Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" (re: pro-life advertisement)

When dealing with the abortion topic, I find there are two kinds of people. One kind that understands there is "some time" after insemination and before birth where killing the foetus (or "lump of cells" or whatever) is similar to masturbating into a tissue. The second kind claims some type of unexplained knowledge that a soul (or something distinctively human) is present as soon as semen contacts an egg. Generally, you can have a discussion with the first set of people, but the second set just want to yell at the baby killers.So, since your OP seems rather rational, I'll assume we're having a discussion along the lines of "but where, exactly, is such a non-life to life point during a pregnancy?"I like to think that such a point has been defined for a long time. Humans defined "legally dead" many, many years ago. It has to do with breathing and brain functionality. If you have both of those, you're alive. If you lose one, you're dead and people are then allowed to distribute the wealth you may or may not have obtained in your lifetime So, since we already have a definition... why can't we use this definition in figuring out if the foetus is alive? (See RAZD's thread Legal Death, Legal Life... Message 1)And... ta-daa... a nice line formed for everyone. Pretty fair and pretty much where most people would expect such a thing too. No need to worry about some "imaginary, arbitrary" line. It's the same line used for years and years to identify death. Basically, the baby is "legally dead" until it is "legally alive". Exactly like how all of us are "legally alive" until we lose functionality and become "legally dead".It is my opinion that in-front-of-this line, abortions should be available to pretty much any women who wants or needs them. Maybe some sort of increasing price per number of abortions or something... but that's all unimportant to the main issue.I also think that abortions should be available after this line. Just not as a personal decision from the woman. The decision after this line should be made sort of like a triage-situation. There are two lives to consider, and we must take into account the liklihood of saving both or at least one where possible. This sort of decision is best made by doctors and those with such training.This removes the coma issue you've brought up.This allows possible abortions for the following reasons:
-it is early in the pregnancy and you do not want to go through child-birth for whatever reason
-you were raped, regardless of how far along the pregnancy is
-the baby's birth will place a significant risk on the life of the mother, regardless of how far along the pregnancy isThis allows for possible refusal of abortions for the following reasons:
-it is late in the pregnancy and birthing the baby will not cause any significant risk to the mother's healthNo doctor would be allowed to refuse to do an abortion because "they don't want to" (or "for religious reasons"... if you prefer). The would have to document the reasons why they refuse an abortion in exactly the same way they are required to document the reasons they saved Person A over Person B in a triage situation.