Franzy said: "Mykah – No! The proof is on YOU to prove that it IS human!....Humans can survive outside the womb, can’t they? Why can’t this one?"

You seem to be saying that unaided survival is a test for true humanity. What about people on respirators or other life-support systems, for example someone in a coma who may or may not recover. Your argument falls flat.

And could you please answer my original question. At what age, definitely, without question, confidently, can you say that the unborn is not human? Where does it cross that line?

And Audrey, at what stage of development does the foetus become someone that the mother does not own, and cannot choose to dispose of? Could you please answer the question rather than indulging in name-calling (calling me and others who disagree with your position "judgemental males"; we would only be judgemental if we were not actually defending a living human being, something which you have yet to prove).

By the way, if the foetus really belongs to the mother and is an integral part of her to dispose of as she wishes, why does it have its own unique DNA which biologically (factually) marks it as a separate being?

Oh for crying out loud mykah - I've answered your question over and over on this thread. I believe the fetus becomes something the mother has no control of when it has matured enough to survive outside of her womb. What part of this answer do you not understand that you make me repeat it over and over?

TRTL puts it pretty well with: "I'm informed that the neo-cortex, what is frequently regarded as a key part of the brain that distinguished people from lower order intelligences, is fully formed at approximately 25 weeks. Can a thing be regarded as a person before it is capable of independent thought, or even breathing?"

As for your question about keeping people alive on machines, I think it's a ridiculous waste of time, money and most importantly emotions. I was glad when Terri Schiavo was finally allowed to die with at least a little dignity. Without cognitive spark, a body isn't a human to me.

As for calling you judgemental males, I fail to see how you are anything but. You have no conception of what it's like to be pregnant, no understanding of what it feels like to share your body with something that, to you, feels like an unwanted invasion. You claim abortion is used as a lifestyle choice, but that's because deep down you have no respect for the chosen lifestyles of women because as soon as they fall pregnant you expect them to sacrifice everything to fulfil their biological and moral duty.

Nuts to you.

For the final time: A fetus becomes a human when it can survive outside of the womb. This is why I can abort one at 8 weeks and confidently say I'm not murdering a human being.

Even though i'm a man i usually put my two cents in on these social and conscience issues. A lot has been said already on both sides of the argument and it's been an interesting read. It looks like the support is weighted on the pro-choice side from the posts above so i don't think Ms/Miss/Mrs? Apple need worry too much about feeling discrimintated against.

But here's something to think about. Imagine if abortion was not possible, not because of legality or accessibility, but physically could not be done or always resulted in the death of the mother or something. What then? I guess that we'd either have huge population problems (unless culling of new borns was legalised) OR some more contemplation about children might come in BEFORE the sexual act (or the government might bring in some sort of sex license to regulate the who thing - scary thought).
This may be silly but it does highlight a fact that seems to be overlooked a little in this matter and that is that the basic purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation and continuation of the human species. Sure it has a pleasurable aspect, but until we grow babies in test tubes and all men and women are 'fixed' to prevent natural reproduction we unfortunately have to live with the fact that the product of sex is babies, and pleasure is mainly a by-product.
My heart goes out to Audrey for all the pain and trauma she had carrying her parasite and the fact that she now has to defend her decision to abort against the overwhelming damnation that she must be facing to prompt this article. But unless she is a rape victim or the Virgin Mary she did make certain sexual choices at some point which lead to her dilemna. So maybe she's just lucky, rather than brave, that abortion was possible and available to her.

Audrey
I have previously refrained from offering any Judgment on the reasons that drove you to make your choice but it seems to me that yours was the poorest reason of all; that is because having a child at that time would be inconvenient for your chosen lifestyle. Now you chose to have the sex that resulted in the pregnancy and I think that it is not beyond the scope of this debate to ask just what measures did you take to ensure that a pregnancy would be avoided?
As Donnie says the primary purpose for sex is procreation. And procreation is not a "burden" imposed upon women by men; it is a biological imperative that drives us all.

You still want to pretend that the fetus that you had killed was not a human being don’t you? Well the facts, and the nature of humanity are not on your side. I suspect that you do this because despite your feminist bluff and bluster you know that killing is wrong and that perhaps your justifications for doing so are not as watertight as you want to believe that they are.
Some times I think that when obtaining a safe abortion was more difficult that the true gravity of what was desired (the killing of an unborn child) was actually thought through. Now it is perhaps too easy and when activists, such as yourself, pretend that the child killed is not human then we are all devalued as human beings

Donnie – Here’s something else to think about: Imagine if abortion were not only possible, but that women could do it spontaneously, without any assistance (or interference). The moment the women realised she was pregnant, all she had to was think really hard and feel the right feelings and presto, no unwanted child!
Wouldn’t that be something? Women having complete, autonomous, biological control over their bodies and reproductivity? I bet you’re shaking in your boots.
This is essentially what happens now. Only women who desperately don’t want to have children have to go to a clinic and endure people groaning on about ‘destroying human life’.

Iain – I reckon you can speculate all you like on Audrey’s true, deep-down beliefs, but I think you’ll still find that they don’t match your own beliefs. As incredible as that may be.
Find me a sexually active women, or, check that, a female who is seriously considering becoming sexually active who HASN’T considered what she would do if becoming pregnant. Beforehand. Before the sex. Not at the moment of the pregnancy test or the missed period or broken condom. Women are all too aware of the consequences of sexual activity. Just about all of them have a game plan. All of those ‘game plans’ are based upon their beliefs about sex and life (their own included). Some women know from day one that abortion is out of the question. Others know that pregnancy is. Some change their minds. ALL take it seriously.
If you don’t want to understand why women who chose abortion make that choice, instead labelling those whose views, opinions, belief and knowledge differs from yours as irresponsible and “devaluers of human life” then you don’t deserve to be part of this debate.

Mykah – yep, what Audrey said: life support systems, coma patients and other non-responsive people? None of them need 24-7 amniotic fluid, an umbilical cord and folate-hungry mothers to keep them going.
Here is my prediction for your response: FOETUSES ARE PEOPLE! HUMAN BEINGS! THEY ARE TOO! THEY ARE TOO! BECAUSE I SAY SO!

Audrey is an activist. She is so fixed on her issue(s).

Over 20+ years of my adulthood (beginning at 30yo) I have witnessed many activists of numerous causes. They are like opportunistic weeds that thrive on the good soil of a cause - good and bad.

Only an activist could write what Audrey has written as an expression of self pride.

She admits her cause of action was convenience. She denies human life as potentiality in the fetus; it is mass of cells that at some arbitrary level of complexity becomes human; in the meantime it is disposable at her will.

Audrey expresses gratitude to "whoever" for "being given" to her parents, as if by the stork. In light of her activism, perhaps the thanks should be of the parents who found her "potentiality" not a hindrance.

I know so many "inconveniences and hindrances" to confirm that the decision of the parents is underpinned by the great promise of life; things will be okay; just adjust your expectations and get on with it in trust of doing the right thing. This being the basis of our Christian western social development at the level of the ordinary.

Activist either become enlightened to the barrenness of their folly and self-justifications, or sadly dig in and eventually sink to a state of ongoing, soporific delusion. Where enlightenment has occurred and it is matched with acknowledgement of wrong done then good life follows, with all of its hindrances and inconveniences. Life is lived as it is.

Lack of acknowledgment leads to a sad pathetic, passivity cynicism.

It is long road ahead, Audrey. I hope your burden is not too much. Best wishes