Is a sperm cell a human being? Tell me, is it? Is an individual fat cell a human being? Is a skin cell a human being? No. They're not. Is an acorn a tree? No. It is an acorn, that is why they have different names, because they are different things. Baby, infant, man, woman, all humans. Small ball of cells that looks like someone sneezed in a petri dish? Not a human being.

You're going to say this is a human being:

( Warning, really, really really graphic..) No seriously, awful images that will make you vomit, such detail..

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsk6pnAjes1qi68z9.jpg

By which time I hope you have clicked the link and realised I was being sarcastic..

Oh yeah, I can totally see how you would think that's a human being. A living human being. Oh wait, no it's not... In the womb or not. And if you're saying that if the woman's life is in danger, and that's just natures course, then why don't you stop filtering tap water, stop making medicines, stop research, stop helping the elderly and disabled, and let everyone die at the age of 30 because of dysentery. That would be 'letting nature take it's course'. Ever think that humans are part of nature?

By the way, we don't decide when viability is, foetus viability is the stage at which a foetus can survive outside the womb ( with medical support) Any abortions past this are not OK. I have said this many times before. You think a 1 week foetus can survive outside the womb, you go try it. Please get your facts right when you do this, not just say " it's my opinion, and so it's a fact that everyone should abide by."

Do you think a newborn would know if someone killed it? Because it really does not know what is going on.

It is capable of feeling both pain and emotional distress. Why do you think babies cry so much?

Is killing someone who is severely mentally disabled ok?

Mentally disabled people can still feel pain and emotional distress.

How about someone in a comma? Pain is not an issue...anyone can be put under and then killed.

Killing someone in a coma still causes emotional distress to their loved ones. The person may also have goals they wanted to accomplish in their lives, so killing them would prevent them from doing that. A fetus that hasn't reached consciousness doesn't have goals and can't feel pain or emotion.

You have no way of knowing the exact point when something is viable...or feels pain...yet you are willing to let that go...and guess. Is it 24 weeks? 23 1/2? And does the unborn feel emotion? How do you know?

No I'm not willing to let that go. I don't think a fetus should be aborted unless we know for sure its brain isn't developed enough to feel pain or emotional distress. I may not know the exact second that happens because I'm not an embryonic biologist, but people who are embryonic biologists do know. If the brain develops enough to feel pain or emotional distress somewhere between 22-24 weeks, then to err on the side of caution we should subtract a week or two from that. I don't think late term abortions should only be allowed unless the woman's life is at risk.

There are two involved in an abortion. The woman that carries the baby and the one she carries. Abortion should just not be about the woman. The unborn is not a part of her. The baby has its own circulatory system, fingerprints, heart, organs...etc. Louise Brown the worlds first test tube baby...was not a part of her mother she was not even conceived in her mother...but in a Petri dish. She used her mothers body as a safe sanctuary to grow.

That still doesn't address my original question. Why is terminating the life of someone wrong? The relevance of that stuff you mentions can't be evalutated until that question is answered.

You give statistics on the occurrence of abortion. First of all there are no statistics that are accurate...most all are biased. Guttmaucher Institute is an arm of Planned Parenthood, the majority of the board members are pro-abortion. There is bias.

Then show me some statistics that say otherwise. The statistics are irrelevant to my argument. I just threw them in there just to show you that most abortions occur before the fetus has developed enough to feel pain or emotion. I personally think current abortion laws are too laxed and should be more restricted.

As of late we have seen clinics all over the country, doctors exposed who are doing late term abortion. It is going on all over and not reported...why? They are guilty.

And they should be prosecuted for it. Just because some people do something the wrong way doesn't mean you ban the ones who are abiding by the law. There are people harvesting and selling organs illegally, so should we ban organ transplants altogether because some people aren't doing it according to the law? How about all the televangelists who scam people out of their money? Should we ban religion because some of them are crooks? Of course not, you punish the ones who break the laws and leave the ones who don't break the law alone.

The Pro-aborts position is based on CHOICE...and the right of the woman TO CHOOSE.

How then can you tell her...that she can't, that because of YOUR particular morals she can't decide for herself? You enslave her....your position is hypocrisy.

Read your paragraph again. It's makes absolutely no sense. No one is forcing women to get abortions. What exactly are you claiming that "she can't decide for herself"?

You will note that I said survive the pregnancy not the birth, what if the woman carrying the baby was going to die due to complications from the pregnancy before the baby could be induced is it better to let nature take it course and let both die or just abort the baby and save the mother? If you believe in nature taking it's course and allowing both to die then your are not pro life, if you were pro life you would agree that to forfeit the life of an unborn child that would die anyway to save the life of the mother is better than letting both die.

I didn't say you were pro Capital Punishment I said pro lifers who are also pro Capital Punishment were hypocritical.

Whether you like it or not, statistical likelihood and life expectancies are quite legitimate and a necessity in the system we have; the health care system that you take for granted functions in the US based off of insurance; in a capitalist economy, for insurance to be profitable and accessibly priced, statistics are necessary. Without statistical likelihood and life expectancy, the only way that insurance can be profitable is to charge such exorbitant prices that the very purpose of insurance is questionable. Without insurance, health care aside from emergency care is simply not reachable by the masses. These things come into play in all parts of the medical industry, not just insurance; when patients are triaged, it is necessary to determine the likelihood of survival; some patients will survive even without medical attention, some patients will survive so long as medical attention is provided in relatively short order, some patients will not survive without immediate medical attention, and some will be beyond help. Is it cold blooded? Maybe, but it has to be, because if we focus on the ones who are beyond help they die anyway, as well as others who might have been saved.

