Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[jai_lyn7249]

that is not has i understand them.... thats what the dictionary teaches
do you belive in the dictionary???lmfao

[jai_lyn7249]

yes starboy what is your meaning of being??

[Starboy]

Time to hit the hay. This will have to wait till later.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: jai_lyn7249 lol carrie didnt think we would get a definition.....lol

Pot shot. Not debate. And tells me a great deal about the kind of person you are. You just made my ignore list.

Starboy

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Pale Rider, no one is saying that the zygote is not alive. Please do not post references that simply indicate that the zygote is alive. If it is not clear by now that this discussion is about whether a single cell is a human being then there is no hope for you. Starboy

It seems that you are unilatarally redefining what a human being is. You are attempting to narrow what a human is down to just those attributes that suit your argument. Human beings mature from one stage to another till they die. You have failed to demonstrate in any way that being a single celled zygote is not just one more stage of our never ending process of maturation.

Quote by: Starboy For me a human being is a homo sapiens (Latin for "knowing man"). It must be sentient in that it must have a working mind....

If you are going to limit yourself to only the literal meanings of words then you have painted yourself into the corner of accepting the literal meaning of fetus. The literal greek meaning is baby, if you prefer latin, it is young one. Either way, the literal meaning of fetus is young human. So nice of you to limit us to literal meanings and thus shorten this debate.

Quote by: northtexan Look, it's not my specialty (I'm a sociologist teaching in a Gerontology program). And the way I first learned it, the genome of the fertilized egg did everything. But as I now understand it, it was long known that maternal chemicals, later identified as mRNA, controlled early development in insects. It was later found in mammaldevelopment

The mRNA that you refer to is messenger RNA. It is present in the egg at the time of conception and as such it is residual in the zygote. The mRNA facilitates division but it is not something that the woman's body is actively doing in real time to support the pregnancy. From conception, the unborn is still directing the woman's body via chemical communication.

Quote by: northtexan I find it sad that some people are so blinded by religious ideology that they cannot see the differences between a human person (capable of feeling, of consciousness, of self-awareness, and much more) and a single cell or clump of cells

And I find it sad that one can be so blinded by an ideology of political correctness that they can not see that the unborn are the most innocent and helpless of us all. That in your blindness you would concoct a story that attempts to change a human into a "meaningless clump of cells" and would willingly see them slaughtered in their tens of millions rather than insist that adults behave in a responsible manner and live with the consequences of their actions if they don't.

We can all play that sloppy "play on the heartstrings" game and it is pointless from either direction. Why don't we just stick to the facts? The biological fact is that we are human beings from the moment of our conception, and human beings, have an inalienable right to life that trumps the convenience of a woman who doesn't want a child.

[Two Cents]

Starboy, I think I understand what you are saying about no brain, no human. I don't really believe this is a valid argument in the case of a developing human. If you read my earlier posts I said I lost a son very early after birth due to complications. It was due to a malformed brain. He was very much human to me and does have a name and a death certificate and a birthday that I remember every year. I think what you mean is no self awareness = no human(ity). I could more understand this, as it was put forth in the Terri Schiavo case. I also posted before that life shouldn't be "inflicted" on people with no hope. Like Carriew my second pregnancy was a nightmare. Rh incompatibility threatened the life of my unborn child. Unlike her I would never undo a tubal ligation. Too much stress for me and I don't think my genes have to be duplicated over and over.

Northtexan, I am not religious and I am more pro choice than not for all the reasons you state, BUT, if an abortion is done it should be as early in the pregnancy as possible, definatly before eight weeks, and not used strictly for birth control. The parent should also be aware that though this being looks like a clump of cells it is alive and a growing "being that is human" and removing it from it's mother's body will kill it. If you abort a pregnancy then you should be prepared to live with this fact. This thread is about whether or not the zygote is alive, not self aware and it is alive from the moment of conception. In my son's case had he lived to 100 years he would probably not have developed self awareness but he was no less human than any of us on the board.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Pale RIder It seems that you are unilatarally redefining what a human being is. You are attempting to narrow what a human is down to just those attributes that suit your argument. Human beings mature from one stage to another till they die. You have failed to demonstrate in any way that being a single celled zygote is not just one more stage of our never ending process of maturation.

Pale Rider, all am trying to do it to get you to stay on topic.

