" I shall be more careful of writing declarative sentences in the future, but it is hypocrisy for you to bring in a statement in a completely different context into this discussion and throwing it in my face after committing the same sin in this very forum. As for the "own body" thing, check the dilemmas above... or would you prefer to sentence those people to death?

At conception a fetus is nothing more than replicating cells, and resembles nothing human. And if people consciously choose when the time is right to have a child, shouldn't they be able to consciously choose to when not to have one when their safeguards fail? The pill is not 100% successful. Condoms are not 100% successful. But when they are implementing these things, they are choosing to wait until they have a child. When they fail, through no fault of their own, why should they be forced to raise the child they were trying so hard to prevent? What effect will that have on their lives? What effect will that have on the child's life? Would the child thank you for bringing it into a horrible situation and giving it a terrible life? I've known people who wouldn't have.

Two Bit Trigger asked to see an abortion statute. I found the 1854 Texas anti-abortion act that was contested in the landmark Supreme Court case, Roe vs Wade. It is quoted below. Anyone not interested in reading the legal stuff can feel free to skip the rest of this post.

Most similar state laws were enacted between 1850 and 1900, and contained similar language. You will notice the Texas statute allows abortions through the 20th week of pregnancy. Many other state statutes were less lenient on this factor. But besides that, you're looking at a pretty classic anti-abortion statute.

Some of these laws were repealed by the state legislatures due to political pressures, while others were declared untenable or unconstitutional by the courts. The laws were appealed in various states starting in the 1950s and continuing through the early 1970s. The landmark Roe v Wade decision took place in early 1973.


*****************************************

"UNIFORM ABORTION ACT

"SECTION 1. [Abortion Defined; When Authorized.]

"(a) 'Abortion' means the termination of human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.

"(b) An abortion may be performed in this state only if it is performed:

"(1) by a physician licensed to practice medicine [or osteopathy] in this state or by a physician practicing medicine [or
osteopathy] in the employ of the government of the United States or of this state, [and the abortion is performed [in the
physician's office or in a medical clinic, or] in a hospital approved by the [Department of Health] or operated by the United States, this state, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of either;] or by a female upon herself upon the advice of the physician; and

"(2) within [20] weeks after the commencement of the pregnancy [or after [20] weeks only if the physician has reasonable cause to believe (i) there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother, (ii) that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or (iii) that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or illicit intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years].

"SECTION 2. [Penalty.] Any person who performs or procures an abortion other than authorized by this Act is guilty of a
[felony] and, upon conviction thereof, may be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding [$ 1,000] or to imprisonment [in the state penitentiary] not exceeding [5 years], or both.

"SECTION 3. [Uniformity of Interpretation.] This Act shall be construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among those states which enact it.

"SECTION 4. [Short Title.] This Act may be cited as the Uniform Abortion Act.

"SECTION 5. [Severability.] If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable."

Footnote: Sometime after Roe v Wade, a SECTION 6 was added that basically nullified the entire law.

Colonel Sellers:

I apologize that I have I gotten caught up in definitions, I considered it important at first and then had to refute. My point about venerable was that it does not apply to cows.

>>You say that all life is sacred, and then you tell me that there are times when killing is right.<<

I assume that you are addressing me. Where did I say that all life is sacred? I did say that all life is precious. Sacred and precious are different.

As to the situations:

1) I would not object to someone defending the life of the child and taking the life of the burgler.

2) I would defend my life cirtainately. If that means killing him, I would do so not out of malice.

3) I would not kill Hitler in cold blood. You may think that this is heartless, but my intention could not be one of taking a human life.

-------------------------------------

1) There is no choice but an abortion. I would save my wife's life.

2) Often we can perform surgery to correct problems such as this. I the baby will die, not likely to die, again I have no choice. I would abort the one child.

3) No. I will support her though.

If I have a choice, I will always choose life. I will not choose abortion. Your examples represent situations where there is no choice. These can therefore not support a pro-abortion stance.

sorry, i've been gone for a few days, please allow me to catch up.

reading through the thread since my last post, the one thing i felt compelled to respond to was nosretep's questions posed in post 63.

1 - when do you believe abortion is right
A - when it is the right choice for the pregnant person.

2 - when would you consider personally having an abortion
A - when childbirth would end my life, making me unable to care for the child and the family i currently have
when i am unable to care for a child, financially, emotionally, environmentally, or medically.
when having a child can damage the health or well-being of someone else close to me.

3 - when would you support someone else's choice to have an abortion
A - when someone else comes to the rational and informed decision that abortion is right for them.

4 - when would you support someone else who had an abortion
A - when she needed me to. otherwise it is not my concern.

Thanks for posting the law.

