How can anyone actually believe that life starts at any time other than the moment of conception?

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: BD2003
So let me get this straight...the destruction of a 5-month old baby with down's syndrome is ethical, but the abortion of a 3-week old embryo barely recognizable as a human is not?

I don't much about down's syndrome, but from what I do know, they can live somewhat "normal" lives and don't go through life with chronic debilitating pain.

So no, I wouldn't call aborting a child with down's syndrome ethical. Think more along the lines of detecting conjoined twins that share vital organs where both are likely to die and if they didn't would likely be grossly disfigured and suffer a lot of physical pain.

Ok then, let me rephrase:

The destruction of two 5-month old conjoined twins, likely to die but possible to live, even in extreme pain is ethical, but the abortion of a 3-week old embryo barely recognizable as a human is not?

You would likely detect conjoined twins LONG before 5 months. Beyond that, to answer your question, yes, aborting the conjoined twins would be ethical and aborting the embryo would be unethical unless you somehow knew without a shadow of a doubt that the embryo would cause complications in the pregnancy or would have some severe disability (and this would be dealt with on a case by case basis). Not all disabilities are equal.

I personally find it reprehensible to abort a 5 month disabled child. Its clearly alive and human. Why is it ok for us to abort disabled children and not kill off disabled people then?

I'd personally rather be alive and in pain than not alive. Id at least rather have that choice. Where do we draw the line between disabled enough to kill and disabled enough to let live?

If its dealt on a case to case basis, who gets to decide? If the fetus's life is so sacred, and theres a chance theres complications, why ax the baby, and not instead force the mother to take her chances? What if the mother risked not death, but other complications? How severe do the complications have to be before they take precendence over the childs life? If the child is seven months along, then its found out that its either disabled or may hurt the mother, is it alright to abort the baby when it is beyond ANY shadow of a doubt not even a fetus, but a baby?

You know as well as I do that there is little that is beyond a shadow of a doubt when it comes to medicine, with a few exceptions.

Youre playing with fire, and the things you are suggesting bring up way too many questions.

As I've said numerous times, I've only listed a few exceptions, and those are up to discussion. In all other cases, I find abortion to be flat out morally and ethically wrong. Life is precious and should be protected at all costs.

We have the technology to abort unwanted pregnancies, why should it be seen as anything different from treating unwanted diseases?

This is one of the most horrible statements I've ever heard. This man just categorized life as nothing more than a disease that should be "treated". What a dangerous and irresponsible and disrespectful statement.

 

[liuman]

ergh

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Holy smokes... what a long thread.

My two cents is this: I support pro-choice. By this I mean the choice belongs to the woman, not to you or me or anyone else. Until that fetus is born, it is connected to, and part of, her body and should therefore be dealt with according to her own choice. I don't consider it an indenpendent life until it is born. It is a part of that woman's body just as is her arm or ear or foot. I don't believe anyone has a right to tell her what to do with her body, and I also don't think that people who kill pregnant mothers should be charged with two murders. But regardless of my own beliefs, I ultimately defer all responsibility for this choice to the mother. I can't justify any other scenario.

 

[Slammy1]

BT, it just really isn't worth while rising to the bait. You're obviously someone that cares a lot more about life than the vast majority, it is sad that people call you ignorant for caring. Me, I do understand the need for abortion I just think that it's a far bigger decision than people are making it out to be because I also care about people and about life. I remember growing up I had 3 foster sisters. They all came from the same family, the father was a severe pedaphile (raped my sister when she was 10) - I didn't know that until I was a lot older) I knew why my foster sisters were with us even though it was a child's understanding. There were 5 girls in the family, and I'm pretty sure he raped all of them at some point or another. The oldest became pregnant, and I am most thankful that abortion was a viable option for her (at age 16). My parents really tried to do something about it, but the police were just so corrupt and the father had this mental abuse thing going that the girls wouldn't testify. What I'm getting at is that there are a lot of f'd up stories out there, lots of things that occur that shouldn't and maybe abortion, in the end analysis, isn't the worst of them. In life you need to choose your battles wisely, trying to convince people here probably is something to pass on. The people who do care understand, and maybe that's all the victory you need. I have a healthy respect for your moral fortitude.

 

[Somniferum]

Originally posted by: BigToque

You would likely detect conjoined twins LONG before 5 months. Beyond that, to answer your question, yes, aborting the conjoined twins would be ethical and aborting the embryo would be unethical unless you somehow knew without a shadow of a doubt that the embryo would cause complications in the pregnancy or would have some severe disability (and this would be dealt with on a case by case basis). Not all disabilities are equal.