If you are going to limit yourself to only the literal meanings of words then you have painted yourself into the corner of accepting the literal meaning of fetus. The literal greek meaning is baby, if you prefer latin, it is young one. Either way, the literal meaning of fetus is young human. So nice of you to limit us to literal meanings and thus shorten this debate.

One must start somewhere. And the literal meaning of a word is as good place to start as any. Now if you want to contend that the definition that is used should go by the usage of the word then that is fine, but it is not as if there is only one usage and thus one definition of the vast majority of words and it is not as if all those uses are not valid for their intended use. So if that is the case and you and I are using different alternate definitions of certain words then in order for any meaningful discussion to occur it will be necessary for us to come to an understanding as to what we mean when we use those words that have multiple meanings. You are interested in meaningful discussion aren't you?

Starboy

[Savant]

Well, it's looking to me like these word games and observations of biological milestones have done nothing to produce a definition of when a person becomes a person. So far I have taken the very safe positiion of only pointing out why some arguments are invalid. (Mostly the scientific spin). So I suppose rather than point out why those with absolute positions on the topic are ridiculous, I'll post where I stand on the subject today.

It seems to me that the actual begining of a person life story should depend on several factors:

1) The biology which has been beaten to death in this thread already. So many events happen along the timeline of human reproduction it really depends on what you are looking for. DNA? Energy? Conoiusness? Self awareness? Free will? So this leads to number 2....

2) The philosophy / ideology of the parents. While we idiots love to let society / government into our personal lives, I believe that parents should be the highest authority concerning their own children.

3) The intentions of the mother. Yep, sorry guys, when it comes to procreation, the will of momma trumps everything else. Maybe there might be a battle worth fighting when a uterus can be cloned to host that beautiful bundle of cells, but untill then, if momma says there will be no baby, then there is no baby in my eyes.

So, if the biolgical process has started either naturally or artificially, AND the child has reached the biological milestone that fits the parents' definition of life, AND the mother intends to allow her body to be used to create said life - THEN the person is a person in my eyes, no matter how developed or undeveloped. Even if it's just a gleam in daddys eye, if the parents think it deserves a name, more power to them.

What it means to me, is that my definition may be different than yours, but we can live with the same rules. If a mother is murdered who intended to have the child for example, a person could be charged with 2 murders. If a person miscarries 2 days ofter conception and wants a public record of the child and a grave, I agree with that. If a person uses birth control or aborts and doesn't think its worth a second thought, I can agree with that as well.

For me personally, we have two kids and my wife and I have already made our decision. No more. We have a boy and a girl and are very happy. So that's it, our decision is soverien and no matter what happens tommorow the fact of the matter is our third child will never happen. I have a vasectomy which should do the trick. However if it does not, my wife will abort with a clear conscience - in our eyes no life was lost. Our choice was made after the birth of our son, anything that happens afterwards is irrelevant, as per our definition of life.

[northtexan]

Quote by: carriew nope your wrong you prove to me that it can mean any other thing than what I have posted. then well talk untill now it is what it has always been same as you or I. a WHOLE COMPLETE HUMAN BEING FROM CONCEPTION!

I see: Webster's morality. Too blind to see REAL human persons and note how they differ from zygotes, Carriew can only retreat into some little narrow definition and judge everything from that. Carriew, sometime stop defining 'rose' and stop and smell the roses.

[northtexan]

Quote by: carriew I believe this said it loud and clear...

Slam! The sound of a mind closing. Carriew believes -- indeed. Reason, argument, data, theory -- no, nothing can touch Carriew's belief.

That's fine for you, Carriew. Just don't expect the rest of us to jump to when you spout your unsupported beliefs as gospel.

[northtexan]

