The chance for failure is 100% if you dont even try.

I used to be rabidly pro-choice. Yes, you can change people's minds, but your argument has to make sense.

Genetics are irrelevant IMO. A Zygote is not a person. No one would suggest that squashing a cell (which cant think or feel) is the same thing as killing a newborn baby.

Statements like this make you look defensive. Why do you feel you need to list your feminist credentials? Would your position be less correct if you were not also a feminist?

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

No, but I don't want to "control women's bodies", which is a phrase that I've seen too many times. That is the furthest thing from my mind, so that is why I am defensive. My statement was also true, by the way. Finally, a zygote does have some form of consciousness. It may be primitive, but being living and an animal, a zygote has a consciousness. However simple that consciousness may be, to use its simplicity as a justification for abortion is to state that a being is "a little bit alive". Have you ever read Encarta? It's very liberal, but this is what it states about when human life begins (emphasis mine):

The first cell of a new human being, called a zygote, is formed when a sperm fertilizes an egg. In the egg cell shown here, the nuclei of the sperm and egg appear as two yellow-brown, irregular shapes. When these two nuclei fuse, fertilization is accomplished.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461547467/Day_One.html

That is why I am opposed to abortion. Not only is my stance not anti-woman, it has nothing to do with religion either. I am a Christian now, but I converted to Christianity about a year ago, and I was 100% pro-life even when I was very secular.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I'll agree with this to a point: the brain activity must be indicative of higher brain function. If it's just a brain stem, it's not a person yet.

Which, by the way, seems to square pretty well with current practice, which is based largely on viability. Such higher brain activity apparently starts occuring between weeks 25 and 28.

Well, you're wrong, which is why "where to draw the line" arguments are so important and so contentious. Force, for one, believes that certain contraceptives, such as the pill, are abortifacents. "Human life begins at conception" folks are pretty unyielding.

__________________
Man up.

I've found with abortion that is often the case. The issue comes down to what Raytri said above. If you believe a one week old lump of cells is a baby then I am not going to convince you it's not, especially since your religion validates your view. Likewise, you are never going to be able to convince me it is a baby. If you believe life begins at conception you've drawn a line in the sand and I am not going to convince you to step over it.

The debates that tend to actually go somewhere are those that focus on a cut off point. Brain activity as SS suggested or viability as Raytri did, for example. But to get there we have to acknowledge that a lump of cells is not a "life". Since we won't agree on that debate is pointless. There are truly some debates that not worth the bandwidth (plus, I really do have limited time to debate and once I determine it's pointless I move on).

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I think abortion is a type of manslaughter. Since it is not done with malice, it is not murder. I'm all for all birth control, including the morning after pill because the decision is made in the form of insurance (not sure if there is something conceived or not) rather than knowledgable termination and because a fertilized egg is not developed enough to be considered a living person. In fact, it's not too late for the body to eject it of it's own accord. I worry about defining life as this is a very slippery slope and it's not as simple as euthanesia because a fetus is not given a choice.
I think abortion is acceptable in cases of rape because it brings a child into existence that is a source of trauma for his/her own mother, which is a sick abomination of parenthood. It's even worse if the victim is not in the position to afford the kid, since the same people who would force her to have the kid would judge her as irresponsible for having a kid she couldn't afford.
Also if a woman's life is in danger or she would suffer severe longterm health effects, she should have the choice in whether or not to have the child. When it comes to one-life-or-another decisions and discussion cannot be had (there's just no reasoning with a fetus), the established life that can take care of itself takes precedence.
But in general, I don't believe laws against abortion really do anything other than give the religious right some sense of power while we ignore the causes of abortion. Well-rounded sex education would actually help. Easy access to contraceptives would help. Having a culture that doesn't take a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you do-(*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you don't attitude toward women who have children out of wedlock or that they can't afford would also help, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I'm going to start off by saying, I in no way intend to attack your position. I just want to discuss, not the issue, but your beliefs.

[/quote]
I'll agree that a zygote is living, just like your liver is living. But I don't agree that it's an animal(human). It has the potential to be a human, but it is not a human, as it doesn't exhibit any of the traits that define us as humans (except maybe that it has DNA, but thats common to all life, not just humans). As far as having a consciousness, I disagree. To have consciousness, one must have a mind. And to have a mind, one must have a brain. And a zygote doesn't have a brain.