I find it astonishing that anyone would trust the government to make these subtle ethical distinctions on a case-by-case basis. The government, after all, is just a bunch of people -- often severely corrupt people at that. I'm sorry, but I'm not giving some Randy Cunningham, Tom DeLay, or Scooter Libby the power to weigh all the ethical and medical complexities involved and make a final decision on something that will effect me and my family for the rest of our lives.

Much better for the law to strike a compromise (as it currently does) and leave it to individual citizens to work out the grey areas. In complex personal matters like these, I trust the judgment of individual citizens over the government any day of the week.

 

[oCxTiTaN]

this just in, blow jobs now considered genocide!

give me a break people, until the thing can survive on its own outside the mother its still a part of her body. What she does with it is her business.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Somniferum
Actually if you take the "human" part out of the equation, it becomes even more complicated. You can say "life" obviously begins at conception because a zygote is alive -- but isn't a sperm cell alive in the same sense? Or an egg cell? So basic, non-human life doesn't begin at conception, it actually precedes it.

You are right though, that what's at issue is when "human life" begins. Clearly a zygote is not physically a human in any recognizable sense of the word ... which is why those who believe human life begins at conception have to resort to the concept of a soul. It's this soul that makes the zygote not just life, but a unique, inviolable human life. Which is why I think the identical twin question is interesting -- it seems to refute the existence of a unique, inviolable soul, at least prior to the period where the zygote can still split in two.

You don't have to resort to the concept of a soul to say that human life begins at conception. Barring any complications, an embryo will develop into a fetus and be born without any intervention. An unfertilized egg or a lonesome sperm cell will never develop into a human being without any intervention (by intervention, I'm referring to the act that bring the sperm and the egg together. ). That's the distinction.

 

[imthebadguy]

meh, i dont believe it

 

[Somniferum]

Originally posted by: mugs

You don't have to resort to the concept of a soul to say that human life begins at conception. Barring any complications, an embryo will develop into a fetus and be born without any intervention. An unfertilized egg or a lonesome sperm cell will never develop into a human being without any intervention (by intervention, I'm referring to the act that bring the sperm and the egg together. ). That's the distinction.

Hmm ... so you are saying that after conception, no further intervention is necessary for a zygote to develop into a human. Ergo, a zygote is human.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how can one entity develop into another entity, if the two entities are already the same thing to begin with?

To put it another way -- if you assert that A will develop into B without intervention, aren't you essentially admitting that A is not B prior to that development? A and B clearly have a relationship, but that relationship is not one of identity.

Furthermore, due to the fact of monozygotic twins, it's not even necessarily a one-to-one relationship. The best we can say is that, without intervention, a zygote will develop into one or more humans, at some point between two weeks and nine months in the future.

Not exactly an airtight case for human life beginning at conception, if you ask me.

 

[totalcommand]

The relationship between the mother and fetus is the most important consideration, and the rights of the mother to have control over her own body is paramount. Giving rights to the fetus over the mother's own rights is asking the mother to sign her right to her own body to the fetus. In effect, the mother becomes the bodily slave of the fetus. Is it not clearly unethical to make one sign a contract enslaving themself?

Furthermore, this contract would not be between two equal parties. The relationship of the mother to the fetus is NOT one of commensalism between two organisms. It is a relationship of parasitism (take away any negative connotations you have with this word, and keep its simple scientific implications). The fetus depends solely on the mother to live, and gives nothing back in return. The mother should have the right to terminate such a relationship, because the fetus is physiologically dependent on her and withdrawing her energy and resources.

Note that, even should the fetus be conscious, the rights of the mother supercede the (presupposed) rights of the fetus. Why? Because of the "parasitic" nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus. Say, hypothetically, that there was an 80 year old man who temporarily needed a blood, oxygen, hormones, water, proteins, antibodies, and so on to live. Could we in our right mind force a woman to be "hooked up" to the man in order to give him a chance to live? The answer is no. And the reason is because this is a parasitic relationship, where we cannot ethically make the mother enslave her bodily rights to the man.

For these reasons alone, the mother has any and all rights to do what she wants with the fetus, since it is as much a part of her body as her left hand.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Somniferum
Hmm ... so you are saying that after conception, no further intervention is necessary for a zygote to develop into a human. Ergo, a zygote is human.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how can one entity develop into another entity, if the two entities are already the same thing to begin with?