So, yes, the likelihood of survival and the level of development are very relevant to the situation. Personally, I do not believe it is sound reasoning to raise a child when the mother is not properly equipped financially or emotionally to do so. I do not believe it is sound reasoning to put an unwanted child through the foster system either. But you're right that it isn't sound reasoning to just kill them either. You seem to have this idea that people who are pro-choice are in fact in favor of abortion, and you paint us as being heartless and bloodthirsty. That isn't debate; it's blatant slander at worst and a dishonest debate tactic at best. The pro-choice position is in fact a case of all of the choices being bad and having to pick what one considers the best position. If you're serious about your cause, you should drop that angle, because it's only going to make people defensive and further discredit your position. I don't mean any offense by it, but reading your posts on the subject is not going to sway anyone who is pro-choice, and you're more likely to push someone who is on the fence over to the pro-choice side with the way you're addressing this.

I'm not hiding behind anything. I've made my case very plainly in every exchange we've had. I do, in fact, find killing in general to be vile. I haven't even talked about personhood here, but you're actually very wrong in your statement regarding personhood; science does not in fact have anything close to a consensus on personhood at that stage, but it's generally accepted that the brain becomes capable of consciousness well after birth. You really should drop the personhood angle altogether, as the data is sketchy at best and what is loosely agreed upon doesn't support your side. It also doesn't support my side, as I am certainly not in favor of infanticide.

At the stages where women get abortions, the fetus may well appear healthy insofar as we understand it, but is still unable to survive independently and lacks self-awareness and consciousness. The only difference between that state and a person in a coma on life support is that there is a reasonable likelihood that a fetus will eventually gain consciousness and the ability to survive on his or her own. The womb is in fact a biological life support system for the developing fetus. Pulling the plug isn't murder.

And you're right, it's not only an issue about life or death. Economics do, in fact, come to play, as they do in everything in a capitalist society. That isn't hiding, that isn't cold heartedness, it's just one of the unfortunate facts of life. As I've said before, if the foster and adoptions systems could be reformed enough to actually be viable, I would wholeheartedly support it and be willing to pay extra taxes for it. What I question is whether that applies to everyone. Do you really think that the majority of pro lifers would be willing to put their money where their mouths are and take the extra hit to their paycheck to support all of this? Because I doubt it. Where, exactly, did you get the idea that I was not willing to pay a part? I never even remotely implied that it should be only pro-lifers covering the cost; taxes don't work that way. It would be all of us paying it, and the legislation would get shot down by both sides because of that. If you don't believe that, you're either naive or just have more faith in mankind than I do.

I've asked you repeatedly to stop vilifying me. I've been extremely patient with you and have lashed out at you, what, once? Do you really expect to win people to your cause in that way? Because it seems to me that you're far more interested in vilifying pro-lifers than trying to affect any kind of change, and as I've said, if you are trying to affect change- You. Are. Doing. It. Wrong.

I've made no excuses. I've spoken plainly in every single exchange, and backed up everything I've said. I must be a masochist for continuing to reply to you! And I certainly see value to the unborn, but it would be correct to say that I value the woman more highly than the unborn child. If we disagree on that, that's fine- but it would appear that you value the unborn child more highly than the woman; how is that in any way a reasonable position? One would expect your side to value both equally at the very least. You speak about a preference for supporting the life of a child rather than prisoners, illegal immigrants, and government programs- but it isn't a this or that proposition, and this is a total smokescreen. Prisons aren't going anywhere- even if we made the death penalty the norm (horrific) and sentenced everyone who would go to prison for whatever reason to death (even more horrific), prisons would STILL be needed for the time between sentencing and execution, which is already LONG and would be longer still with more individuals in it. The system you would have us put infants who would otherwise have been aborted into is in fact a government program, and one that some consider wasteful.

As I've said- I don't need to make any excuses. Even if I did, I wouldn't need to with you, because you howl insults and slander at every turn; your take on this is self-defeating. I've wondered at times if maybe you're just entirely a troll and your purpose here is to plainly make the pro-life crowd look bad. Your style of posting has done more for the pro-choice cause than any argument I could put together, certainly. I'm till not certain as to what you are, and I suppose thats why I'm still responding to you.

How many times are you going to point out hypocrisy where it isn't there? It may be hypocritical the way you paint it, but that is all you. This is what is popularly called a strawman; setting up a ludicrously twisted version of the opposing position in such a way so as to appear blatantly hypocritical and inconsistent, and then attack that false position rather than the other sides actual position. That tactic might have even worked to sway someone to your side if your entire posting style wasn't so venomous. No- I support restrictions on when the fetus can be aborted primarily to minimize the suffering of the fetus. Even though the fetus is not self aware, in most cases they begin to feel pain and other sensations about midway through the second trimester. Some develop earlier than others, however, so it would need to be done sooner than that. It has nothing to do with what the fetus looks like, it has to do with what the fetus can or cannot feel.

But maybe you didn't mean to set up a strawman; I should be fair. I understand that my position on the matter is somewhat complicated, and I would understand if you need to simplify it somewhat to understand it. I would prefer, however, that you recognize that my position as you understand it is not in fact my position. In particular, before you call it 'my firing squad,' please take a moment to consider which, of the two of us, has in fact admitted to pulling the trigger. One of us has blood on his or her hands and one of us doesn't. Which is it, Adolph?