>>Out of 48 members who designated themselves as pro-life, only 8 of them chose your complete abolition stance. The other 40 granted exceptions for the health of the mother, rape, incest, and deformed children.<<

Could you show me where you got this statistic? Is it from this site? If so where?


>>As for your questioning my validity, I believe it was you who said "All life is precious" and followed it with "What's wrong with meat?" I shall be more careful of writing declarative sentences in the future, but it is hypocrisy for you to bring in a statement in a completely different context into this discussion and throwing it in my face after committing the same sin in this very forum. As for the "own body" thing, check the dilemmas above... or would you prefer to sentence those people to death?<<

I may have said "All life is precious" but I never said, "What's wrong with meat?" If I have, could you please refer me to the post where I made that statement? Even if I have made these statements I do not think they conflict one another. I would be refering to all HUMAN life, not every living thing on this planet.

I think I was using your quotes in the correct context. If you can prove otherwise, I shall apologize. In your article on Atheism I understood your statement, "All life is precious" to mean that Atheist valued their own lives and the lives of others. "I don't want people telling me what to do with my body, and I'll be damned if I'm going to tell them what to do with theirs"(post 89) would stay consistent with the remark you made in your article. I was stating that this theology is not consistent if you hold a pro-abortion position.

The first three questions in post 92 all involve killing people who represent a danger to other people (a burglar willing to kill a child, a soldier, Hitler). These hardly represent an innocent person in the womb during a normal pregnancy.

The questions involving abortion:
1.The ethical question is complicated, but the answer was already given centuries ago. In the past there were also women who died during a pregnancy or, overall, after having bore a child. The answer is both the mother and the child have the same right to live. Neither of the two can be sacrificed. Physicians must do anything possible in order to save the two lives. If this is not possible and only one life, mother or child, can be saved, doctors must always save that life. Moreover, any direct attack against the child's life cannot be allowed because "a good end (saving the mother's life) cannot justify a bad means (by killing the innocent child).'' Consequently, two different situations are possible.

1) The mother's life. The first situation is if the woman is dying from a serious illness and the only hope to save both her and, theoretically, the child is to cure her body with proper medicine or surgery. The child may not survive the treatment.

A similar situation is when a uterus with a fast spreading cancer, or a fallopian tube, which an ectopic pregnancy is rupturing, are removed to save the life of the mother. In this case, the woman is dying, and if she dies, the child will also die, therefore it is necessary to use medical surgery. Unfortunately, the medical treatments today are not so developed as to be able to save the life of the unlucky embryo by, for example, putting him or her in a not yet invented embryonic incubator. Undoubtedly, there is the sad side effect of the child's death. These cases are very complicated from a practical point of view because of the difficulty in estimating the real jeopardy for the mother's life. Of course, physicians must do what they can to find a solution and to save the child too. The child's death is due to the medicine's limits. We hope, in the future, medical science will solve these difficult situations. In any case, because the child's death is only an unwanted side effect of a right attempt to save the life of both, his or her death cannot be considered a "procured abortion." This is not a type of "restricted abortion."

In the sad case in which the mother's illness is so devastating that she has no hope to survive, but the child can, physicians must try to save the child.

2) The mother's health. The second situation is when the health of the mother is in danger from an illness and, to cure herself, she needs some surgery or to use some medicine that can kill her child. However, she is not dying and can bear her child.

In this sad situation, the mother does not have the right to choose a cure that can kill her child because she is responsible for the life of her child. The mother's right to health is less important than the child's right to life. Therefore, she has to risk her health for the child's life and postpone, until after birth, any cure that can be too dangerous for the child. In this case, after the baby's birth, the woman may rarely die by further complications. We hope that medicine, able always to cure mother's health without harming her child, will be available one day.

The pro-choice assumption that a woman has the right to abort and kill the child for health reasons is ethically unfounded. The responsibility of pregnancy, which pro-choice supporters do not consider at all in their arguments, obliges the woman to risk her health for the child's life. If someone, or something can harm a person, this person cannot use a defense that kills someone else who is innocent and of whom that person is responsible. The right of self-defense is not without limits; the right to life of the innocent is higher. I cannot use the body of an innocent person as a shield to protect me from a killer. There are many examples in which persons must risk their health for the life of others. A policeman must protect innocent citizens even if he may be harmed or killed by a criminal. In the same way the mother is responsible for her child. She cannot claim a pregnancy without any risk for herself. If she does not want any risk, she should choose sexual abstinence. The free acceptance of this duty has always been considered the biggest expression of maternal love.

2 refer to answer one.

3. Current law dictates that I have no say (U.S. Supreme Court, Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 1976). I cannot support my mother's decision but I can support my mother.

Third paragrapraph will be answered in next post.

Note: My responce to the first point is considerably long. If you get tired of it, scroll down to the dashed line.

