Shocka, to understand this issue you need to know a little
about brains and their development. Brains evolved in three
stages, the brainstem, on top of that the limbic system
or emotional centres,
on top of that the neocortex or thinking bits. What
differentiates us from other species is the size of the
neocortex.

A foetus does not yet have a neocortex. Crocodiles
have a brain stem. So what? What can be called a human
neocortex is finally in place about week 25, about the
same time as a foetus could for the first time live
outside of its mother, if required.

By going around shooting at corspes you would be breaking
every gunlaw in the country and considered a maniac.

The skin that I graze off my arm is living tissue. So what?

I haven't commented on IVF as I don't see a problem. I
havent seen the religious in a queue, waiting to adopt
those embryos and grow them out in their uterus.

Fact is Darwin was right, in nature, there will always
be far more potentials of any species, then can ever survive.
The limits are not potential beings, its resources to raise
the offspring. As there are limits to resources, there will
always be a limit to the amount of any species. Otherwise
that species will eventually collapse, when the ecosystem
has been plundered unsustainably and eventually collapses.

Unwanted pregnancy!
Why didn't you *prevent* it?

And then?
It's *her* body.
The unborn have their *own* DNA, not a clone of the woman's.

And then?
It's *in* her body.
IVF embryos are in a petri dish. Whose "rights" prevail here?

And then?
Abortion should be legal because the *statistical probability* of dying from illegal abortions is greater.
The statistical probability of murder or rape is low, but they're illegal because they're immoral.
Their probability is irrelevant.
Pregnancy is statistically much more likely to kill the baby (miscarriage, stillbirth) than the mother.

And then?
The unborn have no self-awareness.
Babies less than 18 months old don't recognise themselves in a mirror, but we don't kill them.

And then?
Being a "person" requires memory.
Amnesiacs have no memory, but we don't kill them.

And then?
They aren't "conscious".
Neither are the sleeping, the comatose, or patients under general anaethesia, but we don't kill them.

And then?
Consciousness is electrical activity in the brain.
When you dream you are *unconscious* but show much brain activity.
"Consciousness" and "electrical brain activity" are not synonymous.

And then?
Consciousness is perceiving and interpreting with a physical brain.
But philosophers disagree to what extent reality *is* physical or mental, or both.
Have you solved this riddle?

And then?
To have "rights" you must be a "person" who is "conscious".
Semantic wordplay can support or refute *any* belief.

And then?
Doctors must be legally compelled to perform abortions, as it is their *occupational duty*.
Pregnancy isn't a "disease" that needs a "cure".

And then?
Anti-abortionists should support organ donation if they want to "save lives" (or "prevent deaths").
Allowing *natural death* and deliberately killing aren't moral equivalents.

And then?
The unborn don't have rights *until* they are born.
Can you kill a 9 month old baby *one second* before delivery?

And then?
Extra births would cause too much population growth.
Not if we stop immigration.

And then?
Women shouldn't be forced to raise unwanted children.
Adoption and fosterage are available.

And then?
These children will live unhappy lives.
Happiness isn't guaranteed to anybody.

Dude, where's your argument?

Lots of rhetoric but little substance in your post Shocka,
but I don't expect much more from you.

Its pointless trying to set up strawman arguments, we tend
to see through those.

So I will explains things simply for you, so that even
you should understand them.

Morality is a subjective question, we have no evidence of
objective morality. So the question comes down to where
we draw our moral lines in the sand and why.

Let me give you an example. The age of consent in Australia
is 16. Below that, people will be thrown in jail as
paedophiles etc. In some countries its 14, 18, 12, it
varies according to culture and where society decides to
draw that line.

Abortion is no different. The religious tend to take the
mantra of the holy zygote, adopting the Catholic position,
which is after all the major Xtian church. Last I read up
on why The Vatican decided so, was an inclusion about the
bible and the holy sperms that were wasted by one fellow.
God killed him on the spot, IIRC.

Those of us who try to think a bit more rationally and
logically, go beyond bible fairytales to come up with
our moral reasonings. We are perhaps more concerned with
suffering etc, something which some of the religious think
is noble. We also value human rights and freedoms above
religious dogma. Give us freedom of religion, but also
freedom from religion.

People have rights, concious or not. Organisms don't have
rights. People have what can be called human brains,
organisms don't. The first point at which what could
be called a human brain is in place in a foetus, is
around week 25. That is the first time when you would
basically have, what I consider a person.

Thats why I draw my line in the sand at that point
and for good reasons.

Most abortions happen in the first trimester, involving
clumps of cells, not people, so abortion is simply not
an issue for me.

Col Rouge: The embryo has no *authority* which can prevail over the woman.

Billie: When women are able to *control* their fertility they have fewer unwanted children.

Johnny Rotten: Forcing women to bring their babies to term is dictatorial, *controlling* and judgemental.

Cardine: You are stating that if a man impregnates me and wants that child, he should have the right to have *control* over my body.

Celivia: Only the hostess has *authority* to decide.
More about *controlling* women than about saving embryos.
All the post-pregnancy *control* can only be the woman's.
Your religion's priority is to *control* others.
It's only for biological reasons that women have all *control* after fertilisation.

Yabby: *Control* freaks who want to *control* how others should behave.
A hog for *power* to *control* others.

Authority.
Control.
Power.

Get the feeling this debate isn't about the best interests of any particular woman, child or society?

Feminists have created a "belief system" (as much a religion as Christianity) about centuries of patriarchal oppression, despite women apparently being willful participants in this system.

Many women had power in government (Cleopatra, numerous European Queens), art (Bronte sisters, Mary Shelley, Tamara de Lempicka), science (Marie Curie, Florence Nightingale) and the military (Joan of Arc, Boadicea).

Along with suffragettes, flappers and "Rosie the Rivetters", these women did more for humanity and the female sex than the rabid, man-haters that arrived in the 60s and 70s.

This "religious belief" of powerless women makes any power gained by "women" (note, not any individual woman) something that must never be surrendered.

They're like a starving dog who's found a T-bone steak.
Just try to take that steak out of its mouth!
Grrrr!

Prostitutes' income *depends* on not getting pregnant, yet their occupation is *sex* itself!
They've *controlled* their bodies for millenia! Why can't other women?

The power to decide who lives and who dies.
There's *no greater power*!
How intoxicating for the "powerless"!

Even doctors, soldiers and judges are restricted in using such power.
But feminists want this power "on demand".

Zygotes, who cares?!
Women Power!
Power over Life and Death!
On Demand!
Grrrr!

"Authority.
Control.
Power."

Once again Shocka, you have missed the main point. Most normal,
rational people these days accept that we should have the right
to make decisions about our own lives, which is fair enough.

Some, with religious agendas, demographic agendas and other
agendas, want control of OTHER peoples lives. Big difference!

Whats your agenda Shocka? Still more little Anglo Celtic babies
perhaps?

What have you got against Anglo Celtic babies?
Are you a racist?