Quote by: carriew Just a tip. You may want to research a bit about someone before you post.(i have posted this recently) I am a mother of 2. I had very touch and go pregnancies. now its story time I was sick from the minute I found out I was pregnant with my first and second child. I have primary hypertention. I found out I was pregnant due to blood work to find out why I was so sick around day 3 of my pregnancy. I found out on september 3 1999 I was pulled out of work on 9/29/99 I never returned. see I became disabled as a result of child birth. I was prepared from day one that I was so sick they didnt think my body would support the pregnancy the feared for the life of me and/or my child. every night I prayed that I could make it to 20 weeks so my child could have a chance to continue her life and if at any point my life were immediatley threatened she would have been delivered by c-secion and hope she would life not killed by abortion. I made it to 38 weeks I had to be induced due to bells palsey and a day and a half later my daughter wendy was finally born by c-section. I had migranes during the whole first trimester with my son while taking care of my 2 yr old. if was not as dangerous physically tho I did suffer from hbp it wasnt as serious. the second time around the chances for preeclampsia go down after each successful pregnancy. at four months pregnant my disks blew out in my lower back and I could not walk for a period of time at all. needless to say the rest of my pregnancy was torture. I got my tubes tied because I thought I was ok with tricking nature and manulipulating my body so I did not concieve agian. I regretted it almost instantly. I got it reversed on 7-11-05 and god willing we are going for #3. I am very very aware of what is at stake here. I have no wish to force anything on anyone. I only wish to tell the truth. and by law you are not allowed to kill human beings. If I wanted to or happen to kill my 1 day old I will go to jail for the rest of my life or die for my crimes. but if I go to an abortion clinic the day before I deliver I can pay them to kill it for me. I dont kill people I dont tolerate others who do. I believe that most abortions would not happen if the laws were changed because people would believe it was wrong. not because of religion but because it would be wrong according to the law. You have told me what your opinion of what you think you know of me. It shames me to say that id get kicked off if I told you mine of you. it is disgusting that human beings can be killed for the comfort, the convience and the dysfuncton of others.

It's too bad you had tough pregnancies. Too bad that seems to make you feel that you get to decide things for everyone else. My wife had a very-difficult pregnancy, followed by horrible complications after birth. Both she and my son barely survived. We all three of us believe in choice.

So, I'm sorry about your difficult pregnancies. But how I feel about you is determined not by that but by your close-mindedness and urge to force your ideology on all of us.

Some on here have said they disagree with me but wish to discuss the matter. All I have seen from you is an unbending insistence on your view or no view. Sorry, but that just blinds me to anything else about you.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Flip Jackson I don't mean to be rude carrie, but your post was a bit hard to follow. If possible, try to use punction and complete sentences. It will be easier to see what you mean. Starboy, I think what she meant is "You are wrong until you prove that her interpratation could be flawed." Then she will debate. Sorry to jump in like that. Just trying to clear things up and ease the tension.

'Prove to me that my ideas aren't perfect and then I will argue.' Yes, that is my sense of Carriew's thought processes. The corollary as it applies to the board would be: 'turn off the heat because I don't like it in this kitchen.'

[northtexan]

Quote by: Pale RIder It seems that you are unilatarally redefining what a human being is. You are attempting to narrow what a human is down to just those attributes that suit your argument. Human beings mature from one stage to another till they die. You have failed to demonstrate in any way that being a single celled zygote is not just one more stage of our never ending process of maturation.

Many of us believe that a human person comes into being when a human organism gains the abilities to think, to be conscious, to know feelings, to be self-aware. The problem is knowing when such things happen. My argument, and one that Starboy appears to agree with (say so if you don't, Starboy) is that this CANNOT BE before there is a working brain. At brain birth, waves start in the brain that will continue until the organism dies -- despite the major changes occasioned by birth, by brain reorganization in the first year, by the many stages of growth and learning thereafter. It thus seems reasonable to me to give the benefit of the doubt to a brain-born fetus, rather than sticking to the more-traditional definition of when a human life begins: at birth. By the way, it was by arguing about such things on discussion boards that I was convinced to consider the brain-birth definition, changing from my original position that a human person became one at birth.

You and others hold to a different definition, that a human person comes into being with its specific genome, at conception. I have noted twins as an example of how that is not true of some people -- one organism existed at fertilization, two or more persons resulted later. Such arguments are simply rejected, without clarification of reasons.

Personally, I find the arguments for 'from conception' to be abstract, cold, callous views that would reduce a human being to nothing more than biology. Moreover, I believe the twin example, as was as mosaic and chimera examples (more than one fertilized cell merging to form a single organism) to demonstrate the 'from conception' argument to be self-contradictory.

One argument that has been made on the board is that ANY living human cell has the full genome, including the living cell that I rub off with dead cells when I bathe. Presumably the answer would be that those are somatic cells, incapable of becoming a new human. However, recent research has shown that at least some somatic cells can be transformed into stem-cells, with the potential that in future that they might be able to be cloned into a new person. Aside from the morality quagmire of human cloning, the issue then becomes whether such somatic cells were, by your definition, full human beings because they have the potential of so becoming. Or if not, at what point would they become full human beings -- if made into stem-cells, only when transformed into zygotes? You may figure out logic tricks to guide you through such issues so that you can stick to your original view. To me, all this simply illustrates the problems of defining human persons in terms of biology alone, as opposed to considering functions they can perform, or at least possibly may be able to perform.

