I would think people would realise by now that there are few absolutes. I'm willing to listen to arguments for the pro-life position, but not when they throw around ridiculous terms such as 'murderers' and try to paint foetuses as cuddly little babies.

Daniel06 - Your UN post is irrelevant. Misses the point.
This entire argument revolves around what point you consider a foetus to be a baby. You quote the UN statement as everyone has the right to life, but you miss the significance of 'everyone.'
It requires both parties to acknowledge we're talking about a person - that is the entire debate. If we'd settled on the fact that the cells that constitute a foetus was a person then perhaps you'd have something. As it is, it's a straw argument that distorts the debate, and puts the cart before the horse, or rather, the fully formed person before the foetus.

A particularly apt quote was said earlier - an acorn is not an oak tree.

To take this notion further - say, hypothetically, it was possible to inflict sperm with spermacide, moments before they fertilised an egg. Would this be murder?

If yes, then masturbation constitutes murder - so I'm going to assume no.

So, seconds later, once the sperm has entered the egg, are we now dealing with a full human being? Is terminating the egg that would have passed from the body anyway, now murder, because there is a sperm inside?

Is this honestly now murder? What's changed? A sperm has entered the egg, one chain in a series of events that creates life. But the egg has yet to fuse and begin developing. It's still an egg at this point.

Is it murder yet?

Yes? No? Do we need to wait a little for it to develop some more?

I get that this is pedantry - but the point I'm getting at, is all this absolutist 'this is murder' crap doesn't contribute to the debate and is an exercise at wilfully refusing to consider the issues.

We could compare a new-born baby’s brain to that of a developing foetus. Both are essentially a blank slate full of potential and capable of developing into much more. Besides that and many other arguments that Goodthief et al have posited I simply think we must nurture human life – not destroy it. My stomach turns when people refer to developing humans in the womb as a bundle of cells. I also see haranguing women whose intention is to provide a better life for herself and her existing family as harmful, manipulative and often ideologically driven.

While the right to be individual is important, I also think that boundaries are essential. We live in a society and our behaviour affects and impacts on others. I think that the Bible(and philosophers who’ve examined it’s Principles) are correct to point out the relationship and moral responsibilities that we have to our neighbours (rest of society) outweigh individual wants.

For argument’s sake, let’s go extreme, if you agree with the idea that the individual's right transcends all, then you are on the road to anarchy and corruption; while, if you start imposing your will on others, then we are on the path to fascism and corruption. So (note the irony ) the anarchist will revert to unbridled terrorism which is really fascism (control through fear – put simply) while fascist control will lead to anarchy (power corrupts, people rebel- disregard for morality, people’s feelings, ethics and the law ensues).

So reasonable boundaries (enshrined in law) are a must to govern how we as individuals behave in relation to others. Given that we are all human and thus value above almost all else life (in a crunch you will). I tend to think we have no right to allow people to abort developing life . For to do so devalues human life – devalues that which we most hope to enrich. The ultimate consequence of corruption (pro-abortion rationalising) will be to undermine the value of life and the moral principles which hold life in the highest regard which in turn endangers us all. Cont.

The pro-abortionists argument usually hinges on assigning to the developing individual the “bundle-of-cells” status. That I think is very wrong, for reasons above, but also because it denies potential and regards life and the creation of life in an instrumental almost inhumane and clinical way. This is dangerous way to think.

Also, I wonder how children feel when they hear/read about abortion. Words like “unwanted” must be very hurtful. A new life referred to as unwanted, as a burden, etc. suggests a kind of failing in our culture in its attitude to children.

A child has many shared characteristics with a foetus, for example, they’re dependent, need sustenance, nurture, physically one is just more developed, etc. and that some of these are sadly what expectant mothers believe that they can’t provide and so argue for an abortion. This suggests that maybe those with potential to abort a developing child are trend conned or mistakenly think they are not capable of proper motherhood. If so they must make sure they don’t slip up and be prepared to accept the blessing if she/he does. I can’t see any legitimacy in aborting a pregnancy (harming life) to counter another’s mistake.

If she and/or he slip up - well life’s not fair. People in the third world have to deal with unfairness that’s a lot worse.

Most of us would like to get rid of some troublesome people in this world but we just have to deal with it. Men and women have a voice - children and developing children don’t.

The attitude of the media, government and advertisers towards children needs to change to reflect their value as humans and the wonderful experience it is to be a parent.

The impasse is set. Maybe sharing other perspectives helps with understanding -after all we’re a multicultural society.

Celivia you seem to think that battlers somehow resent unplanned pregnancy. Your posts suggest that you’re sensible enough to reconsider. I wouldn’t change a thing in my life even though my kids have shown me that money actually does talk. It says: “Goodbye.”

Forcing women to have unwanted children when they haven't the emotional or financial resources to do so is very painful for all involved.

Many children growing up in the 50s and 60s knew they were not wanted as they were yet another girl, or another mouth to feed on a tight household budget. Those children who were reared in orphanages can attest to the deprivation they endured in those places.

I have come to the conclusion it is envy. So many men are so strident in their insistence of the evil, selfish and irresponsible nature of women who terminate a pregnancy it must be envy. Men cannot have babies, it’s a power women have and men do not. They cannot stand the fact that we do not see ourselves as victims because of this. No indeed we have the temerity to choose whether or not to exercise this power.

The contraceptive pill was bad enough. But then was seen as a plus. Sex without commitment and no necessity to visit a house of ill repute.

Now of course, if a woman doesn’t have sex after the 3rd date because she doesn’t want to take any risks she can kiss any thought of a relationship with said man goodbye. Not only must she have ‘lots of baggage’, she’s probably frigid.

If she does take a risk and she falls pregnant most of you men think she should lie in the bed she made, pardon the pun, and carry through with the pregnancy. Regardless of her mistaken impression of the man.

It is only in recent times that men are party to this kind of discussion. I’d like to remind you, that babies used to be strictly women’s business. Abortions are NOT a new thing. Midwives not only knew how to help at birth, they also knew how to assist with procuring a miscarriage - an abortion.

With a wanted pregnancy, most women would not make an announcement until after 12 weeks. This is because, although happy, there is a pretty high chance that the pregnancy will not proceed to full term and could end up in a miscarriage.

This is probably why women on the whole are less obsessed with the notion of a first term embryo being a full blown human. An embryo in the first trimester is only potentially an autonomous human being. If a soul is bestowed at the time of conception there must be gazillions of lost souls, from naturally occurring miscarriages floating around

Ronnie

The law is to protect the rights of current human beings, not potential human beings. Your suggestion that legalised abortion will corrupt and destroy our humanity can only make sense if you can explain why one type of potential human being should be treated so differently from other types of potential human beings. Celivia has also frequently brought up the point that if there is such a difference, then why aren't all the prolifers advocating contraception? It is a better choice for the woman. Is it not also better to prevent a murder as per the prolife definition?

I would guess that everyone on the forum would like to live in a world without medical abortions. But I would rather this be because of education and the availability of contraception than a subjective view of when human life becomes a human being.

In an imperfect world we can only try.