Yabby
You are just a bunch of cells too. Just because your cells are more differentiated and specialised so you can gather your own food, find shelter etc., doesn't mean you are any more human than the foetus.

Also you'd be suprised how many organ systems are around by 10 weeks.

Justin, thank you for your comment. Perhaps you should differenciate
between a zygote, a foetus and a baby. Human skin tissue carries
our dna after all, that does not make it a person.

At the end of the day, women can shed around 400 eggs in their
lifetimes, all of them potentially cute babies. Darwinian
evolution (Natures laws) apply, they can't all survive, thats
the reality of it, so religion has to get used to that.

Yabby
"Perhaps you should differenciate between a zygote, a foetus and a baby."
With respect, that really is all semantics. I can differentiate between zygote, blastoma, foetus, baby, adult, grandmother, whatever. Their point in development doesn't determine their validity as a human being.

"Human skin tissue carries our dna after all, that does not make it a person."
Yeah, the human skin is a part of a person though. It's one of the many types of cells our body differentiates into, as well as nerve cells, red blood cells etc. To be honest, I didn't get your point here. Are you saying that the presence of human DNA in a cell doesn't make it a human? If so, I'd agree with you. However that isn't contradicting my arguement. Human skin isn't a growth centre, its a growth site. Because at the point skin develops we are quite specialised, we have other genetically programmed growth centres that 'grow us' per se.
If I'm misunderstanding you, maybe you could post and just clarify please :)

By the way, I don't want to get into an embryology arguement. Because I'll lose lol. I got through those units with Pass/Credits.

"At the end of the day, women can shed around 400 eggs in their lifetimes, all of them potentially cute babies...they can't all survive"
Yes, but the difference is that they haven't been fertilized. They are your cells. When those eggs join with another man's sperm cells, they become an independantly growing organism. They are no longer your cells, that are that being's cells. I'm sure you noticed the differences between you and your mother.

Yes, justin86, you are just arguing semantics. I think it is unlikely that I will ever be pregnant with my grandmother in my belly! Equating the unborn with the living and breathing is an absurd tactic.

While a foetus, zygote, baby is inside my body I am responsible and that includes whether or not it comes to term. I have, in the past, chosen not to bring a child to term. I did not make that decision lightly, however I know to this day (20 years later) I made the right decision both for the baby and myself. If RU486 had been available I would've have been spared the harassment by the misnamed 'right-to-lifers' who threatened me at the clinic and contributed to the trauma of my situation.

(formerly Trinity)

Peace

Of course it's little more than semantics. To the right-to-life brigade it's a fully-fledged human being from the moment of conception. This is an article of faith, and as such they will not budge while they retain their belief system, no matter what rational or objective evidence is presented. Fortunately they're in a minority in the electorate, but it seems their views are disproportionately influential in our current, increasingly authoritarian Federal government.

What gets me is the patent dishonesty in the tactics that they employ: here we have yet another article by a Christian who wishes to push their religious values on the rest of us inder the guise of a disingenuous concern for women, via a very thin argument about possible side-effects of the drug. Of course it will have side effects for some women, and for this reason potential users should be provided with as much unbiased evidence as possible - like any other medication.

But please don't try and get us to swallow the line that women who find themselves accidentally pregnant are the chief concern here.

mahatma duck, Ironically, it is you who is using a metaphysical belief system and articles of faith.

Scientifically, the unborn is a distinct human life from the moment of conception. Talking about 'human beings' is bringing metaphysics into the debate and you and the other pro-abortion people here are the ones doing it.

Stop forcing your beliefs on the unborn.