Whose reasoning/logic? Yours?

Science tells us a fetus (meaning "baby" in Latin) is HUMAN. Logic tells you if its growth is not interrupted, a human baby will emerge in 9 months. Not a blob, frog, or tissue. A real live, breathing human being. It doesn't matter if it is removed surgically (aborted), miscarried, or stillborn, it is still a HUMAN being, no matter what you wish it to be. So, tell us, why do you reject that logic? Is it because you don't want it to be true? I think so.

That same growth of which you speak is also a drain on the host. The woman should have the right to choose whether or not she is willing to do this.

The truth is the left has more love for those who take the lives of innocent people than they care about protecting the defenseless. Think about it. A murderer stalks and kills his victim, and your sympathy lies with the murderer, not his victim.

You would protect a mother's right to murder her defenseless, innocent unborn child. So, I think it's safe to say you are more for defending murderers than defending the innocent and helpless.

Your statement is pure ignorance. Unless semen (seed) joins an egg, it is nothing. But you knew that, didn't you? Pretty obvious you have to resort to outrageous statements rather than actual logic to make a point.

It's all about where you draw the line. I think nearly everyone is against late-term abortions.

However, the conservative argument is that the 'future baby' has rights even as a zygote. But I'd say that this is inconsistent. Using this logic, two couples deciding against having a baby is just as equally morally unacceptable as terminating the birth in it's early stages. If two couples got married, there is that 'potential' that a baby would be born as a result...but them deciding against attempting at having a baby is denying this potential future baby the right to live. Therefore using the 'pro-life' logic, two married couples who decide not to have children are essentially committing murder.

Likewise, sperm are generated and destroyed all the time. Each sperm has the the potential to form a baby when met with the ovum, so are men genocidal? I mean, men must then kill off trillions upon trillions of babies in a life's time!

Actually, the US Constitution speaks of "people" and "persons" who are citizens who are "born or naturalized in the United States."

And there is no example within the US Constitution whereby these terms are even remotely defined in any pre-natal context.

It's all a matter of perspective Observer. To many, Until the embryo/fetus becomes viable it is nothing.

BD, I like how you cut right to the chase. You live up to your name, and detect the baloney and then in one sweep, debunk it clearly...

OD

You can take that a step further...

Ova are developed and discarded monthly if there is no conception.

The ovum, also- by that standard- could be considered a 'potential baby.' So every female from about age 12 until 53(ish) would also be considered murderers.

Actually, there is great potential in human germ cells to produce viable human offspring without the need for fertilization.

In fact, viable offspring have been produced in another mammal (mice) through human-induced parthenogenesis.

And the extrapolation to the human lineage is, quite frankly, just a small step away from this example.

So much for the "human life begins at fertilization" hypothesis, aye?

Read on:

“Imagine that you have a fertilized egg, a conventional zygote, in one test tube and an unfertilized egg in another. Neither can develop into a human being by itself. Left to themselves, they would both perish. Each, however, has the potential of becoming a human being, provided that it is supplied with the appropriate machinery. In the case of the zygote, that machinery is the mother’s body. In the case of the unfertilized egg, that machinery involves a laboratory and then the mother’s body.

Those who argue that life begins at conception hold that the zygote is legally entitled to the use of the machinery it requires to realize its potential. By what criterion, then, would they deny that right to the unfertilized egg? Surely it is a much easier choice to grant the right to a laboratory procedure than to the use of somebody’s body. To be consistent, you would have to say either that both the zygote and the unfertilized egg are potential life and therefore are entitled to the use of life-giving machinery, or that neither is. There is no middle ground.

But isn’t the machinery needed by the unfertilized egg unnatural? It is no more unnatural than the incubator used to keep a premature infant alive, and certainly less unnatural than in utero surgery. We are used to intervening during the course of a pregnancy to allow the embryo or fetus to achieve its full potential. By what right, then, do we refuse to intervene to allow an unfertilized egg to do so?

The only way to make a distinction is to say that a zygote is already in the uterus and thus has already appropriated the machinery. But this sort of argument simply begs the question around which the abortion debate centers, namely, the question of whether the woman or the fetus has the right to decide on the use of that machinery.

To find a scientific reason to support the possible life argument, then, we have to agree that when the technology for parthenogenesis becomes available, it should be considered immoral to allow any unfertilized egg to go to waste. Every time a woman menstruates, a potential life has been cut off just as surely as when a zygote is killed. We do not normally worry about the moral consequences of the menstrual cycle, but if we accept the potential-life argument, we would have to.

In other words, since both the fertilized and the unfertilized eggs have the potential for life, the choice to extend legal protection to one and not the other must be based on some other criterion. It cannot be based on this potential alone.”


"The Facts of Life"
Harold J. Morowitz and James S. Trefil