Quote by: Pale RIder The mRNA that you refer to is messenger RNA. It is present in the egg at the time of conception and as such it is residual in the zygote. The mRNA facilitates division but it is not something that the woman's body is actively doing in real time to support the pregnancy. From conception, the unborn is still directing the woman's body via chemical communication.

Researchers have been able to distinguish maternal mRNA, present in the UNFERTILIZED egg, from that generated by the genome of the fertilized egg; and they have further been able to determine that the MATERNAL mRNA guides the process until the fourth division, after which the genome of the zygote appears to take over. Without the guidance of the maternal mRNA, the fertilized egg does not start dividing -- I would count that as actively doing something in real time. You seem to want to fault lazy mothers for preloading the mRNA into the ovum, rather than generating it in real time -- sorry, nature found a better way.

I'm not sure at what point the fertilized cell or zygote begins generating hCG, 'telling' mom's body to prepare for pregnancy. However, note that chemical secretions by the mother, as well as all of nutrition, also shape the process, so that it is not all one-way communication during the pregnancy.


And I find it sad that one can be so blinded by an ideology of political correctness that they can not see that the unborn are the most innocent and helpless of us all. That in your blindness you would concoct a story that attempts to change a human into a "meaningless clump of cells" and would willingly see them slaughtered in their tens of millions rather than insist that adults behave in a responsible manner and live with the consequences of their actions if they don't.

We can all play that sloppy "play on the heartstrings" game and it is pointless from either direction. Why don't we just stick to the facts? The biological fact is that we are human beings from the moment of our conception, and human beings, have an inalienable right to life that trumps the convenience of a woman who doesn't want a child.[/quote]

[northtexan]

Quote by: Pale RIder And I find it sad that one can be so blinded by an ideology of political correctness that they can not see that the unborn are the most innocent and helpless of us all. That in your blindness you would concoct a story that attempts to change a human into a "meaningless clump of cells" and would willingly see them slaughtered in their tens of millions rather than insist that adults behave in a responsible manner and live with the consequences of their actions if they don't. We can all play that sloppy "play on the heartstrings" game and it is pointless from either direction. Why don't we just stick to the facts? The biological fact is that we are human beings from the moment of our conception, and human beings, have an inalienable right to life that trumps the convenience of a woman who doesn't want a child.

Well, it appears that we both find it sad that someone doesn't agree with our most-reasonable opinion but prefers to hold to an illogical one. Now, is there anything to talk about; or shall this simply be decided by force, including legal decisions, with no concern for exploring possible points of agreement? I wouldn't bother to ask this question of Carriew; but you seem capable of dialogue. So, again, is there any reason to conduct that dialogue?

[northtexan]

Quote by: Two Cents Starboy, I think I understand what you are saying about no brain, no human. I don't really believe this is a valid argument in the case of a developing human. If you read my earlier posts I said I lost a son very early after birth due to complications. It was due to a malformed brain. He was very much human to me and does have a name and a death certificate and a birthday that I remember every year. I think what you mean is no self awareness = no human(ity). I could more understand this, as it was put forth in the Terri Schiavo case. I also posted before that life shouldn't be "inflicted" on people with no hope. Like Carriew my second pregnancy was a nightmare. Rh incompatibility threatened the life of my unborn child. Unlike her I would never undo a tubal ligation. Too much stress for me and I don't think my genes have to be duplicated over and over. Northtexan, I am not religious and I am more pro choice than not for all the reasons you state, BUT, if an abortion is done it should be as early in the pregnancy as possible, definatly before eight weeks, and not used strictly for birth control. The parent should also be aware that though this being looks like a clump of cells it is alive and a growing "being that is human" and removing it from it's mother's body will kill it. If you abort a pregnancy then you should be prepared to live with this fact. This thread is about whether or not the zygote is alive, not self aware and it is alive from the moment of conception. In my son's case had he lived to 100 years he would probably not have developed self awareness but he was no less human than any of us on the board.

