Foxy, you say that the foetus is not “self-evidently a human being”.

However, as everyone who studies high school biology is taught, the scientific fact is that human life begins at fertilisation – when the father’s sperm with 23 chromosomes joins with the mother’s ovum with 23 chromosomes to form a zygote.

At that point, there is a new human being in his or her first stage of development – not a potential human being, but a human being with potential.

For all that new human being needs to grow and develop into an embryo, foetus and baby is nutrition, oxygen, shelter and time. Nothing else needs to be added.

Each one of us was once a zygote with a unique genetic code which determined our sex, height, the colour of our hair and eyes etc.

Zygote, embryo, foetus, infant, child, adolescent, adult and geriatric are simply names for human beings at different stages of development.

Now what is in a pregnant woman’s womb is clearly human life.

This entity is irrefutably human with 46 chromosomes, and is not animal, mineral or vegetable.

And this new member of the human family is obviously alive because he or she is growing and developing – and therefore is a new human being. Otherwise, there would not be a perceived need in about a fifth of all cases to terminate the pregnancy, which is a euphemism for terminating a human life or killing a pre-born child.

I hope this story serves the purpose it was meant to. I seems that women's 'health' and women's 'choice' really means baby killing these days.

Dear Mr Big,

I wish that you would not assign your interpretation
to what I said - but that you would actually quote
what I did say. The point being made was that at
the root of the abortion controversy is a basic
value judgement about the human fetus. If the fetus is
considered a baby, then abortion is a form of killing;
if it is considered a mere collection of cells and tissue,
then abortion is a morally neutral surgical procedure.

I was speaking generally. I did not express my personal
opinion on the subject. And I did add that the status of
the fetus is inherently ambiguous; it is neither self
evidently a human being nor self-evidently just tissue -
for if these matters were self evident, there would be little
disagreement about abortion. The fetus develops from a
cluster of cells to an embryo, and then to a fetus. It only
becomes human as it develops. It is not a human being in the
usual sense - as it generally is not viable. Indeed, no society
treats the fetus as human; for example if the mother
accidentally miscarries, the fetus is not given a funeral,
but is simply disposed of like any other tissue.

On the other hand, the fetus is not like just any other
tissue, such as discarded nail or hair clippings.
The fetus is potentially a human being
one that may become as alive and unique as you and I.

The conflicting value judgements about abortion stem from this
fundamental ambiguity in the status of the fetus.
That is why we have the abortion dilemma.

Hi Foxy, my point is that those who are pro-abortion deny the scientific fact that what is growing in a woman’s womb is 1) human; and 2) alive, and therefore a new human life, or human being. The fact that they deny this does not mean that it is not self-evident. What it means is that they are closing their minds to the truth.

There should be no argument about the science. If they were honest, this would be common ground and then we could progress to having a hopefully constructive philosophical discussion or debate on whether the unborn child is a person, who is the bearer of rights. This is why we have the abortion dilemma.

You say that “the foetus is potentially a human being, one that may become as alive and unique as you and I.”
I would say that the unborn baby right from conception, rather than a potential human being, is a unique and irreplaceable human being with potential.

You suggest that the foetus is not a human being until it is viable. I submit that what you mean to say is human person.
It is noteworthy in this regards that Australian states issue birth certificates for any babies born alive or stillborn from 20 weeks of pregnancy. If stillborn or a neonatal death, a death certificate is available. Thus late-term aborted babies killed by feticide (injection of potassium chloride into the heart under ultrasound guidance) or by early inducement of labor before viability at 23 weeks are officially dead Australians.

Why should the moral status of an individual or his/her personhood be dependent on the state of technology? Dr Magna Denes, a pro-abortion author, has said: “To argue for abortion on the basis of viability is as logical as maintaining that drowning a non-swimmer in a bathtub is permitted because he would have drowned anyway if he had fallen into the sea."

There is no logical starting point you can pick for the acquisition of human rights - other than conception - not even birth because that is simply a change of address

Dear Mr Big,

I appreciate your arguments and I certainly
can't argue with your logic.

//Madeleine tells us in her article that she had her abortion at 8 weeks of pregnancy. If you knew anything about foetal development (and most people don’t....//

And if you knew anything about prenatal development you'd know that the foetal stage of development starts at 10 weeks gestation. Before that it's an embryo. No foetuses were harmed in the making of this story.

//However, as everyone who studies high school biology is taught, the scientific fact is that human life begins at fertilisation – when the father’s sperm with 23 chromosomes joins with the mother’s ovum with 23 chromosomes to form a zygote.//

//This entity is irrefutably human with 46 chromosomes//

Yeah, counting chromosomes is remarkably stupid way to define a human. People with Down syndrome usually have 47, and are definitely still human. On the other hand, Sable antelopes have 46 (including their XY sex chromosomes) and are clearly not human.

//and is not animal//

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSvJaYxRoB4

Kindly pay cash or furnish good security, Al.

Working backwards, humans are classified like this:

Species: H. sapiens
Genus: Homo
Family: Hominidae
Order: Primates
Class: Mammalia
Phylum: Chordata
Kingdom: Drum roll please.... ANIMALIA!

QED

//There should be no argument about the science.//

No, you'd hope not. But some people just aren't that keen on Science!

//If they were honest, this would be common ground//

I live in hope, but remain a realist: a lot of people just aren't going to be interested enough in biology to bother educating themselves about it.