Buu, if we define human life as starting at the first signs of brain activity, then what seperates us from mice and rodents? They have brain function as well. Why is it ok to kill them?

Because they aren't human. Fetuses are arguably human. Anything that defines life for a human could be found in a rat, dog, or dolphin, unless we define life as being able to acknowledge one's own presence, in which case, could we abort new-born babies until it's proven that they could recognize themselves in a mirror?

I'll be your huckleberry, and be honest to boot. I am Pro-Choice (or Pro-Death as some of the nastier people like to say), and I can honestly say that if there was scientific proof that life begins at conception that I would have to rethink my views on abortion.

Thank you for a sane and very rational answer. The whole point of this question was to show that as long as it cannot be proved, that either you take it as an article of faith, or not, there can be no compromise between those who believe it is murder, and those that do not.

I doubt, at least in my life time, if the question ever will be answered. And so the debate will not end.

Thanks again.

1. The life of a person is worth more to me. 2. Because over 500 women die every day through botched, backstreet abortions, which they feel forced into as they have no other choice - they cannot afford or access legal abortion. Countless others damage themselves.

1. But if life begins at conception, it is a person, so reason one does not make sense. Then you are only trading the convenience of a person, for the life of another. Isn't that what murderers do?

2. You are still justifying murder for convenience. The women would not be dying if they were not trying to kill another person.

While I can see you are pationate in your view, I dont think you really thought through this question. But thank you for answering anyway.

If there was conclusive proof of cognisence coming from a blob of non-deliniated cells with no brain, then I think we would be questioning more then just the issue of abortion.

You are of course correct, but I did not want to start a novel, just tried to keep it on one portion of the issue.

Does that mean that a mother should have the right to kill her child even after it's born?

I had the same thought reading it, but you did say it better.

Brain activity vs. cognisence, MB.

But if you go down that path, then many DS children and otehr several handicapped people could not be murdered, nor could anyone be charged with their murder as the are almost vegetative, with no cognative skills. But for the sake of this argument, since it may also be argued that a new born baby has no cognisence, lets say that we could prove it at concdeption (ala Look who's talking).

SirNetMan, Texas Wahine, and Messy Buu, thank you for the spirited input. I think SirNet had a point, so I would like to qualify it and say that cognisence thought begins at conception (as well as life). In any event, it was just hypothetical. But you can see that it is not a Liberal vs Conservative issue. It is a belief issue. And until Science can come up with a definitive statement, it will not be sovled.
Thanks again, and continue to debate it! I find all the thoughts and ideas (well most at least) to be very educational and shows the poster has thought about it, and not parroted a mantra of one side or the other.

The problem is that there is really no magic point where the cellular construct, if you will, passes from part-of-mother-hood to person-hood. At every point from egg to probably about 12 to 14 years old, a child (or pre-child, but for ease of statement, I will say child) is both part-of-mother and indiviual, except to differing degrees. An egg is, say, .00001 extent individual and .999 extent mother (extents do not have to add up to 1). At 12 or 14, the child is .999 extent human and .00001 extent mother (even leagally, at age 12, a child is the resopnsability of the mother, and she is responsable for the kid's actions, so there is arguably legal precedent for this standpoint).

Everything in the world works on an extent system. A rock is to a certain extent a seat, but it is to a greater extent a rock, so we tend to refer to it as rock, and treat is primarily as rock, not seat. By that same line of thought, to determine the point at which abortion (not for the mother's safety) becomes unjustifialbe, we must come to a concesus on 2 things:

1. At what comparative levels of extent do we apply the humanhood treatment. Do we say the moment extent of humanhood passes extent of motherhood? Do we say when humanhood is 2:1 in relation to motherhood? It's not as simple a question as you might think.

2. At what rate do the extents to which the child is a part of these two catagories change? When is the child X extent human and Y extent mother? These equations do not necissarily have to be linear, or directly related to eachother.

Sir,

Why did you not pose the question.  Are you an english major?  Your grasp of the english language and understanding is superb.  And you have stated the real question that I could ever.  I was just trying to get a feel of how many people would still adopt expediency when it was proven that it was murder.

The Death Penalty is just that.  Expedient.  But it is also murder.  Yet other than a few Caritas people, you dont hear it debated with such passion as Abortion.  And yes that is hypocracy on both sides.

Determining the hypothetical point I doubt will ever occur.  But as long as there are some that say no matter when life begins, abortion should be legal, then they are the same as the ones saying "fry the murderer".  The latter at least try to justify their opinion by the fact they condemned are guilty.  The former are very sick in that they dont try to justify anything but 'if it feels good do it', and that is where the murderers come from.

In any event, I will oppose abortion due to my faith.  But I will not be out in front of the clinics, and I will not kill a doctor for it.  And others will be out there supporting it.

To let you in on a secret. The biggest opponents of abortion are those that have had one.  I know this for a fact (not the most violent, just the most ardent in opposition).  I am male, but my first born was aborted, and yes I was there.  It is not something you can forget, and it is hard to forgive oneself for it.

But thanks for contributing.  And your final wrap up.  From your dicing (i.e. Defining exactly what the point of life is) of words and science, I take it that you are for Abortion, until the fetus becomes a person.  And I respect that.  We only disagree on the when, not on the what.

I neither pro life or pro choice but for the right to choose. I do not want some asshat telling me what I can and can't do to my body.

I neither pro life or pro choice but for the right to choose. I do not want some asshat telling me what I can and can't do to my body.

That's called "pro-choice."

I am strongly opposed to late term-partial birth abortion. That being said, I have a hard time claiming the right to make the choice for a rape victim. I can't say that I can think of anything that would force me to choose an abortion (and I have been through a lot) but I am still unwilling to force my personnal beliefs on others.

Food for thought...A baby born at 23 weeks has a 25% chance of survival. If I had at that much, I would beg you not to write me off. So I cannot condone abortion after there is ANY chance of survival. That means because micropremies can live at 20 weeks, therefore no more abortions at that point.

One more thought, regardless of whether life starts at conception or not, the baby cannot survive. Neither can a patient on life support. Is it murder for a family to disconnect a breathing tube?

So would that change my mind? I don't know. I may never know. The grey area is too large for me to try to place a judgement on it.

A bit off topic perhaps but.....for those who support abortion as a valid and legal form of terminating a life, supported and nurtured by its mother, for any reason then it would be logical to assume that they would feel that until the child is born it is not yet "ready" for life. I understand that there are many differing opinions on abortion among pro-life advocates. But, if you are following the Scott Peterson case, he is being charged with TWO murders. His wife and unborn child.
Now one could argue that the childs death, upon the death of its mother, was an unitnentional form of abortion, but an aborted life nontheless.
Or one could argue that since it wasn't the mother's choice, it was murder.
If you take the point of view that it was murder, weither or not it was the mother's choice, then what is the difference between a murder "by proxy" ( by killing the mother) or the mother's specific decision to murder thier child.
Is it murder only if the mother didn't chose it or not. If it is murder if the mother does not chose it, then it would have to be murder even if she did.

I may be confusing in my statement, hell sometimes I confuse my self but I hope that you get the jist of my point.
At conception life begins, it is an entity, really, upon the conception, a type of forigen entity, that is being nurtured by its environment. If this "entity" is left alone, eventually it will develop fully into a functional human being. But being a functional human being is not the requirment to be a life. For an organism to simply exist is life.
ehh.........ok?

Ok............i guess it settles it then? Sort of?

If it could be definitely proven, then I would be on the pro-life bandwagon in an instant