(Continued)

A second difference is that when building a formula 1 car, it's known the intent from the beginning. However in pregnancies the time it's discovered ranges from woman to woman. Some realize it early from a missed period. Others it might take a sever weeks to a few months. And once it's discovered, that's when decisions begin to be made.

A third difference is that a fetus growth is more like a plant growth then it is like a car being built. If you google ultra sound pictures by the week can see that the fetus shows characteristics of a baby very early on. I'd say as early as 6 or 7 weeks. Phase 1-5 are already in process well before it 's discovered that your pregnant with a new formula 1 race car.

With that in mind, I would say it is arbitrary to give a date to allow abortions by how finished the fetus is to a newborn baby. The fetus is a baby from very early on. (Though it's not yet born, you can see it as a baby in it's growth).

Toni Lavis. If it bothers you that I'm responding to the three people still in the conversation trying to justify abortion. What can I say about that? Perhaps it's an inconvenience to hear a continual debate, and so you count it as and and raving. So far I've heard many ways to say it's the woman's choice, but nothing to justify killing through abortion. So perhaps instead of it being ranting and raving, it could just be a point that has remained unaddressed and still stands true.

As for choosing abortion being the justification of abortion. Consider choosing anything else that is harmful. Would it be justified if a person chose theft? Chose murder? Chose rape? Chose adultery? Chose drug addiction? Chose to lie under oath to a court?

Just choosing an action doesn't justify it to be right. Many actions are wrong and considered wrong by the laws of the land to punish. But if it wasn't illegal does that action or that choice automatically become right and moral? A moral choice? If so what are your thoughts on honor killings in the countries that allow a family member to kill their sister or their daughter because of having sex or being raped?

Abortion is still killing. And it is seen as the only solution to a wide variety of social issues. This shows we are a lazy people that justify killing the next generation instead of seeking to correct many of the social issues the next generation (or their mothers) would be exposed to. Call me heartless and mock me for holding to my position, but so far I've addressed these issues in a conversation that starts out from an article focused on criticisms of abortion. Many of the points addressed are ignored. Then if we talk about them more we are accused of ranting and raving? So be it.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Here are 2 quotes worth mentioning from the article.

"It seems impossible to refuse the conclusion that the foetus is a child, ie a potentially self-aware human being and that it may not be disposed of as passive tissue or as animal life. These are not difficult arguments. While it is usual to dismiss pro-lifers as irrational religionists it seems to me that irrationality is more descriptive of the pro-abortion position."

.....

"Having said this, no one wants to return to back-yard abortions and death by haemorrhage or sepsis. It occurs to me that we support many people in our society, the unemployed, the disabled, the elderly and the dying we do not support women who find themselves pregnant and do not have the finances, the life skills or have not completed their education? We do not do this because we are still captive to a morality that labels unwed mothers as irresponsible sluts, their children as bastards and both a liability on social welfare. But these women and girls, their children and their fathers are members of our community. The child has devoted grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles and maybe even siblings. By not giving the parents adequate support so that educations can be completed and new families formed we drive many to seek an abortion because there is no other option. For many, particularly if they go on later to produce families, the lost child will haunt them."

//If it bothers you that I'm responding to the three people still in the conversation trying to justify abortion. What can I say about that?//

Not 'bothers' so much as 'amuses'.

//This shows we are a lazy people that justify killing the next generation instead of seeking to correct many of the social issues the next generation (or their mothers) would be exposed to.//

Whatever, dude. Women who have abortions are all pure evil and you're such an unimpeachable moral authority that if you say it's wrong, it's wrong, damnmit! Happy now?

Dear NNS,

I do not accuse you of ranting or raving. I think you sincerely have a position. However, you use words that are inaccurate.

You wrote: "It seems impossible to refuse the conclusion that the foetus is a child, ie a potentially self-aware human being and that it may not be disposed of as passive tissue or as animal life."

A foetus is not a child. Potentiality is not actuality. You can call the foetus a child and say it seems impossible to refute the conclusion that the foetus is a child, but the foetus is not a child. In order to be a child it has to be born and leave babyhood. It is a potentially self-aware human being, but that does not make it either a child or a self-aware human being. However, the woman who has the foetus within her is actually a self-aware human being. I think the wishes of a self-aware human being should take precedence over the fate of a potentially self-aware human being who does not have wishes. An abortion terminates pregnancy. Adoption is not a solution since there can be no adoption if pregnancy is terminated.

You, I, a foetus and an insect are animal life since we all are animals. An insect or a tree is not passive tissue. Anything that is alive is not passive tissue.

We both would like to do away with abortion, but I think we can't. We can reduce the number of abortions by sex education, provision of contraceptives and instruction in their use. That can promote casual sex, and you oppose casual sex.

I am glad you do not want to bring back the backyard butcher, but do you think casual sex is an evil? You have already stated that you think abortion is an evil. If you think casual sex is an evil which evil do you think is the greater evil, casual sex or abortion?

.

To all and sundry,

.

I think it would help if we all agree on what exactly a foetus is, how it develops and the rhythm of its development.

Also, it is not by mere coincidence that many (if not most) reputable jurists and medical practitioners around the world esteem, independently of any ideological considerations, that the “interruption of unwanted pregnancy” is both morally and medically acceptable during the first tier (trimester) of pregnancy.

The following articles provide the relevant details in an objective and trustworthy fashion :

• “Stages of Development of the Foetus”, by Haywood L. Brown, MD, F. Bayard Carter Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Duke University Medical Center :

http://www.msdmanuals.com/home/women-s-health-issues/normal-pregnancy/stages-of-development-of-the-fetus

• “A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the US Supreme Court”, by the Pew Research Center :

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/01/16/a-history-of-key-abortion-rulings-of-the-us-supreme-court/

While these judicial decisions only apply to the US, the principles on which they are founded are universal in nature, having also inspired the domestic laws of the 48 counties (including Australia) that adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations.

.