So when does a fertilized egg become a human being?

[dave_c]

And where does the Pro-Life Protetors stand towards abortions, are they completely against it?

[Loosehead]

When an egg is fertilized and starts cell division, it becomes an embryo, that is when the pro-life protestors say it is a human.

[georgit79]

I think it becomes a human being when it stands a fighting chance of survival outside the womb.

[MargeB]

I believe the decision is pretty much arbitrary (at least in practice). I think the abortion debate is very important for testing the temperature of the general ethical climate. The fact is, the people making the decision are themselves human beings, and like it or not hold the value on human life to be one of the highest values if not the highest. They also revere 'the mystery of one's own life, one's own existence', which gets trampled on quite a bit if they consider that that whole existence could have got chucked in the bin if theyhad happened to have a cleft lip. The whole debate is never helped by the religious right trying to thrust a position down everyone's throats based on a set of principles which no one else agrees on, even if others are prepared to agree with their practical position.

It's also important to call the HFEA, parliamentary, and general approach to 'the beginning of life' what it is: a bit of a joke. I mean, if they are actually saying 'this is when life begins', at least stick to it! Is it when the foetus is viable? Well loads of foetus's are viable at 20 weeks! President Clinton engaged a bill allowing partial birth abortions. Just think about that. A child has its head pushed out into daylight, and is then forcibly killed.

Also, if we're going to say 'for the good of the mother/the mother's health', let's really be honest about this. A foetus that will kill the mother...sure this is a threat to the mother's health. But this position has become 'abortion on demand' in the UK under the guise of 'helping the mother's quality of life' not health.

Put it this way...if you were formed in the womb with a wonky arm, would you have want to have been sucked out by a vacuum at 48 weeks?

[georgit79]

and yes, I know I'll have just opened a gigantic can of worms with that opinion..

[MargeB]

I can see this thread running and running. In the US of A they'd be reaching for their weapons!

[georgit79]

Agree with everything you just said, MargeB. In fact I'm still generally undecided with the whole current UK ruling on the right to abortion. I certainly think the current limit should be lowered to under 20 weeks (say, more like 16?) as more and more young women nowadays are using abortion as another contraceptive option. It's just too sad..

[mycatis]

yes pro-lifers are totally against abortion even in cases where it will seriously affect the mothers health or in cases of rape. But some of these people think think it's ok to (and actually carry out) violent atacks and murder on doctors and people who work in clinics where abortions are carried out! How do these nutters justify that!!??

[georgit79]

did you know that apparently 1 in 3 women in the UK has an abortion in her lifetime- that seems huge! I'm in the minority, fortunately, but at this stage of my life (no boyfriend, renting, no money in bank, not living near parents) I don't think I'd hesitate if I accidentally got pregnant. I would make sure, though, that the procedure (such a clinical word) was carried out as soon as possible, as this would be less painful both mentally and physically both for myself and the foetus.

Would appreciate more views on this matter. When is abortion not ok? In the instance I've just described, for example?

[georgit79]

Of course I meant that I'm in the majority, not the minority. I'm in the 2 out of 3 who hasn't.

[mycatis]

I am totally pro-choice but it's hard when you hear about some irresponsable little er so and so, who has one abortion after another, using it as a form of contraception. Personally if I was a doctor and I had the same woman in 3/4/5 times (unless there was a good reason for it) I would be tempted to sterilise them when they were unconscious, but apparently they're not allowed to do that, pah!
Having said (ranted) that, for the average woman who has just made a mistake or is unlucky enough to be caught out, then I dont think for a minute that it can be an easy or light decision to make and how dare certain people make it harder by abusing them! Not something you would get over or forget easily, nor should it be I suppose.

[Mrs_Pegasus]

When you read the horrors of what children are put through sexually or violently you wonder if those who do it should not have been terminated at conception.

[Hamish]

Pro-choice for abortion mycatis, but not for sterilisation?

[georgit79]

I don't think anyone will ever be able to come up with a 'solution' that pleases everybody. There are so many factors to be taken into account, including rape. Would you want to give birth to the child of someone who seriously assaulted you?

I'm sure there are lots of women who see abortion as a means of contraception, and just take it with a pinch of salt. It is this I am heavily against- abortion for abortion's sake.

Also, should the 'father' have a say? It's his unborn child too, after all..

[mycatis]

Yeah Hamish, I know it doesn't make sense but I was only ranting really, of course it's not a "good idea!"

[badams]

MargeB - "The whole debate is never helped by the religious right trying to thrust a position down everyone's throats based on a set of principles which no one else agrees on, even if others are prepared to agree with their practical position. "

Why does everything with you have to be an excuse to get a dig at religous people, especially since in this case, your position is in very close accord with theirs!