Well, we may never be able to agree on definitions, at least not easily. It does seem, however, that we could engage in a dialogue to explore agreements on policy. I treasure that, because it so seldom happens in the 'abortion debate.'

[northtexan]

Quote by: Savant Well, it's looking to me like these word games and observations of biological milestones have done nothing to produce a definition of when a person becomes a person. So far I have taken the very safe positiion of only pointing out why some arguments are invalid. (Mostly the scientific spin). So I suppose rather than point out why those with absolute positions on the topic are ridiculous, I'll post where I stand on the subject today. It seems to me that the actual begining of a person life story should depend on several factors: 1) The biology which has been beaten to death in this thread already. So many events happen along the timeline of human reproduction it really depends on what you are looking for. DNA? Energy? Conoiusness? Self awareness? Free will? So this leads to number 2.... 2) The philosophy / ideology of the parents. While we idiots love to let society / government into our personal lives, I believe that parents should be the highest authority concerning their own children. 3) The intentions of the mother. Yep, sorry guys, when it comes to procreation, the will of momma trumps everything else. Maybe there might be a battle worth fighting when a uterus can be cloned to host that beautiful bundle of cells, but untill then, if momma says there will be no baby, then there is no baby in my eyes. So, if the biolgical process has started either naturally or artificially, AND the child has reached the biological milestone that fits the parents' definition of life, AND the mother intends to allow her body to be used to create said life - THEN the person is a person in my eyes, no matter how developed or undeveloped. Even if it's just a gleam in daddys eye, if the parents think it deserves a name, more power to them. What it means to me, is that my definition may be different than yours, but we can live with the same rules. If a mother is murdered who intended to have the child for example, a person could be charged with 2 murders. If a person miscarries 2 days ofter conception and wants a public record of the child and a grave, I agree with that. If a person uses birth control or aborts and doesn't think its worth a second thought, I can agree with that as well. For me personally, we have two kids and my wife and I have already made our decision. No more. We have a boy and a girl and are very happy. So that's it, our decision is soverien and no matter what happens tommorow the fact of the matter is our third child will never happen. I have a vasectomy which should do the trick. However if it does not, my wife will abort with a clear conscience - in our eyes no life was lost. Our choice was made after the birth of our son, anything that happens afterwards is irrelevant, as per our definition of life.

Sounds good to me. However, it will not sound good, nor at all acceptable, to those who wish to push their definitions into law that regulates all of us.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: northtexan Many of us believe that a human person comes into being when a human organism gains the abilities to think, to be conscious, to know feelings, to be self-aware.

The problem with that idea is that in order to believe it, you must be willing to also terminate postnatals up to around 15 months because it isn't until about that age that children become self aware.

There is a great deal of research that suggests that children don't begin to "think" until around that age as well. Research suggests that the actions of children under a year are along the lines of genetic memory or instinct rather than any active cognition.

As to conscious? If you touch an unborn's palm at 8 weeks with a sharp instrument, it will recoil in pain. Neuroscientists have suggested for decades that an unborn at 8 weeks or later be administered a general anesthetic prior to an aboriton as they feel the pain of being torn apart the same as you would.

It seems that the pro choice side retreats further and further from science into the realm of necromancers and gypsies in an effort to obscure the truth of the issue and that is that whatever stage you care to point to is just another stage in a never ending (until our death) series of maturation and change.

You have existed as a unique individual since the moment of your conception. You did not "spring" into being at any time past that moment. If you are suggesting that you did, I would be interested in knowing the mechanics of how it happened.

[carriew]

i want to make something clear.

I personally do not believe in choice. I also believe that we are in a debate about when life begins and not abortion. I further believe that I live in a democrocy and untill it is voted by the majority it will still be legal. untill the unborn is protected by our government it will continue to be legal.

