**
Wouldn’t it make sense to say that life begins at fertilization? The gametes exhibit all of the requirements to be considered alive. It’s alive as a single cell, otherwise fertilization would be impossible. However, without fertilization it lies dormant. After a while, it dies and is flushed through the menstrual cycle. After fertilization, it becomes active and viable. It’s alive, for all intents and purposes. What I understand as your definition as “potential for life” is the pre-fertilization stage. Enlighten me if I’m wrong.
I agree with you that it is human. I never said it wasn’t, you came up with that idea. I don’t think that it’s “right to life” takes precedent over the mother’s though.
[/quote]
**
How does one’s right to life take precedence over another’s? Who decides? Who are we to make that decision? Under what circumstances?
And I apologize for “putting words in your mouth”, as you say. I asked the human question because in my experience the standard argument is that it’s not even human yet, so it has no right to life.
**
What exactly do you mean by “potential for life”? At what point does it stop being the potential for life, and actually become alive? Does it happen all at once, or is it a gradual thing? Some clarification here would be helpful to me.
**
I will concede that point. There is a very big difference between an hour old gamete and a thirty week old fetus. However, seeing that you and I agree that it’s human at both phases (unless I misunderstand you), why should it be denied its inalienable right to life at either point?
**
Again, I agree with you here. I’m not living in a fantasy world; I realize that some babies will “sell” faster than others. However, is it not incumbent upon us to try?
**
I didn’t realize I was preaching. I am fully aware that every situation is different. However, when I have an uncle who is permanently disabled due to a severe back injury and an aunt who suffers from severe lupus, high blood pressure, and other problems who can raise two daughters, one of whom has spina bifida, and raise them well, I tend to think that anyone willing to accept the challenge can do it. These two people have no income, no jobs, and do not use any kind of religious “crutch” to help get through. All they have is each other, and they have succeeded for the last twelve years. We have it within us to rise to the situation, regardless of what it is. It’s up to each of us individually to decide whether we will or not.
**
(Ignoring blatant sarcasm) In cases where it would threaten the mother to go to term but she is able to carry the baby to five or six months, there is this nifty little procedure called Cesarean Section. There have been so many advances in preemie care that the survival rate of preemies is very good. In many cases that do threaten the life of the mother, I’m sure Cesarean would be a very good way of getting around that abortion question. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
And yes, I do feel the abortion option should be left available in life of the mother cases. While I cannot morally justify the abortion, I can in no way make that decision for someone else.
**
So? Where’s the prejudice? That’s life, Dignan. My point is that the US federal government has no business forcing the people of State X to keep abortion on demand legal if they don’t want it in their state. Period. This poor ghetto woman is not being discriminated against in any way, unless you feel being poor is a form of discrimination.
**
The point is that pro-lifers and pro-choicers have a tendency to demonize each other so that there can be no constructive open debate on the matter. Perhaps if the propoganda put out by BOTH sides were tossed away, some real education could happen.