Originally Posted by seabhcan

No matter what way you look at this topic, it always comes down to the definition of when a fetus becomes 'human'.

That definition is always arbitrary and, of itself, meaningless.

Even religion can't agree with itself. Catholicism used to define the moment of life as 40 days after conception. In the 19th century, it was arbitrarily changed to the moment of conception. However, many catholics define it to be the moment of implantation, not conception - which is equally valid.

Its pointless arguing any of the other points until everyone agrees this fundamental point - when does human life begin - and we will never agree that. Ever.

You have hit the nail on the head there. Who is deemed a human being? Having lived in Australia I am very aware of how the aborigines were not deemed human in mainstream Australian society and violence against them even mortal violence was considered acceptable. This is what I find particularly disgusting about the abortion arguments in that they are word for word the excuses made for violence against the aborigines.

Originally Posted by pro-choice

I really don't want to end of Leo's political career. Dana, Declan Ganley, Kathy Sinnott and Caroline Simpson Gay Mitchell - all took a nose drive when they started hanging around with the anti-abortion crowd. I don't think Leo deserves that. He just needs to think about these issues a bit more.

The pro-life position is a very courageous stand to take much like those in Australia who spoke out against violence against the aborigines.

Originally Posted by julieandrews

When you've been raped and feel absolute revultion for yourself and for the baby you now carry, lets see how you feel. Why should a woman have to suffer twice for the actions of a rapist? A fetus is a nice little parting shot from a rapist, if this causes a woman extreme distress which in a huge number of cases it will - she has every right to do as she pleases with it.

Aside from that, a woman has a right to chose her mate, it's a basic biological right which is why we are attracted to good looking healthy people as our subconcious tells us that they will produce better offspring. A rapist is not a father which has been chosen and a womans subconcious honed by millenia of evolution is screaming at her to say that the genes of the fetus she is carrying are bad. Females of every species have the urge to chose who they want to be the father of their offspring.

A logical argument why an innocent person should die for the crimes committed by their father please. also explain why your arguments should not extend post-birth, if I found out that my local greengrocer was conceived through rape should it be legal to shoot him???

Originally Posted by SilverSpurs

You have hit the nail on the head there. Who is deemed a human being? Having lived in Australia I am very aware of how the aborigines were not deemed human in mainstream Australian society and violence against them even mortal violence was considered acceptable. This is what I find particularly disgusting about the abortion arguments in that they are word for word the excuses made for violence against the aborigines.

Yet, why define the moment of conception as being 'human'. Why not the sperm or the egg?

Originally Posted by pro-choice

I do take your point that the Minister has not said there are "magic anti-rape-conception powers". I hope.

The two are not remotely similar. If you can't see a major difference you are suffering from the same mental blocks as the pro-life extremists.

Originally Posted by seabhcan

Yet, why define the moment of conception as being 'human'. Why not the sperm or the egg?

Ask your biology teacher when big school reopens.

Originally Posted by Half Nelson

Ask your biology teacher when big school reopens.

Biology doesn't say the fertilised egg is any more 'human' than the sperm and egg on their own. Each is made of human cells, each has human dna.

Its an arbitrary definition.

Why not define the moment of 'human-ness' as the point at which the brain develops (~week 5), which is coincidentally the time at which the Catholic church defined as the moment of life until the 19th century. If God was happy with that definition for 1850 years, why not go back to that?

Originally Posted by seabhcan

No matter what way you look at this topic, it always comes down to the definition of when a fetus becomes 'human'.

That definition is always arbitrary and, of itself, meaningless.

Even religion can't agree with itself. Catholicism used to define the moment of life as 40 days after conception. In the 19th century, it was arbitrarily changed to the moment of conception. However, many catholics define it to be the moment of implantation, not conception - which is equally valid.

Its pointless arguing any of the other points until everyone agrees this fundamental point - when does human life begin - and we will never agree that. Ever.

And yet you are prepared to say "it has not begun". The pro-life position may be right or wrong regarding the beginning of life but it does not gamble with the life of another human being.
The pro-abortion line, based on ignorance of when life begins, is to play Russian Roulette with the lives others.

Originally Posted by Half Nelson

And yet you are prepared to say "it has not begun". The pro-life position may be right or wrong regarding the beginning of life but it does not gamble with the life of another human being.
The pro-abortion line, based on ignorance of when life begins, is to play Russian Roulette with the lives others.

Pro-lifers may be wrong. What if life starts before conception. What if each egg is as human before conception as it is after?

Originally Posted by seabhcan

Biology doesn't say the fertilised egg is any more 'human' than the sperm and egg on their own. Each is made of human cells, each has human dna.

Its an arbitrary definition.

Why not define the moment of 'human-ness' as the point at which the brain develops (~week 5), which is coincidentally the time at which the Catholic church defined as the moment of life until the 19th century. If God was happy with that definition for 1850 years, why not go back to that?

Shouldn't you take that up with God?

(What is it with pro-choicers and religion?)