I vote my concience and speak my mind. I will and would not personnally be able to make any one elses choice for them even if that them happened to be my teenage child.

being someone who had bad pregnancies and a very much changed life after my children were born. I will say that I do believe it is a horrible decision to have to make. I was very fortunate to have my husband by my side. I believe everyone should have the right to choose for themselves just like you can kill your neighbor ect...but its against the law God wanted everyone to have free will why should I take that away. they should be told the 100% absolute facts and think for 24 hours then make thier decision. then it is between those who choose to participate and god. (untill the law)

I am allowed my opinion and anyone can say its wrong all they want. You vote your conciense and ill vote mine and in this great country majority wins. and I choose to live here so I do live with that everyday... so dont bitch at me go to your lawmakers I sure do!


and I do vote pro-life because I believe it is murder and should be illegal. (surgical abortions)

[northtexan]

Quote by: Pale RIder The problem with that idea is that in order to believe it, you must be willing to also terminate postnatals up to around 15 months because it isn't until about that age that children become self aware. There is a great deal of research that suggests that children don't begin to "think" until around that age as well. Research suggests that the actions of children under a year are along the lines of genetic memory or instinct rather than any active cognition. As to conscious? If you touch an unborn's palm at 8 weeks with a sharp instrument, it will recoil in pain. Neuroscientists have suggested for decades that an unborn at 8 weeks or later be administered a general anesthetic prior to an aboriton as they feel the pain of being torn apart the same as you would. It seems that the pro choice side retreats further and further from science into the realm of necromancers and gypsies in an effort to obscure the truth of the issue and that is that whatever stage you care to point to is just another stage in a never ending (until our death) series of maturation and change. You have existed as a unique individual since the moment of your conception. You did not "spring" into being at any time past that moment. If you are suggesting that you did, I would be interested in knowing the mechanics of how it happened.

How do we know? We do the best we can judging from the outside. And what is 'thinking'? Research has suggested that the concept of object permanence may be acquired very early -- is that thinking? Now, true, the brain reorganizes substantially in the year or so after birth, and few of us can remember anything from before that. Does that mean that what goes on in the brain before that is unimportant? How do we judge that it is less important than what goes on later? At the very least, it likely sets the stage for what goes on later. In any case, the born baby is immediately interacting with others, learning, changing -- something is going on in that brain.

No, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt not just to the newly born but to the brain-born fetus. I don't know what goes on in those brains, but it may be consciousness, perhaps a form of self-awareness. What I do know is that such things cannot be going on before there is a functioning brain.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: northtexan Well, it appears that we both find it sad that someone doesn't agree with our most-reasonable opinion but prefers to hold to an illogical one. Now, is there anything to talk about; or shall this simply be decided by force, including legal decisions, with no concern for exploring possible points of agreement? I wouldn't bother to ask this question of Carriew; but you seem capable of dialogue. So, again, is there any reason to conduct that dialogue?

The thing is that I am not simply voicing an opinion. I have presented plenty of legitimate evidence that we are human beings from the moment of our conception. I have seen nothing from your side of the argument suggesting in any way that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything other than a human being. So, yes, you hold an illogical position because you can offer nothing in the way of evidence to support it in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary.

I will resume my pro choice stance if you can demonstrate that unborns are not human beings. I used to be pro choice and was goaded into doing an enormous amount of research in an attempt to prove that the pro lifer was wrong. The more I researched, the more evident it became that I was wrong. Show me the hard science that I missed that would have proven that I was right. I still know where to find him if you can deliver.

Quote by: northtexan How do we know?

That statement alone should be enough to convince you that pro choice is the wrong position. If you honestly don't know, how can you justify erring on the side of of killing innocents for no better reason than convenience?

Quote by: northtexan We do the best we can judging from the outside. And what is 'thinking'? Research has suggested that the concept of object permanence may be acquired very early -- is that thinking? Now, true, the brain reorganizes substantially in the year or so after birth, and few of us can remember anything from before that. Does that mean that what goes on in the brain before that is unimportant? How do we judge that it is less important than what goes on later? At the very least, it likely sets the stage for what goes on later. In any case, the born baby is immediately interacting with others, learning, changing -- something is going on in that brain.

More smoke and mirrors. We either are human beings from the moment of our conception or we are not. If we are not, then an abortion is of no more consequence than clipping your toenails in which case I am all for the choice. BUT if we are human beings from the moment of our conception, then we have an inalienable right to life. (in the US anyway) The science is squarely on the side that says we are humans before we are born. Again, if I missed any real science that says that at any point along the line of our lives that we are something other than human beings, I would be interested in seeing it.

Quote by: northtexan No, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt not just to the newly born but to the brain-born fetus. I don't know what goes on in those brains, but it may be consciousness, perhaps a form of self-awareness. What I do know is that such things cannot be going on before there is a functioning brain.

So by that statement are you saying that from the time brainwaves are detectable forward that abortion should not be an option except in cases where the mother's life is genuinely in danger?