*Deliberately destroying that information to achieve the point where it cannot live any more is murder.*

Not so Stephan, because of course you like anybody else, would be
regularly flushing genetic information down the toilet and not
think twice about it.

Murder applies to people and as we have shown and concluded, zygotes
are not people.

Personally I am for a world with less suffering, misery and poverty
and as Darwin made clear, far more of any species will be created, then can
ever survive. He was correct of course, the limitation
is on resources to raise the offspring, not on creating them.

Geldorf learned the hard way, when he went to save Africa. 20 years
later, there were twice as many to feed and even more starving babies.

Even Stephan cannot defy the laws of nature and if we follow Stephan's
morals, we will continue to have more hunger, misery and suffering.
How sad and pointless, all for a bit of religous dogma.

'Is being human all there is to being a person, or are there other criteria to take into account beyond mere biology?'

Existing outside the womb is a good start.

'The fact that you pontificate due to the fact that you have drawn a different line in a grey area just shows your ignorance and pseudo moral superiority.'

Too true.

'I think you need to learn to value the opinions of others a little more and not resort to cheap shots and generalisations'

What like 'These people are intellectual children and moral reprobates equivalent to the most evil murderers'?

'Draw the line of the beginning of life at any other point other than conception and you are on a road to hell - as the article above demonstrates!'

What about before conception? Sperm is alive!

Here's a good one. Once we get cloning down pat, is it OK to waste any DNA that could be used to make a human. Or say if the DNA has been used to so far make a foetus, if you then decide you've made a hash of it is it ok to throw it away. I mean I saw those half Alien half Sigourney Weavers and they were an abomination! But they were a person, existing outside the womb and having DNA!

I reckon a woman has ownership of what's inside, or really, part of her own body. If she cuts a tumour out is that as bad as an abortion at 4 weeks? The tumor would have grown and grown, and it's living, and has DNA. The foetus may have miscarried anyway.

If you say, well, the foetus would have grown a brain and hence become a human, well, we're back to a potential human. It's all about potential. I reckon it's no sure thing of being a human until it's no longer part of the mother.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone here advocate that newborn babies, toddlers or children be legally allowed to drink, smoke, vote, drive or have sex?

This certainly is one of the those threads which is put up all over the place on a regular basis.

..

It is to me something which has the potential to be better defined by starting with a review with follow up legislation on what exactly constitutes "religious freedom" in current day Australia.

..

For my part, I have always been pro the biological mothers right to choose, irrespective of whether it be simply a personal preference or otherwise.

In my first marriage when I was younger, my wife of that time had 2 terminations. I was simply strongly disinclined, we were insufficiently financially secure and my partner was studying.

..

Having said that though, in the aftermath of our separation and eventual divorce, and based on some of her comments, it may be in fact that she long harbored some resentment towards me because of it.

..

With my present wife, and excepting medical emergency or criminal tragedy in which case the little bleeder would be in the medical waste bucket pronto, I would otherwise not ever suggest the invasive and not entirely risk free medical procedure of termination even if it were inconvenient or unplanned, out of fear to damage the Love core within the inner being of my BeLoved.

(and I remain disinclined to have a biological child for a number reasons though note with trepidation that my BeLoved is subjecting me to an ongoing program of "interrogarsee & rehabilitarsee" a la Indonesian style, which can incidentally include follow up "muteelarsee" if I fail to answer correctly.)

;-)

T.B.C.

But back to the argument, perhaps if we consider this for a moment outside the confines of time, then indeed we are dealing, as has been commented on here several times, with an Entity that could be.

(or perhaps already is in some regards)

Perhaps a greater understanding of particle physics may indeed arrive at evidenced based additional dimensions from which facts emerge to give us pause to reconsider the current "line" again.

However, do we create a right at law for the unBorn and make that to be greater than that of the current limited right of the biological mother to choose?

I would say as regards to this and also as to issue of recognising at law the sanctification of gay couples for legal marriage, if you want to respect the freedom of religion of all members of the Australian community, then you must not allow

(by choosing wisely whom to vote for)

a moral view which stems from one group's belief system to be imposed by legislation on another, else, you become, and perhaps are to a certain extent, more of a theocratic democracy than anything else.

>>THIS is totally evil on a similar level as Auschwitz. Moral relativism and no conscience - you people defending this for ANY reason should be UTTERLY ashamed of yourselves. Seriously, it's disgraceful and morally equivalent to mass murder.<<

>>Draw the line of the beginning of life at any other point other than conception and you are on a road to hell<<

>>You seem to think personal attacks are an argument.<<

Do you actually stop and read your own posts, Stephan?

And why are you still belaboring this point about conception? Is there actually anybody in this discussion arguing that life doesn't begin at conception for sexually reproducing organisms? I haven't noticed that. Are you sure you're not just attacking strawmen because you don't know how to respond to some of the arguments which have been made? Even if you're not: I fully, 100%, agree with your argument that life begins at conception for sexually reproducing organisms. That has been established. Now: is it always wrong to take a life?