Rudy,
just because I believe that if a woman has an abortion it should be done safely does not mean that I support freely available abortion.

I do not.

I have 4 children and I firmly believe that life begins at conception, and I and my family has been prepared to follow through with this.

I feel sorry for women who feel they have no other choice as there should be alternatives available. Even though there are times when an abortion is between a woman and her god or conscience and that of the dr.

searching, I don't support the hassling of people going into these clinics but I do think that given the opportunity there would be many people who would be prepared to take on children who would have been aborted.

My great sorrow is that there is no process to provide open adoption (perhaps there could be sponsorship for ante-natal and post-natal care of the birth mother) or even linking of vulnerable mothers with supportive honorary aunts.

Sadly abortion is easy and clinics make big dollars, fathers don't have to pay maintenance but the woman is left to deal with any negative impact.

I wonder how liberating abortion really is for women.

Dear Shadow Minister,
This is a clear cut case of someone breaking the law.
You appear to be in favor of lawlessness, which is why the world is in the mess it is in. If you obey the law you are not subject to the law but in a lawless society anarchy rules.
Richie 10

Someone wrote "life 'continues' at conception", in response to the scientific fact that at conception a human being is formed. While the ingredients for human life exist and are "living", sperm and egg, they have not formed a specific human life until conception happens. That's a medical fact. A fetus at one second is no less a human being than a fetus at 10 days. A fetus at 10 days is no less a human being than a fetus at 2 months. A fetus at 2 months is no less a human being than a fetus at 5 months. A fetus at 5 months is no less a human being than a fetus at 9 months. Unless you're a fascist style ideologue who thinks certain fully formed, perfect human beings have a greater human worth and a greater right to exist than other less formed,imperfect human beings, then there's no reason to argue that a developing fetus has less human worth than a developed fetus.

Having a 'belief' system that a fetus is not really a human being is just that, a 'BELIEF' system. Why do the pro abortionists have this ancient and archaic belief system and all encompassing taboo over the terminology used? The taboo means that abortion is never called what it really is, fetal killing. These rabid pro abortionists are just as stuck in the middle ages as many of the rabid anti abortionists.

Rudy, conception results in a zygote, which develops in 4 days to a blastocyst (of about 70-100 cells) - that blastocyst contains an embryoblast which, in turn, develops into an embryo (the outer part develops into the placenta).

Nine weeks after conception, the embryo becomes a fetus.

So, there is no fetus at day 1.

While life is to be cherished, especially human life desired by loving parents-to-be, life need not be be cherished absolutely or as vehemently as stated by some. Particularly when there is a social and other human cost to life not cherished or looked after in an increasingly over-populated world. Peace.

Richie 10, I am trying to find Shadow Minister's endorsement for "lawlessness" to which you have tried to pin on him but no avail- all I could find was his insistence that people not force their belief onto others; If you are referring to those who go to a place where abortions are legal, they are not committing any crime at all.
Also, I would presume that were abortion to be legalized you would throw your full support towards abortion as a basic human right?

Rudy
Actually Rudy a fetus of one second is substantially different than a human at birth and beyond- and that excludes lacking consciousness, nervous system, or any single autonomous function or appendage, but also on a cellular level as not one of the cells within a second-old 'baby' can be found within a post-birth human at all- as they are all construction cells, not organ cells which they develop into (or feed) later.

Another question, and I know I will not get a single answer from anyone, what if the fetus were a fetus in fetu (conjoined fetus twin). They do exist, and they are often surgically removed from their siblings (and thus killed because they are separated from their life source). They are as much a living, breathing human as a fetus is, in fact, they are often even closer to a grown human.
Should the sibling they are living off be allowed to kill them or must they carry them around for their whole lives?

Stezza, and yes, your quite right. Thanks. Now look at carl has to say here.......Very interesting.

In 1990, the late American astronomer, Carl Sagan, made a philosophical defense of abortion in an article he wrote with his third wife, Ann Druyan, for Parade magazine. One of their key arguments hinges on the belief that there is no moral difference between killing an embryo and killing a sperm or egg cell. In their own words:

Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.

In some animals, an egg develops into a healthy adult without benefit of a sperm cell. But not, so far as we know, among humans. A sperm and an unfertilized egg jointly comprise the full genetic blueprint for a human being. Under certain circumstances, after fertilization, they can develop into a baby. But most fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried. Development into a baby is by no means guaranteed. Neither a sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or a potential adult. So if a sperm and egg are as human as the fertilized egg produced by their union, and if it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg--despite the fact that it's only potentially a baby--why isn't it murder to destroy a sperm or an egg?

Contin>>>>>