To put it another way -- if you assert that A will develop into B without intervention, aren't you essentially admitting that A is not B prior to that development? A and B clearly have a relationship, but that relationship is not one of identity.

Furthermore, due to the fact of monozygotic twins, it's not even necessarily a one-to-one relationship. The best we can say is that, without intervention, a zygote will develop into one or more humans, at some point between two weeks and nine months in the future.

Not exactly an airtight case for human life beginning at conception, if you ask me.

I used the term "develop into" in the same way that you would say a child develops into an adult. A child is not an adult, but they're both humans. So yes, you were missing something. You're begging the question. I didn't say an embryo will develop into a human being, I said an embryo will develop into a human being, I said an embryo will develop into a fetus and be born without intervention. You inserted the distinction between non-human life and human life in there yourself. I was describing different stages of human life.

You're also focusing on semantics and ignoring my point, which was that gametes will never be more than gametes without intervention. That is not the case with zygotes. That is the distinction.

Your comment about monozygotic twins only applies to the soul argument... whether it is a single life or multiple lives is irrelevant to my comments.

 

[stars]

Life starts when you realize the money in the bank and materialistic things you possess are nothing and that you're going to die.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: mugs

You're also focusing on semantics and ignoring my point, which was that gametes will never be more than gametes without intervention. That is not the case with zygotes. That is the distinction.

False. There is no guarantee that any given conceptus will develop from conception all the way until parturition. Very few miscarriages are actually noticed by the female, as the noticeable ones happen down the line during pregnancy. But many of the failures and miscarriages occur around implantation, something that is completely undetectable to the unknowing woman that the conceptus failed.

Originally posted by: mugs
Your comment about monozygotic twins only applies to the soul argument... whether it is a single life or multiple lives is irrelevant to my comments.

Its actually tremendously important. How can something have rights that must be honored, when we have no clue whether it will become one individual, two individuals, or no individuals? One cannot go around defining the zygote as an individual, since it has no clue whether it will become one embryo, one fetus, or one baby. To suggest that once conception has occured, life is set is completely ignoring what embryologists have been detailing for the past several decades.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: abj13

Originally posted by: mugs

You're also focusing on semantics and ignoring my point, which was that gametes will never be more than gametes without intervention. That is not the case with zygotes. That is the distinction.

False. There is no guarantee that any given conceptus will develop from conception all the way until parturition. Very few miscarriages are actually noticed by the female, as the noticeable ones happen down the line during pregnancy. But many of the failures and miscarriages occur around implantation, something that is completely undetectable to the unknowing woman that the conceptus failed.

Yeah, that's why I originally said:

Barring any complications, an embryo will develop into a fetus...

Originally posted by: abj13

Originally posted by: mugs
Your comment about monozygotic twins only applies to the soul argument... whether it is a single life or multiple lives is irrelevant to my comments.

Its actually tremendously important. How can something have rights that must be honored, when we have no clue whether it will become one individual, two individuals, or no individuals? One cannot go around defining the zygote as an individual, since it has no clue whether it will become one embryo, one fetus, or one baby. To suggest that once conception has occured, life is set is completely ignoring what embryologists have been detailing for the past several decades.

"Irrelevant to my comments." I never said anything about rights. My entire point is that it is silly to compare gametes to zygotes in the sense that Somniferum was. There is a very clear distinction which I've tried to explain several times to no avail, because you're nitpicking about qualifiers that I mentioned in one post but not another.

 

[dangereuxjeux]

Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Wow, that was easy.

Now, go away. Even trolls hate this unresolvable mess of a debate polluting the forum.

 

[Somniferum]

Originally posted by: mugs
Your comment about monozygotic twins only applies to the soul argument... whether it is a single life or multiple lives is irrelevant to my comments.

It sounds like you are positing that a zygote can be "human life" without necessarily being a "human being" (since by definition, a "human being" is a single, indivisible entity -- not twins). It's an interesting distinction to make, and not entirely implausable. One can think of other possible examples of having one without the other -- Teri Schiavo, for instance, might be described as "human life" that ceased to be a "human being" after a certain point.

But I think there are other ramifications of this distinction for the abortion debate. For example, do we confer rights on people because they are "human life", or because they are "human beings"? Granting the distinction for the sake of argument, I'd have to say the latter. That's why in the end, Ms. Schiavo was allowed to die.

Proving that a zygote is human life, but not necessarily a human being, doesn't get you very far in terms of granting rights to the zygote. It's an interesting way of looking at the issue, though.

Originally posted by: mugs
A child is not an adult, but they're both humans.