I can see it now, over in Internet & Technology:-

Q - Why does Windows XP crash on my machine.

MargeB - It's because of the influence of right-wing religous zealots within Microsoft....

For goodness sake stop ruining otherwise excellent arguements with your religous bigotry!

I pretty much agree with all you have said here - the notion of partial-birth abortions is disgusting.  In some cases, the baby is delivered by caesarean and then killed!  Can someone tell me the difference between that and murder?

This is not a religous issue.  If anyone holds the moral view that murder is wrong, then I cannot see how they can possibly justify killing what georgit79 describes as a baby "standing a fighting chance of survival outside the womb", even if the child will have "a wonky arm"

But since there is no clear-cut point at which this becomes the case, how do you draw a line at a particular age?  And in any case, should you?  At 10 weeks, if nature is allowed to take its course, the baby in the womb will grow and be delivered, and survive.  Life clearly does not begin at birth!  If it did, our laws would rightly allow abortion up to the last few seconds before delivery.  So if it does not begin at birth, when does it begin?  Answer that, and you will know when the cutoff point for abortions should be.

[jimmer]

 

jthe critical point here is education and understanding. Surely the goal is to reduce the number of abortions and the number of unwanted pregnancies. This is achieved through good education, improving peoples choices and the availability of contraception. debating around the margins is a distraction of what is going on and will continue in the futureim

[simont]

A scary debate to say the least.  embryo's are not considered feotuses until 24 weeks.  At this time they are considered 'viable' or have a fighting chance (as I'm sure you all know.)  However, this appears to be a grey area too.

My child was born at 23 weeks and 4 days.  Fortunately my wife (who was also very sick) delivered in a pioneering hospital  that was open to try and save our baby.  After a very rocky start and several scary moments and many times of the doctors suggesting we turned off the life support, we have a perfectly healthy 3 1/2 year old.  If she had have been born in a hospital who adhered to the 24 week cut off, my wife would have been considered to have been having a miscarriage and the baby would have certainly died as they would not have started life saving intubations and other procedures.  Also, to think that we also could have legally had an abortion the same day is just shuddering.

I'm not saying all babies born this early will survive unscathed and many of the parents we met in scubu were not nearly so blessed.  However, to quote the film 'I Robot', "a child with a X% chance is still a child with a chance if you ask the parents. X% is chance enough."

MargeB: yes we did pray for her; yes some of the medical profession even referred to her  as 'miracle baby'.  Maybe God was there holding her tiny hand.

[simont]

I do however realise that there are legitimate cases for abortion and would never attempt to judge those people who have had to abort a baby.

Also, i would never dream of harming any of the medical preofession whose job it is to care for the mother who has opted for a termination. 

I just think it is is not a black and white rule and trying to legislate it is so hard.  It would be best to issue general guidelines and judge each case on an individual basis.

btw, imho, I believe life starts at conception (just to answer the question.....)

[MargeB]

Badams, who would deny that the anti-abortion lobby is dominated by religious people who adopt their position not through reasoned choice but because it conforms to the dogmatic position of their church. This expresses itself in the "arguments" offered from many prolifers consisting of regurgitated dogmatic soundbites such as:

"I believe life is sacred"

"I believe life begins at conception."

"I believe all life is a gift from God"

"I believe that nature should run its course"

"I believe that interfering with nature is evil"

Call it for what it IS. If you "believe" it because your church says it's that way and taking an opposing stance would result in going to hell, SAY SO. If you've reached a reasoned conclusion yourself SAY SO. Don't pass one off as the other. If I don't accept your theological premise, I'm unlikely to accept its moral conclusions on that basis alone. Especially if you go shooting doctors to get the point across.

[badams]

MargeB - did anything I said in my post even look slightly connected to religous reasoning or a "theoligical premise"? You havn't actually stated your position, but it does look very like an anti-abortion one, presumably based on your moral values? 

And the fact that many anti-abortionists are religous people does not mean their views are invalid - argue with the arguements - not with the people!

How can you say that "I believe life begins at conception." is an example of a religous statement? Many atheists would take this same view!

In any case, does it matter why people believe life should be preserved? Both religous and non-religous participants in this debate seem to be agreed that life is worth preserving.  The only question then is "when does a human life begin".

Personally I agree with simont - life begins at conception.  This has got nothing to do with what the church or anyone else has told me - it is my own conclusion based on how life is formed and developed in the womb.  It doesn't matter what you call it - an embryo, a foetus or a baby - these are all just terms of convenience for the medical profession and have no bearing whatsoever on when life begins.

Continues