>>At conception a fetus is nothing more than replicating cells, and resembles nothing human<<

You argue that abortion is not the killing of a child because embryos and fetuses are "nothing more than replicating cells" without any form and life. It is possible to speak of human life only when an embryo or fetus is completely formed as a human being.
It is important to confront this interesting topic because here there is a lot of confusion. First, it is important to explain the origin of this way of thinking. It is based upon a ludicrous interpretation of the ancient Aristotelian philosophy and biology used until a few centuries ago that modern biological science has proven to be wrong or superficial in many aspects. No serious scientist has stated that embryos and fetuses are only "globs of tissues."
In that philosophy, a being becomes an animal (=a living being = a being with soul; "animal" from "anima"="soul") if it has the "form" of that animal, (the soul is defined as the form of the living body). If the form is not present or is destroyed in some way, there is not life in that body because that body does not have its animal form (=soul). For example, if I cut in two a living dog, it dies. The reason for that philosophy is that by cutting the dog in two, I destroy its animal form (=vital organization). Therefore, it loses its soul and, with it, the life.
For Aristotle there should be a strong correlation between the "form" and the "ontological reality" of a being. In the case of a human being, its "form" changes much during the first months from conception, and its ontological reality has to change. For this reason, in his work "On the Generation of Animals," Aristotle conjectured that the future child was endowed, at conception, with a principle of only vegetative or nutritive life (=not human life). This was exchanged after a few days for an animal or sensitive soul (=not human life yet) and was not succeeded by a rational soul (=real human life) until later. His followers said that this occurred on the fortieth day for a male and on the eightieth day for a female child.

By applying this philosophy, the embryo cannot be considered a living human being, rather a potential one, only because it does not "look" distinctly human. That is, with the same "form" of a "born" human being with legs, arms, eyes, ears, fingers, nose, the internal organs and so on. All these are not completely formed yet and the real human life would begin when all these parts are formed and work together. When, after two or three months from conception, an embryo reaches with a good approximation `'human form" with all parts and organs formed and working, there would be "human animation." The embryo would become a little living human being, a "fetus" (=little child, from Latin).

It is like the motor of a car, or a house. Until they are completely built, they cannot be considered a motor nor a house because they do not have their form yet. A building without a roof cannot be considered a house, but a potential one. In the same way, before "human animation," an embryo cannot be considered a "human being," only a potential one. "It is a glob of tissues," pro-choice advocates disparagingly misinterpret and conclude.

The curious distinction between male and female was due to the fact that, in the past, the only way to distinguish a man from a woman was by observing his or her genital organs. It was necessary to wait at least 40 days from conception to be able to see the male sexual organ and, if not, was necessary to wait 80 days to be sure the embryo was female. Only after that time (80 days are roughly three months) was it possible to say that there was "human animation" of the embryo because, previously, it did not have the "form" of a male nor a female yet; the only two possible "forms" for a human being.

For at least two or three centuries modern biological science has known that the Aristotelian biological conjecture is wrong. Aristotle conjectured that three different life principles -vegetative, animal, and rational- follow one another in an embryo because of its morphological development. This theory was too artificial and fictitious. No scientific experimental observation has proven it. Scientists have never discovered, for example, the moment of the so-called "human animation" of the embryo. The event of the acquisition of the "rational soul," which should begin the human life of a fetus, does not exist.

On April 23-24, 1981, a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee (S-158) held hearings on the question, "When does human life begin?" At that occasion, a large group of internationally known physicians, biologists, and other scientists agreed that human life begins at conception. The Official Senate report summarized, "there is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." Pro-choice supporters, instead, failed to produce even a single expert who confirmed their ridiculous thesis.

Among the scientists, Dr. Micheline Mathews-Roth of Harvard Medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from more than twenty embryology and other medical textbooks, that human life began at conception. Dr. Jerome Lejeune, who discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome, told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ¼ it is plain experimental evidence." He repeated the same before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990. Dr. Landrum Shettles, one of the fathers of "In Vitro Fertilization," noted: "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." Concerning the Supreme Court ruling in "Roe v. Wade," he said: "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."

Modern science proved that life is a continuum. A living being, as an animal or a human, has not a fixed form but one that changes continuously and in a particular way during the first three months from conception. However, there are not three different life principles -vegetative, animal, and rational- that follow one another, as Aristotle conjectured. The same unique life principle quickens the organism from the first moment of its individual existence until its death. It is at the very time of conception, or fecundation, that a human being begins to live a distinct individual life. For life does not begin at a particular stage of development after conception, such as when heart begins to beat (18 days) or when the first brain waves are recorded (42 days). The unique human vital principle builds up the organism of its own body from conception.