True, but it doesn't follow that a child has all the same rights as an adult. So why would a zygote have all the same rights as a human child? My point was that they are not the same thing. I see what you are saying about the continuum of human life, but there are important distinctions to be made along the way. Especially if we can't even call the zygote a human being.

 

[Freejack2]

Originally posted by: ManSnake
WRONG FORUM

My sentiments exactly.

 

[jEnus]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
cunundrum that actually turned me pro-life:


Situation A: A lady is 6 months pregnant, gives birth prematurely, and the baby is in a neo-natal unit. Someone goes into the ward, kills the baby. What's he charged with?

Situation B: A lady is 6 months pregnant, and someone shoots her. She dies, and the baby dies. The shooter is ALWAYS charged with double homicide in those situations. Or say instead just the baby dies....the shooter is still charged with murder..


Situation C: A lady is 6 months pregnant, and decides she doesn't want a baby, so she has a doctor reach into her womb, tear the baby limb from limb and suck it out, or however the F they do it.


After I thought of it like that, I coudln't be pro-abortion any more. There's no difference in those 3 situations really.

winnar

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Somniferum

True, but it doesn't follow that a child has all the same rights as an adult. So why would a zygote have all the same rights as a human child? My point was that they are not the same thing. I see what you are saying about the continuum of human life, but there are important distinctions to be made along the way. Especially if we can't even call the zygote a human being.

You're right, there are several points along the continuum of human life that are "milestones." Birth would certainly be a big one, age of majority is one (albeit artificial), conception another... When an entity should acquire certain rights is a difficult question, and I'm not saying when human life has a right to not be ended. To me, abortion is not one of the more important political issues we deal with.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: CravenTacos
the smarter a person is, the less children they have. unless of course they're mormon, then they just try to pile them on top of eachother until they can reach heaven.

Now that is :laugh: post if I ever read one. Best post I have read in awhile!

Does consciousness denote life? Is biology the precursor of consciousness or is consciousness the precursor to biology? Quantum Physics (the new Scientific philospophy) may hold the key to unraveling such mysteries. Biology versus Philosophy versus dogma Reilgion versus Spirituality. MMMMM barebeque

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: jEnus

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
cunundrum that actually turned me pro-life:


Situation A: A lady is 6 months pregnant, gives birth prematurely, and the baby is in a neo-natal unit. Someone goes into the ward, kills the baby. What's he charged with?

Situation B: A lady is 6 months pregnant, and someone shoots her. She dies, and the baby dies. The shooter is ALWAYS charged with double homicide in those situations. Or say instead just the baby dies....the shooter is still charged with murder..


Situation C: A lady is 6 months pregnant, and decides she doesn't want a baby, so she has a doctor reach into her womb, tear the baby limb from limb and suck it out, or however the F they do it.


After I thought of it like that, I coudln't be pro-abortion any more. There's no difference in those 3 situations really.

winnar

Except there is a difference. First, the relationship between the mother and fetus is completely different than the relationship between the would be murderer and the fetus. The fetus isn't using up the murderer's resources, and isn't part of the murderers body. Second, not many people would argue that at 6 months a woman should have an abortion.

Read my earlier argument, maybe you will understand.

The relationship between the mother and fetus is the most important consideration, and the rights of the mother to have control over her own body is paramount. Giving rights to the fetus over the mother's own rights is asking the mother to sign her right to her own body to the fetus. In effect, the mother becomes the bodily slave of the fetus. Is it not clearly unethical to make one sign a contract enslaving themself?

Furthermore, this contract would not be between two equal parties. The relationship of the mother to the fetus is NOT one of commensalism between two organisms. It is a relationship of parasitism (take away any negative connotations you have with this word, and keep its simple scientific implications). The fetus depends solely on the mother to live, and gives nothing back in return. The mother should have the right to terminate such a relationship, because the fetus is physiologically dependent on her and withdrawing her energy and resources.

Note that, even should the fetus be conscious, the rights of the mother supercede the (presupposed) rights of the fetus. Why? Because of the "parasitic" nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus. Say, hypothetically, that there was an 80 year old man who temporarily needed a blood, oxygen, hormones, water, proteins, antibodies, and so on to live. Could we in our right mind force a woman to be "hooked up" to the man in order to give him a chance to live? The answer is no. And the reason is because this is a parasitic relationship, where we cannot ethically make the mother enslave her bodily rights to the man.