So I gather that you are against it because you believe it is life from conception, and ending any life isn't for man to decide. But I suspect that even if you were convinced that it wasn't really life from conception, that you would still be opposed. So I don't feel like we have gotten to the core of your beliefs on the matter, and I would like to hear them.

pregnancy. So it seems odd that many of the people most against abortion are also most against sex education.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

You know what I find even stranger?
The same conservatives who claim to understand economics so well and also claim to care about life seem to see no issue with the fact that they will equally judge and scorn a woman who has a child out of wedlock without the means and a woman who aborts the child that she can't afford or will keep her from achieving. The rational choice then is to abort the child so that if you are going to be despised at least you can make something of yourself without impairment. Actually this isn't so much a failure to understand economics as a failure to understand social psychology. Conservatives are fully convinced that giving people a choice between bad and worse is somehow sufficient to inspire morality and acheivement when in fact in most cases, without some modifying positive factor, such a choice leads people to resignment, rebellion, insanity, value stretching, and significantly lowered chance for success in life primarily caused by the psychological effects of such choices over and over again. A lot of social cons (not just pubs, but many "liberal" crats) see it necessary to employ this strategy in child-rearing, criminal justice, poverty reduction, mental health, foreign policy (and I'm talking about how we treat our ALLIES!), and pretty much every other sector of life... And then, despite the "taking responsibility for yourself" mentality, blame liberals for all the problems that come out of this behavior! Liberals share in the blame for coming up with half-@$$ed policies that just hide problems, but I don't think they could do this much damage to the underlying fabric of society if they tried!

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Another related failing of social conservatives is their intent focus on the symptoms of problems instead of the cause. That, in turn, leads to simplistic "solutions". Abortion is a good example. The problem? Unwanted pregnancy leading to an abortion. The solution? Outlaw abortion and either 1. teach abstinence only in school (which is proven to not reduce sex in the least) or 2. Don't teach sex education at all. And then they wonder why we still have so many abortions. And that is just one example.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Since we have no way of knowing exactly when this threshhold is reached, I choose to err on the side of caution.

No...they SAY this, but I dont believe they are sincere. If faced with the choice of squashing the zygote or stabbing a newborn baby, do you really think they would choose the latter?

It is a crude example yes, but it illustrates my point. No, they do not really see the two as the same thing IMO. Look at all the bumper stickers anti-abortionists put out; "Abortion stops a beating heart". Zygotes do not have hearts. It is obvious that they make a distinction.

The basis for my view is not religious....I am proof it can be done.

Never say never (otherwise, you sound like a theist). I used to think that too.

What does that have to do with anything? This is an anonymous forum...I didnt even know you were male until you told me.

It just seems odd that you feel like you need to post your feminist resume whenever you make a post in a subject like this. It makes your argument look weak....as if your are leaning on your credentials to make your point valid.

Feel free to post evidence to support this conclusion. So far I have not seen any.

There is no measurable brain activity that can be measured in a zygote. Mostly because it does not have a brain yet. Without a brain, it has no consciousness....primitive or otherwise.

Simply being alive and human is insufficient to be considered a person IMO. You have to have a mind. Your heart is not what makes you who you are...it is just an organ. Your brain is what makes you who you are.

Every cell in my hand is alive and human, but it is not conscious. A cell from my hand is therefore not a person.

I disagree. The issue is about whether the fetus is a person or not. If the fetus is judged a person, then it does not matter if the pregnancy is wanted or not.

I would have no problem with sex education if abstinence were promoted as a real choice. In most cases it is not IMO.

I didnt have sex until I was 19. Yes, it is possible.

So she should be immune to criticism over promiscuity because she did the right thing to spare the life of her child?

Not that I necessarily care if she is a slυt or not....but I dont see how doing the right thing and sparing her child should have an impact on that either way. The two issues are separate.

So...is she not aborting the child in this example simply because she wants to be accepted? Simply because she wants to make things easier for herself?

She should not be aborting the child because that is the right thing to do. Not because it is going to make her life easier or harder. That is what morality is.

Whether or not it makes her life easier or harder it irrelevant. It is wrong to take another life simply because it might make your own life easier.

If they will only do the right thing because of economic or social incentives, then it really isnt morality is it?

You seem to want to use the carrot approach to get people to stop having abortions, but that is not a permanent solution. No one would accept that rape is ok, even if the person got a social or economic bonus from it. it is still wrong. Thuh end.

A failing of liberals is the rufusal to accept that the symptoms and the cause an be cured simultanously.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?