Sams,
I would think that most of the babies being aborted are quite healthy, otherwise they probably wouldn’t be in the womb.

Religions can appear and disappear in time, but I would also think that most species of plant or animal go to considerable lengths to protect the fertilised ovum cell (except for homo sapiens it seems).

However I’m perplexed as to why there are restrictions placed on what IVF clinics can do with haploid sperm or egg cells, but certain people want no restrictions placed on what abortion clinics can do with a diploid zygote cell(that contains the full quota of human chromosomes)?

martin, it's an interesting point and strangely enough there are plants that react to touch stimuli by moving, I'm not sure where that leaves our discussion.

No idea about peter singers ideas on infanticide, isn't he the "don't eat animals" bloke? He must have a conflicting set of ideals.
I thought I was pretty plain about consciousness as to where I would have taken as a max. delination, with a personal default position of viable age (currently about 22 weeks). Why anyone would allow an unwanted pregnancy to get to 22 weeks is beyond me, but ask yourself if these are the type of women you wish to force to bear an unwanted child.

"Maybe I could anaesthetise to unconsciousness and then kill?"
maybe you could martin, however unconsciousness as a prelude to murder isn't the same thing, as presumably without the latter the former would wake up again (emphasis on again). In this case you would be taking away their consciousness, as opposed to not granting consciousness. Subtle difference but very important.
Your whole argument really boils down to the potential of the zygote/embryo/fetus, not on it's status at the point of termination.
Morals are highly subjective, what makes your's right and the woman's wrong. Who judges? If we take it as her peers then the majority will back the ability to choose.

I read your link but you must have missed the line: "Vegetative state and minimal-conscious state are different from brain death", no-one questions comatose patients can recover. they've had life, experiences,and particularly have loved ones that want them back. I too would give loved ones that don't need life support the benefit of doubt. The decision to stop feeding would be terribly difficult.
Do have another look at the "landmark comas" at the end, and consider is life always worth living.

"Pro abortion positions are incoherent, and our reason is repelled by them." hmmm, this just about sums it all up

Nice post sams and rstuart, though both runner and HRS have proven themselves immune to logic or reason.

Were I to predict their response to this post, I'd say runner would say it's an example of the vilification of Christians, instead of criticism of his particular approach. I found it rather amusing that despite your clear evidence of his repeated claims of victim status, he still denies it.

Alternatively, he might just say how evil abortions are and make some comment about earthworshippers or babykillers, ignoring the fact that other people don't consider it a baby. Engaging on a philosophical level where you can discuss views as to what makes a person a person requires a degree of respect for other views. Runner claims it is his view that is not respected.

I put it to you runner, your view is not respected because you've no respect for any other views on abortion. Before you call it 'baby killing!', ask yourself why others don't view them as babies, and don't take the cheap easy route of assuming they're all just bad people, or they just want the most convenient answer. Consider that perhaps, if foetuses aren't seen as individual people, forcing a woman to give birth against her will is the greater of two evils.

This might take effort. I honestly don't think you're capable of it, but maybe you can surprise me. I feel as though I'm bashing my head against a wall, but I have a slim hope that perhaps some small reflective part of you can consider what I'm saying and surprise me.

Now were I to predict HRS's response, it would be 'ahh, they're being abusive! You're all so abusive! Abusive people like abortions! Therefore, women shouldn't be able to choose!'

Make sense? No? Well, don't point that out, or you'll be labelled abusive.

HRS, I'm pretty sure this line of reasoning proves you're a misogynist, and you've never been able to correct it, so I'd say I'm not the least surprise you don't wish to grant women these rights. You have accepted all of the following. I can link to them:

1) Any person who says they're a feminist, is a feminist.
2) Some people who believe women should have equal rights to men, would call themselves feminists.
3) You believe all feminists are evil and can't accept any could be good.
4) Even a person who called themselves a feminist because they oppose the stoning of women in Saudi Arabia. (I've asked you to deny this, but you just can't accept any good from feminism so you can't).

Therefore, the combined logic of the above indicates you don't believe women deserve equal rights to men, therefore you are a misogynist.
To bring this back to topic, I'd say that your impractical views on contraception, calls that abortions must be stopped, and your misogynistic views as evidenced by the above lines, is the source of your view that women shouldn't have the right to choose.

I'd put it to readers that both runner and HRS are indeed extremists who don't have regard for those with opposing views.
I'm not saying I disrespect the pro-lifer position. I think sciencelaw, for example, has made some persuasive posts which I politely disagree with, but they're persuasive because there's some understanding that there are two views here, that both need consideration.

Sams you're an embarrassment.

What? Zygotes sometimes die in a spontaneous miscarriage so therefore I can kill them? Ipso facto given death is inevitable I can kill you?! – As for your inevitable death I DO know the future mate. Trying to justify the killing of a new unique human being because it may spontaneously miscarry is absurd. And you’re criticizing my ability to debate? “Have IQ’s just dropped sharply while I was away?”. This is an embarrassment.

I state a pro abortion position, that is, if a fetus makes it to birth it is a significant part of the human community and can be protected, but if it is killed then it didn’t have moral significance – and you say its MY line of reasoning? And crap on about used cars! Do I need more proof that pro abortionists are soft headed and hard hearted? No wonder children are destroyed by their parents given this level of mindlessness.

Sams you are not only philosophically illiterate but scientifically illiterate also. What cells of the body grow into a bouncing baby boy or girl if left alone to do what they do? Only in a deformed imagination like yours would human cells be used to clone people.

It most certainly is tautological, pro abortionists decide whomever they kill in the womb is not a person because people are human beings not aborted in the womb! You keep unconsciously showing everyone the incoherence of the pro abortion position. Something good in you is trying to trip you up from going further down this murderous path.

And again if you can’t see how members of the human family in the past have been dehumanized and accept the precaution as intended then you’re not worth talking to.

Go and read some moral philosophy (this goes for you too rojo "morals are highly subjective" fair dinkum!!), this is life or death for those utterly dependent on our protection.

Martin: "Trying to justify the killing of a new unique human being because it may spontaneously miscarry is absurd."

Wikipedia: "To 'set up a straw man'" ... "is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute"

Martin: "Have IQ’s just dropped sharply while I was away?" ... ""Sams you are not only philosophically illiterate but scientifically illiterate also" .. "Only in a deformed imagination like yours" ... "you’re not worth talking to"

Wikipedia: "An ad hominem argument," ... "consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

Martin: "It most certainly is tautological"

At least here you admit your error.

No case to answer here, just a hateful attitude and a truckload of illogic.

PS: given my publications in international science journals, one can infer that at least the reviewers didn't think I was "scientifically illiterate".