For these reasons alone, the mother has any and all rights to do what she wants with the fetus, since it is as much a part of her body as her left hand.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: jEnus

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
cunundrum that actually turned me pro-life:


Situation A: A lady is 6 months pregnant, gives birth prematurely, and the baby is in a neo-natal unit. Someone goes into the ward, kills the baby. What's he charged with?

Situation B: A lady is 6 months pregnant, and someone shoots her. She dies, and the baby dies. The shooter is ALWAYS charged with double homicide in those situations. Or say instead just the baby dies....the shooter is still charged with murder..


Situation C: A lady is 6 months pregnant, and decides she doesn't want a baby, so she has a doctor reach into her womb, tear the baby limb from limb and suck it out, or however the F they do it.


After I thought of it like that, I coudln't be pro-abortion any more. There's no difference in those 3 situations really.

winnar

Except there is a difference. First, the relationship between the mother and fetus is completely different than the relationship between the would be murderer and the fetus. The fetus isn't using up the murderer's resources, and isn't part of the murderers body. Second, not many people would argue that at 6 months a woman should have an abortion.

Read my earlier argument, maybe you will understand.

The relationship between the mother and fetus is the most important consideration, and the rights of the mother to have control over her own body is paramount. Giving rights to the fetus over the mother's own rights is asking the mother to sign her right to her own body to the fetus. In effect, the mother becomes the bodily slave of the fetus. Is it not clearly unethical to make one sign a contract enslaving themself?

Furthermore, this contract would not be between two equal parties. The relationship of the mother to the fetus is NOT one of commensalism between two organisms. It is a relationship of parasitism (take away any negative connotations you have with this word, and keep its simple scientific implications). The fetus depends solely on the mother to live, and gives nothing back in return. The mother should have the right to terminate such a relationship, because the fetus is physiologically dependent on her and withdrawing her energy and resources.

Note that, even should the fetus be conscious, the rights of the mother supercede the (presupposed) rights of the fetus. Why? Because of the "parasitic" nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus. Say, hypothetically, that there was an 80 year old man who temporarily needed a blood, oxygen, hormones, water, proteins, antibodies, and so on to live. Could we in our right mind force a woman to be "hooked up" to the man in order to give him a chance to live? The answer is no. And the reason is because this is a parasitic relationship, where we cannot ethically make the mother enslave her bodily rights to the man.

For these reasons alone, the mother has any and all rights to do what she wants with the fetus, since it is as much a part of her body as her left hand.

Although I agree in part with what you are saying, I cannot wholeheartedly agree.

Not that I havent been clear enough already, but I like to beat dead horses:

I certainly believe that the mother should have a right to do with her body what she pleases. But she must act *responsibly*.

Acting responsibly to me would entail : Recognizing you may be pregnant after you miss your first period. Deciding within a very short timeframe whether or not it is feasible for you to have a child. Deciding whether or not to terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible, before the embryo is recognizable as a human being, and not a "soon to be human, or eventually will be human."

We don't have the right to toss our children out on the street because they are financially parasitic to us, so I dont see why we should have the right to suck the brains out of a 6-month old baby because they are physically parasitic.

Whether or not it is parasitic is not the issue. It is, and will be for a long time to come, in many ways. The issue is whether or not it IS a human being. Not whether or not it will be! We dont treat and charge minors as adults even though they WILL be adults. We dont think of a block of steel as a car, even though it will eventually be a car comprised almost fully of steel.

Human being being defined as a conscious being, with clear independence of the actions of the mother. It can move on its own, etc.

The problem being its impossible to determine when exactly it becomes a human or not. But I think it is fairly easy to say when it definitely is, and when it definitely isnt. Id say anytime before 2 months, arguably 3 months, is a proto-human. The grey area being between 3 and 4 months, and anything there on clearly human as it has a chance to survive outside of the body with intensive care.

Id personally ban abortions past the first trimester due to the above, but I'm well aware that thats a compromise that unfortunately makes no one happy but a very very small minority.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: dangereuxjeux
Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Wow, that was easy.

Now, go away. Even trolls hate this unresolvable mess of a debate polluting the forum.

Don't like murder? Don't kill anyone.
Don't like child molestation? Don't molest any children.
Don't like torturing animals? Don't torture any animals.

Wow, that was easy.

Regardless of your opinion on abortion, I would hope everyone can agree that this kind of simplistic logic is idiotic.

 

[daddyphatsax]

we should all be pro-abortion, because you never know when you are going to abort the next hitler (or bush)

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: jEnus

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
cunundrum that actually turned me pro-life:


Situation A: A lady is 6 months pregnant, gives birth prematurely, and the baby is in a neo-natal unit. Someone goes into the ward, kills the baby. What's he charged with?

