Of course Em, the combination of oocyte and sperm to form a zygote creates a new form or a 'life' that then begins a new journey of development. Though I could also be talking about fungus here, using the same turn of phrase and then if I were to be extreme, I could highlight 'life' and 'development' and go down the path of defending the rights of mushrooms to grow into their genetically predetermined form. It is easy to argue semantics over what is and isn't a legitimate life when referring to a bunch of cells and you are just being anthropocentric about sexual reproduction. If a zygote with no brain stem, brain, organs,etc has more rights than a fully grown adult woman than we may as well go back to the caves we started out in! Women are not incubators. Why bring into an already harsh world someone who doesn't have an assured basic access to the love and security of willing and emtionally/financially stable parents! Surely that's more critical than whether a bunch of cells has a right to life. I would consider forcing a woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to full term as abhorrent as infanticide.

“Why bring into an already harsh world someone who doesn't have an assured basic access to the love and security of willing and emotionally/financially stable parents!”

True- death for the child is a MUCH better option! What kind of logic is this? Do you have any idea how many families are crying out for children, wanting to provide love, security, and an emotionally/financially stable environment? Your argument is simply a front- we try and convince ourselves that abortion is really the ‘best option’ for the baby and continue on our merry way.

“I would consider forcing a woman to bring an unwanted pregnancy to full term as abhorrent as infanticide.”

Really? You would consider one fulfilling the natural act of motherhood to be on the same level as the deliberate (and unnatural) act of a mother murdering her own baby? Odd. And disturbing. Surely one’s right to a preferred LIFESTYLE is not more important than another’s right to LIFE?

I also find it interesting that you speak of infanticide with such distaste, yet in the same breath laud abortion as the Holy Grail of choice. How can a mere few months in the span of the baby’s life make such a world of difference to your moral response? You can’t be suggesting that a right to live increases with age and size?

Audrey poses the rhetorical question "Why bring into an already harsh world someone who doesn't have an assured basic access to the love and security of willing and emtionally/financially stable parents!" How does any child have a guarantee of that? I would say that there is a great percentage of children who have to accept something less than that. Should they also have been done away with in vitro?

Most pro-abortion's it would seem conveniently ignore the fact there are many loving financially stable people who would be more than willing to adopt an unwanted child. But of course this debate is about the woman and only the woman. Ros

It is interesting to carry out objective analysis with this article, so that a summary or abstract can be developed. This can be done by first counting relevant key-words and concepts, and identifying how they are used.

Conception–0 times
Abortion–16 times
Possible reasons for abortion–1 time
Possible negative consequences of abortion–0 times
Contraception-3 times
Abstinence–1 time
Adoption–0 times
Choice–5 times
Responsibility–0 times
Child–2 times (when money is involved)
Parent–1 time (when money is involved for single parent mothers).
Mother–1 time (when money is involved)
Father–0 times
Women–18 times
Men–1 time (when negatively portraying men)
Male–3 times (when negatively portraying male politicians)
Facts–few, and appear selective.
Government funding / welfare etc–21 times.
Love / affection etc–0 times

An objective summary or abstract can now be produced:-
The article does not describe when conception occurs, but strongly advocates abortion. It mentions minimal reasons for abortion, and does not include any possible negative consequences of abortion. It makes less reference to unwanted pregnancy prevention, and does not mention adoption. It advocates choice, but does not describe responsibilities attached to any choices. It portrays women as being victimised, while carrying out generalized vilification of males. It appeals mainly to emotions, with few verifiable facts being incorporated. It is heavily money orientated, and concepts such as love between people are not included. The child or foetus is not regarded as being of any great value, except as a reason why women should receive more government money. Fathers are not mentioned, and likely considered irrelevant.

These characteristics are found in most feminist literature. The article is brainwashing propaganda, whereby certain words or concepts are repeated frequently, while other relevant words or concepts are not mentioned.

Ironically many feminists will claim that they are ardent believers in such things as “love”, “respect”, “choice”, “gender equality”, and of course the ability to carry out their propaganda, (and any objections to this propaganda are normally dismissed as being misogynist, fundamentalist, denying women their rights etc)

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
if a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate.

Should we start conferring rights to sperm and ovum too?
Why not each and every one of them has the potential to become a human.

Kenny... at last... u actually REALIZE the situation you are in !
the 'moral relativism' syndrome. You raise the question "what next..." and that IS your (and Morgans and others) dilemna... u just plain 'don't know' how things should be, and your reference point is always "how things are now" (which of course is usually a temporary social construct based on the efforts of various pressure groups LIKE US if I can ram home the point a bit.)
So, you question actually is a confession of inadequacy in the moral realm. We have answers... definite unchanging ones, because (Morgan, u will love this) the Word gives them. They have divine authority.

Em and Ros, I totally agree with you, the number of people looking for opportunities to adopt is considerable, and they will shower a baby with all the love she/he could ever need.

Morgan, and Kenny, the 'thinking' behind what u are saying is just a very short hippity hop short of Pol Pot, though u may not realize it. I can assure you that in Singapore, they analyse the 'thinking' behind what Journalists say, and I know of 5 people who were jailed not because of what they said, but because of the 'thinking' behind it. (without trial, and indefinite by the way) I'm beginning to understand WHY Singapore takes such a dim view of 'wrong thinking'.
They realize just where it will lead to.