[tomder55]

You would have to abort really early to kill a baby that does not show recognizable human parts. By the 3rd week of pregnancy ;when perhaps the 1st menstral cycle is missed the child already is developing it's human parts and is no longer cells ...just dividing, dividing again, and again.

[ETWolverine]

What standard?

The standard that "life" begins with "awareness of self"? The standard that YOU cited as the meaning of life.

I see what you are trying to say, but you know good and well this is way off base.
I don't condone killing babies that have been born into this world. I don't condone "killing babies" that are viable to live outside the womb. When I speak of abortion, I'm speaking of early term when cells are just dividing, dividing again, and again.

So what is the cut off point? Please tell me EXACTLY when a baby is considered viable, and when it is not. Define viability. No baby is viable without outside care. I have seen babies born in the fifth month at just over an ounce in weight live to become happy children (my best friend's daughter was born in that condition and spent several months in an incubator).

You are way off base again. These are living creatures in this world. They are totally aware.

How do you know. Ever have a conversation about a dog regarding self awareness? I doubt the conversation would get very far.

I think you know what I mean and keep throwing out ridiculous things for lack of a better argument.

I the arguments I am making are not ridiculous at all. I am pointing out the logical falacies and weaknesses in your argument.

I'm not going to quote all the stuff you copied from somewhere because after reading the first few statements, it just became bla, bla, bla.

These are the scientific definitions of life. The problem with the pro-choice movement is and always has been that science is NOT on their side in this argument. There is no scientific basis for arguing that a fetus is not a living creature at this point but is a living creature at the next point. There is no scientific cutoff between when a fetus is "just a bunch of cells" and when it becomes a living creature. That is why it is so easy for some in the pro-choice movement to argue in favor of late-term and even partial-birth abortion. I am not saying that you support such things. WHat I am saying is that you are creating an artificial, randomly created cutoff of when "life" begins that has no basis in science in order to say abortion is allowed now but not later. If you have no scientific basis to say "life begins at this point", then you have no moral right to say that before that point, there is no life. Because you may very well be wrong and may be killing a living creature that IS alive, even by your definition.

You are right about that, none of us knows. I think we can make a pretty practical assumption though that clusters of cells don't have emotional feelings, feel physical pain or experience traumatic memories.

You are again making assumptions that are not based on factual information. You simply don't know. The most PRACTICAL and SAFEST assumption from the point of view of the suffering of the baby is to ASSUME that life begins at conception. That way, there is no way that you can possibly be violating that babies rights or causing it suffering. If you don't know when a baby's life begins, you have to make the assumption that it begins at the first moment of existence. Otherwise you are taking a risk of being wrong.

Because by that point, they ARE babies and they operate with instinct and reflex.

Again, when does that instinct and reflex begin? I don't know and neither do you.

I've had a couple of children myself so I have some experience in this arena. Remember, I'm not talking about fully formed babies. I'm talking about early term abortions.

How about unformed babies... I have a friend who's sister-in-law suffers from spina-bifida. Her spine never fully formed. I have read cases where children were born without skulls, without rib cages, etc. but lived, albeit with medical and mechanical assistance. These babies were never "fully formed". Do they count as living by your definition?

Again, you have changed your definition. Your original definition was

One of the cornerstones that you are a person is the awareness that you are a person.

Then it became

I don't condone "killing babies" that are viable to live outside the womb.

It changed again to

Because by that point, they ARE babies and they operate with instinct and reflex.

And finally it became

Remember, I'm not talking about fully formed babies.

Your definition of "life" is a moving target that changes every time it is challenged. My questions aren't ridiculous at all. They directly challenge how you define life, and at what point abortion becomes morally wrong in your way of thinking. And every time I have done so, you have changed your definition. And that is my point.

Those who support late-term and even partial-birth abortions disagree with your definitions and say that life doesn't begin until after birth is complete. And there is a super-radical group of pro-choicers who say that if an abortion is botched and the baby is born anyway, the ALREADY BORN BABY should be allowed to die. Obama supported this position both in the US Senate and in the Illinois State Senate (he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act twice). These people clearly do not support your definitions of life (awareness, viability, instinct/reflex and fully formed). So who is right? You or them?

The only way to avoid ANY question of when life begins is to define it as beginning at the beginning... with conception. Anything else is a moral hazard that risks being wrong about the definition of when life begins and committing murder.

Elliot