Embryos and fetuses have not the same exact form and faculties of a baby, but this does not mean that there is no human life in them. Biologists arbitrarily refer to the earliest stages of development of a child as the embryonic period and of the next stages as the fetal period. No scientific event transforms an embryo into a fetus. Embryos are living human beings during the first two or three months of their existence from conception, nothing else.

It is fascinating to meditate on the observations of Paul E. Rockwell. This physician witnessed something during a raptured tubal pregnancy that Aristotle was never able to see; an embryo in its vitality.

"Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured tubal pregnancy (at two months, in the figure) I was handed what I believed to be the smallest human being ever seen. The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny human male, swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. The tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent as regards to the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers. The baby was extremely alive and did not look at all like the photos and drawings of 'embryos' which I have seen. When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost its life and took on what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage, blunt extremities, etc."

Embryos and fetuses are growing because they are alive. Today, this is elementary. In the normal course of nature, the living unborn child -embryo or fetus- carries on its self-growth within the maternal womb. It derives its nourishment from the placenta through the umbilical cord. After nine months, it is delivered so that the child can live a separate life. Abortion is a fatal termination of this process. It may result from various causes which may be classed under two heads; accidental and intentional. In the case of an intentional, or procured abortion, there is the intentional killing of a living human being during his or her self-growth within the maternal womb.

Today, the Aristotelian theory that an embryo becomes male or female between 40 and 80 days from conception is meaningless. It is no longer necessary to visually "see" the genital organ to determine sex. Genetics states that the sex is written in the DNA from conception.

Modern science has proven that from conception there is a new living human being characterized by new DNA. At the beginning of his or her existence, a human is formed by only one cell, the zygote. In this special cell, there is a new human life. This new life is the reason of the growth, with a continual and gradual change of the form of that human being, a growth that ends only with his or her death. Pro-choice advocates have to think if their reasoning is connected with the modern science or with the old, surpassed and now eclipsed Aristotelian biological conjecture.

If pro-choice advocates do not accept the fact that a new living human being exists from conception, they have to answer the question of when the life of a new human being begins; at what moment there is "human animation." After having pointed it, they must scientifically justify their choice. Why specify just that "moment" instead of that occurring one second before or after it? For example, if pro-choice supporters say that human life begins after three months from conception (by which it would be possible to say that a procured abortion in the first three months is not a murder), they must prove that exactly at midnight of the end of the third month, an observable fact (the only one that has a scientific meaning) must occur and it must be so important that it transforms an "animal" life into a "human" life; the so called "human" or "rational animation" of the embryo.

In conclusion, pointing out the beginning of human life at any moment (one week, two weeks, one month, three months, five months 8 days 17 hours 21 minutes and 55 seconds, and so on) after conception is completely unscientific because it is not supported by any natural evidence. Consequently, it is ridiculous and arbitrary to implement a law deciding that before a certain moment -such as three, six, or nine months for example- an abortion can be done and, afterwards, it cannot.

Why, for example, three months, and not three months plus or minus one day?

In the light of modern science, the pro-choice advocates' "science" has to be considered only an ideological superstition. In any age and culture, a pregnant woman has always been a woman with a child, and not a woman with "replicating cells"

--------------------------------------------------------------------

>>And if people consciously choose when the time is right to have a child, shouldn't they be able to consciously choose to when not to have one when their safeguards fail? The pill is not 100% successful. Condoms are not 100% successful. But when they are implementing these things, they are choosing to wait until they have a child. When they fail, through no fault of their own, why should they be forced to raise the child they were trying so hard to prevent? What effect will that have on their lives? What effect will that have on the child's life? Would the child thank you for bringing it into a horrible situation and giving it a terrible life? I've known people who wouldn't have.<<

As you say, even with proper implementation of all birth control known to man, there is still a chance that sex will lead to conception. To have sex and not acknowledge this possibility is inherently asinine. You acknowledge this possibility, but at the same time you say that the possibility should in that case be nullified. The pregnancy comes as a result of sex, not contraception. You cannot blame the contraception for the pregnancy when you know that the contraception can fail. You must always be aware of the possible consequences of your actions and be able to accept them. This is where responsibility comes in to play. Your actions concieved the child and you now have a responsibility for that child's life.

Your last two questions really do not apply to this discussion because as you said in post 89 >>It is that respect for the lives of others that teaches me the consideration for my fellow human beings that is the root of my pro-choice stance.<< In this paragraph you say that it is the consideration of the mother that you say is important. What point then are the child's future thoughts if you do not acknowledge his/her well-being now?

Sorry, TBTPM, for bringing up one of the rather disgusting ways a woman can get pregnant without intercourse. They can, though, and do. I doubt that sperm could survive the acceleration they were put through in your bullet example, though.

-jb