Since nobody is advocating 'baby killing', your article is misguided from the start and your irrational prejudices are clearly on display. As Stezza points out, you cannot murder something which is not a person, and you cannot kill something which is not alive; so before you make emotive arguments about 'killing babies' you need to establish criteria for life, and criteria for determining what is or is not 'a baby'. And the rational place to go for that is to the biological sciences.

It would be interesting, then, to see just how many biologists share in your hysteria. I suspect the proportion would be very low.

@ Jon J
You have it right. I am 'hysterical' AND 'emotive' when it comes to what-ever term you want to give to killing an unwanted baby.

You certainly nailed it on the head - I am unscientific in my assumptions on when life begins - my beleifs are based on terribly un-provable things!

To the contrary, however, the article does clearly discuss 'baby-killing' in the most eloquent language. I assume that a baby is something that is born. And to cease it from living is killing. And the good academics quite clearly justify this on many different grounds.

As I said in my post, letting nature take its path is one thing. Taking pro-active steps to cease anothers life is another.

So excuse me (and Mr Muehlenberg) for being hysterical and unscientific on this topic.

estelles,

Standing ovation!

'This is a myth derived from the religious invention of a soul.'

Seems to be a lot of the problem. I think an easy line to draw (Since this seems to be the bone of contention) would be before the baby is born. Pure and simple. It's a parasite, and then when the cord is cut, it is a person. A potential baby is just that. Miscarriage happens even in late term, nature would have taken the heavily disabled anyway and man is interfering with 'gods will' anyway for the religious when they keep what would previously have been an unviable human alive. So I don't see any difference between a sperm being interrupted on it's journey, or an egg being interfered with by chemicals, or an embryo or a foetus being aborted.

With 7 Billion people or 'souls', we wont miss the odd unwanted one. How do you know they would've even been good people. What about The Omen!

*EVERY life is precious*

Let's get real here, Pete. That is great pontification etc, easy
to role out. But I've learned to judge people by what they do and
not by what they say.

Fact is the Pete's of this world are not selling their computers to
save another starving baby in Africa. So I can only assume that
the personal computer is more precious to some, then that baby
which they pontificate about.

Fact is that a person has a human brain, no human brain equals no
person, no matter which way you want to twist things. So you'd be
at about week 23 to make any claims, not holy zygotes.

The holy zygote is purely a religious conception. Fact is that women
have around 300 chances to have another baby, one cuter then the next,
but they can't keep them all. If people had children that were wanted
and loved, there would be alot less suffering and misery in this world.

@ Houellebecq

"I think an easy line to draw (Since this seems to be the bone of contention) would be before the baby is born. Pure and simple. It's a parasite, and then when the cord is cut, it is a person"

-and-

"With 7 Billion people or 'souls', we wont miss the odd unwanted one."

My son died when he was one day old. We chose to turn off his life support, because he just did not have enough lung to keep him going. We could have 'interuppted the pregnancy' nice and early and not had to go through the rollercoaster of weekly ultrasounds, painful operations for him (and my wife) in - utero and living with the idea that he may not make it. We had him for one day, and it was all worth it. He was a person WAY before he was born.

Am I coloured by my experience? Of course.

Is a plant just a 'parasite' just because it has not flowered or has not grown fruit? Is a chicken not a chicken until it has hatched? Is an un-born baby just a 'parasite' just because it has not been born?

With 7 billion people or 'souls', you DO miss the odd one, especially if that odd one was your child.

Pete in Brisbane,

'especially if that odd one was your child.'

Indeed. Sad story but ridiculous example. We're talking about children that are unwanted. People don't abort their children when they're wanted.

A parasite is something that lives off a host. It's an accurate definition and not derogatory at all. The point is it's impossible for it to survive without the host. Birth is the start, not the 12323234234th cell.

'We had him for one day, and it was all worth it.'

You can never know whether it was worth it to him though. In hindsight of course.

'We chose to turn off his life support', I don't think would be acceptable to the religious lot.

There's a bit of inconsistency there because man is 'playing god' with abortions but somehow not playing god when keeping unviable humans alive with technology.

Hey Yabby I wonder how many un-aborted unwanted children turned into homocidal axe weilding maniacs and killed wanted children. I know a guy in his 40s who still struggles with the fact he was adopted out. I keep an eye on him but I don't think he has an axe.

I still think the only sensible way to draw a line is the birth. Even healthy fetus' don't survive birth sometimes. So really you only have a potential human until a successful birth. It's better than drawing a line on some rubbery development milestone based on a fuzzy ultrasound .

The only consistent line I can get with is no medical intervention ever, no wasted sperm ever and no contraception at all and no euthenasia, and the bit about rape I put in earlier just for fun. Not that I agree with it but at least that would be consistent. There should be no barriers to more 'souls', even consent. Denying natural urges to procreate with total strangers is the first point when a potential human is aborted.