I congratulate all those who have taken up a spirited defence of their own kind in its earliest and most vulnerable state in this discussion - Goodthief,
aquarius, Daniel06, Mick V.
Daniel, especially, your perspective as a self-described atheist is appreciated. Your passionate defence of the unborn demonstrates clearly that this is not essentially a religious issue. It is about the most basic right to continue a life already begun, which any honest person can understand.
What can I say of those who argue relentlessly, and often illogically, to deny all consideration to the rights and humanity of the unborn? They are like Titanic survivors arguing for a ban on lifeboats. ('They couldn't survive if you threw them over the side, so they are not "viable"'. 'They are helplessly dependent on the captain for sustenance and life support, so he can do what he likes with them'). You have reached dry land, but use the gift of life to deny life to those who follow.
When you use terms like ‘zygote’, ‘organism’ and ‘clump of cells’ as derogatory terms, you are demeaning all human life, yourself included. That is where you came from. There is no other way you could have reached your present state of life.
You have difficulty with the argument that the embryo is what it will – or is naturally destined to - become, and should be valued accordingly. Simply turn the argument around, and try it, from your adult perspective, with the embryo who gave you your present existence. Can you seriously argue that the destruction of that embryo would have been an inconsequential action, simply because of its size, appearance and abilities at that time? I can state with absolute certainty that you would be expressing no views on this blog if that had happened. You are that embryo. It is an inseparable part of your life story.
Why should any other embryo be valued less simply because of unknown and unachieved capacities? To deny our beginnings – or the beginnings of others – is unbelievably perverse

With all due respect Peter D, that is a teleological argument. To describe things not in terms of what they are, but what they may become is an old but not a valid philosophy. The terms "embryo" and "clump if cells" are not derogatory, they are descriptive. There are many things in this world that have a certain potential, the vast majority of which do not fulfill that potentiality. Humans are no different from anything else. To use a previous example, if I destroyed an acorn, I would not be destroying an oak tree or a forest, only a very few get to become actual oak trees.

Please try and refrain from describing things as the same as their potential. I do not describe men as potential rapists, that would be offensive and only correct in an exceptionally few cases. But that potentiality is there and only really exists when that defining event actually occurs, not before.

"The issue is that however a person decides to behave as a sexual being, a young person has to know that it comes with specific responsibilities with potentially far reaching consequences, to self and others."
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 6:57:24 PM

Thank you, yvonne

Well said, Bugsy!

Aqvarivs,
“ Surely you don't actually expect any religion to champion such a thing? “
Perhaps not exactly ‘champion’ but many Christian denominations and religious groups are supporting the pro-choice stance, others don’t. It probably depends on who their Head cherry-picker is.
Yabby also pointed out that many Catholic women have abortions.

Yes, luckily the vast majority of Australians support the pro-choice stance.

“Celivia, “I regard abortion as ending the life of a human embryo, not of a human being.” If this is true, you should then be against any abortion,...”
If you’ve read my other posts, I have said that an unborn (this includes foetuses as well) becomes a ‘human being’ or 'person' only after birth- that is when the umbilical cord has been cut and the child is able to live independently, outside its mother’s womb.
I think the earliest age a foetus has been known to live outside the mother’s womb was at about 24 weeks with medical interference. The cut-off of all countries is well before that- as far as I know.

As Yvonne has pointed out in one of her earlier post, more than 99% of abortions are done during the early stage. Late-term abortions are done as medical necessities.
Ironically, some late abortions (I think this happened in the USA) were done because the women weren’t able to access abortion earlier. All the more reason to make abortion easily accessible.

Goodthief,
Thanks for showing me these bible quotes, which are probably a good explanation of how the religious use the Bible to support their anti-choice stance.

Yvonne et al,
Seems there’s a problem with getting the message across about prevention.
Facts and figures don’t seem to matter much to the anti-abortion groups, which seem concerned only with helping women who have already become pregnant avoid abortion.

Doesn't that make anti-abortionist groups a big part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

Bugsy, your counter to Peter D is not relative. Peter is not taking about human potential. But, individual life. Your reference is about human decision. People decide to commit rape, they only become rapist after making the decision to perform such violence. Men are not potential rapist. Your argument would have to include foetal decision in the process of life and abortion. Peter didn't make that suggestion.
And teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature. And there is in human development a great deal of observable directive principle. ie: chromosomal and DNA RNA interaction just for starters, not to mention organogenesis and the many different organ specific cell types that develop due to this DNA directive and neurogenesis and the ectoderm cells that become brain, spinal cord and peripheral nerves. So there is only more support for Peters post by bringing attention to the fact that it is teleological in nature as is human existence.
I wont even include here the observable instinctive directive of animal and insect life.

Celivia, it's nice to rant on about religious people being pro-life but, in your haste to slag those of faith give non-religious pro-lifers a pass. Yabby does the same thing by not being able to shift the focus to the subject and not the exceptions. All different races, colours and creeds are pro-choice and similarly anti-abortion. And many people are anti-abortion and do not condemn it's medical necessity but, want a limited use of abortion and are uneasy with 1/3 or 1/4 of all pregnancies being surgically aborted. Not everyone sees abortion as black and white.

The record for preemies is, 24 October 2006, Miami, Florida at 21 weeks gestation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6384621.stm

Anti-abortionist play a part in defining the social boundaries otherwise pro-abortionist would be killing children in their cribs and advocating euthanasia for the treatment of head colds and anyone over 50. They'd have all the potential of a rapist.

Aqvarivs - I've never heard any pro-choice advocates suggesting killing babies. If the argument's about pure potential then I see your point, but can counter it by suggesting the pro-lifers would seek to ban unwed women from sex for fear of illegal abortions and lock them away in convents. It's unsubstantiated either way and is basing arguments on extremities neither side has actually pursued.

If the teleological argument alone isn't persuasive enough, view the one I put up earlier - viewing morality on the basis of societal outcomes - this morality hinges on what we as a vast majority of people can accept as a person.
Provided you avoid delving into speculating on the extremities of either side it fits - the counterpoint to this argument is that the societal outcomes will lead to killing the elderly or babies for convenience - but that's simply those extremities again. Nobody has ever pursued that and I honestly can't see any realistic reason to believe such a thing would happen, outside of it being used as an argument against abortions.

You say that the argument that the foetus isn't yet a person isn't valid because it is describing life.
But here we hinge on definitions - you're saying life is automatically sacred and cannot be terminated.
Now bear in mind the point I've repeatedly made earlier - we're not suggesting the murder or people beyond birth - nobody beyond the fringe is or has.

It comes back to the fact, that honestly, when we think of a person, it's a concept of a body, brain and personality - semantics aside, all people have at least two of these, while a foetus does not.