Sorry, Plaw, but science is not on your side. Your idea of "not being a human being, a person, or even a baby" doesn't stand up. From the time of conception, a baby has 46 chromosomes, which is the unique genetic signature of a human being. All of its DNA, its genomes, are all in place. There is no question of what it is growing into.By your logic, this means that children themselves aren't humans, because, after all, they aren't fully grown and developed.

Arguing about when life begins certainly does rationalize and trivialize the subject - otherwise, it forces abortionists to admit they are killing a living human being. By concocting some non-scientific argument about how life "doesn't begin until after birth" is not only factually incorrect but, when used for the purpose of promoting infanticide, morally reprehensible.

Again, you are wholly incorrect when you say that a baby (or "fetus" or "zygote" or whatever stage in development you wish to say) is a "completely unique organism," because it is not. Why are premature babies "humans" then? Wouldn't they be some other, alien life form, by this logic?

I have to say Plaw, I'm suprised you'd be willing to make such bold, unsubstantiated statements, especially when the facts are against you.

Cheers,
Double-J [/b][/quote]”Cheers” to you too, Double J.

Shortly after conception it looks like a human being, too.

So why do they call it a fetus? Why give it a special name?

Why don't you consider male sperm to be partially human as well? Isn't it? Aren't some of the chromosomes there? Isn't it partially human in relation to a fetus the same way a fetus is in relation to a baby that can survive on it's own?

Yeah, all of its chromosomes and whatever are in place, but the fact is (to me, anyway) that what makes it uniquely a human being is its ability to survive on its own outside the womb, not a bunch of chromosomes that are in place the instant that conception takes place and we're talking about something smaller than a pin head.

And no, by my logic I am not saying that "children themselves aren't humans, because, after all, they aren't fully grown and developed."

Children can live outside of the womb.

By your logic a single spermatozoa is a human life because it can eventually develop into a person under the right set of conditions.

And I find it interesting, BTW, how a bible-thumper like you can tell me how science isn’t in my side in how a choose to define what a human being is or isn’t – you who believe in the biblical story of creation which has no scientific basis in fact whatsoever.

I mean, believe it if you want to, that’s up to you, but don’t go quoting me science when it’s convenient for you to do so and then tell me about the biblical story of creation..

This debate is and always has been about when does a fetus become an actual baby, human being, or whatever you wish to call it.

No one – myself included – wants to murder babies.

Aborting fetuses is another matter.

There’s nothing unsubstantiated about any of my statements. A bit “bold” perhaps, but that’s as far as I’ll go.

BTW, I was looking through one of the old abortion debate threads just a minute ago, and found it remarkable how we’re all saying almost exactly the same things now as we did then. Almost word for word in some cases.

But I noticed in one of them, Double-J, that you managed rather artfully to avoid the question of whether or not if you had a sister or daughter who was pregnant as a result of being raped you would expect her to see the pregnancy through regardless of her age and what psychological damage it might do to her.