Situation B: A lady is 6 months pregnant, and someone shoots her. She dies, and the baby dies. The shooter is ALWAYS charged with double homicide in those situations. Or say instead just the baby dies....the shooter is still charged with murder..


Situation C: A lady is 6 months pregnant, and decides she doesn't want a baby, so she has a doctor reach into her womb, tear the baby limb from limb and suck it out, or however the F they do it.


After I thought of it like that, I coudln't be pro-abortion any more. There's no difference in those 3 situations really.

winnar

Except there is a difference. First, the relationship between the mother and fetus is completely different than the relationship between the would be murderer and the fetus. The fetus isn't using up the murderer's resources, and isn't part of the murderers body. Second, not many people would argue that at 6 months a woman should have an abortion.

Read my earlier argument, maybe you will understand.

The relationship between the mother and fetus is the most important consideration, and the rights of the mother to have control over her own body is paramount. Giving rights to the fetus over the mother's own rights is asking the mother to sign her right to her own body to the fetus. In effect, the mother becomes the bodily slave of the fetus. Is it not clearly unethical to make one sign a contract enslaving themself?

Furthermore, this contract would not be between two equal parties. The relationship of the mother to the fetus is NOT one of commensalism between two organisms. It is a relationship of parasitism (take away any negative connotations you have with this word, and keep its simple scientific implications). The fetus depends solely on the mother to live, and gives nothing back in return. The mother should have the right to terminate such a relationship, because the fetus is physiologically dependent on her and withdrawing her energy and resources.

Note that, even should the fetus be conscious, the rights of the mother supercede the (presupposed) rights of the fetus. Why? Because of the "parasitic" nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus. Say, hypothetically, that there was an 80 year old man who temporarily needed a blood, oxygen, hormones, water, proteins, antibodies, and so on to live. Could we in our right mind force a woman to be "hooked up" to the man in order to give him a chance to live? The answer is no. And the reason is because this is a parasitic relationship, where we cannot ethically make the mother enslave her bodily rights to the man.

For these reasons alone, the mother has any and all rights to do what she wants with the fetus, since it is as much a part of her body as her left hand.

Although I agree in part with what you are saying, I cannot wholeheartedly agree.

Not that I havent been clear enough already, but I like to beat dead horses:

I certainly believe that the mother should have a right to do with her body what she pleases. But she must act *responsibly*.

Acting responsibly to me would entail : Recognizing you may be pregnant after you miss your first period. Deciding within a very short timeframe whether or not it is feasible for you to have a child. Deciding whether or not to terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible, before the embryo is recognizable as a human being, and not a "soon to be human, or eventually will be human."

We don't have the right to toss our children out on the street because they are financially parasitic to us, so I dont see why we should have the right to suck the brains out of a 6-month old baby because they are physically parasitic.

There was another thread like this in P&N, and it was proposed that a fetus whom a mother has tolerated for that long has earned "squatter's" rights in some sort of way - this is the way I look at it. There is room for both responsibility and preservation of the rights of the woman.

There is also a very big difference between financial "parasitism" and physical "parasitism", as my example of the 80 year old man pointed out.

Whether or not it is parasitic is not the issue. It is, and will be for a long time to come, in many ways. The issue is whether or not it IS a human being. Not whether or not it will be! We dont treat and charge minors as adults even though they WILL be adults. We dont think of a block of steel as a car, even though it will eventually be a car comprised almost fully of steel.

See above, there is a huge difference between "inhabitating"/being part of one's body and being part of one's household.

Human being being defined as a conscious being, with clear independence of the actions of the mother. It can move on its own, etc.

The problem being its impossible to determine when exactly it becomes a human or not. But I think it is fairly easy to say when it definitely is, and when it definitely isnt. Id say anytime before 2 months, arguably 3 months, is a proto-human. The grey area being between 3 and 4 months, and anything there on clearly human as it has a chance to survive outside of the body with intensive care.

Id personally ban abortions past the first trimester due to the above, but I'm well aware that thats a compromise that unfortunately makes no one happy but a very very small minority.

IMO, the consciousness of the being is irrelevent to the rights of the woman - she should have all rights over her own body and whether she wants to give resources to the fetus. The consciousness issue is only relevent to the responsibility issue, and should be weighed against other reasons the mother has for terminating the pregnancy. Moreover, IMO, independent viability should replace consciousness as the most important consideration in responsibility.

However, I do not think the government should legislate responsibility.