rat mothers

That is not an argument, because there is no person that can thank his/her mother for having an abortion. Every person today has a mother that didnt have an abortion (when he/she was a fetus). Therfore, the only thing you are saying is that you are alive, and that is redundant. I bet if she had gotten an abortion you wouldnt be saying that. But I know of alot of people that wish that there mother would have gotten an abortion, and maybe waited for her to be ready for a baby or taken better care of other siblings.edited for typing mistakeThis message has been edited by kalimero, 04-17-2006 03:26 PM

No it isnt because you have no situation to compare the situation for which you give graditude to. Thats why it isnt an argument. I was just pointing out the redundancy - you dont have to be , just be . once too many, because its obvious. The fact that your happy about being born has nothing to do with the illegitimacy you proclaim this procedure. You have to equate the situation in which you are born and are happy, with the situation in which you are born and are not happy, and you cant do that. So you have to realise that there are people that there are people that would be better of not having any more babies dispite having sex. The fetus is irrelevant until it is conscience in the same way skin cells are irrelevant (they too can become people). That not a proper equation because if your mother would have had an abortion, its not that you would be dead, 'you' wouldnt even exist. Thats hardly a logical equation - the idea that sex is 'the root cause of pregnancy' doesnt make sex the problem, any more then the behavior of the mother after sex (pregnancy, birth ext.).
The question is for the well-being of the baby (which is not just a symptom once it is conscience), and the well-being of the mother, if the mother cant support a child, she obviosly shouldnt have unprotected sex, but if she does and gets pregnant (it happens) she can deside to abort the fetus before it is conscience - for its own well-being. The baby and the mother arent goint to live well if she has to take care of him.
So both links in the chain are important.

1. There is no person until conscience, unless you have a different definition for 'person'. From what point in the reproduction of a baby (from conception {my favorite} to birth) would you consider the zygote (the first cell that forms from the combining of the two nulcii of the sperm and oocyte) to be a person?
Maybe at conception GOD blows life into the blastosist and gives it a soul? (I'm being cynical)
2. I meant to say that there are people that would like not to have a baby, dispite continuing to have sex, also for the interest of the baby (a mother that doesnt want him). I dont think that this would cause women to casualy have sex and then just abort when thay feel like it, because abortion is (1) a serious medical procedure (2) it hurts (3) its expencive. There is nothing wrong with not having sex, just that when an option exists, where everyone wins, I dont see why we should see it as 'symptomatic', when it actualy solves the problem.
3. Skin cells have the same genetic potential as a blastosist (a very early fetus), but alot of the genes (those not needed in skin cells) are "turned off", so a skin cell can become a person (if you take the genetic matirial and implant it in an empty oocyte) and that is the equation between the potential of a fetus to become a person and the potential of a skin cell to become a person.
4. I didnt say that you didnt exist, I said: if your mother would have had an abortion, its not that you would be dead, 'you' wouldnt even exist.
Its a hypothetical situation.
5. I have already replied to that: 6. Good for you, but so far all you have given me is emotionaly charged rhetoric.

At what point exactly? Can you be more precise? This also depends on your definition of life. You consider a blastosist alive but you dont consider stem cells (fibroblasts {partialy}, bone marrow cells exc.)? Why would I need to 'admit' that? More emotionaly charged rhetoric. Do you think that we dont care about our babies? If anything, future babies are better off having the procedure, because that means that a geater number of the babies that will be born, will be born to a mother that wants them, and so will suffer less.

50,000[kids] X 9[monthes] = 450,000[monthes]
450,000[monthes] / 12[monthes/year] = 37,500[years]
I dont think women live that long. Thank you - its what i have been trying to say.

Oh, OK.

You still havent defined what exactly it is that you see as life, and please dont use {examples/anecdotes}, just say what it is.
Then base it on a scientific fact that can differentiate a zygote from any other diploid cell in our body. Is that before or after nuclii merging? What if only half of the chromosomes merge and the other half stay wraped in some of the nuclear membrane, is THAT a baby? You obviously know nothing about embryology. The answer is: there is no "magic moment", conscience is a progressivly building function. It builds up from nothing to full conscienceness (there are also semi-conscience states {dreaming, under mild anasthesia, exc.}). In the case of a pregnant mother, before conscienceness, its only the mother who takes the risk, just like the drag racer, and wouldnt be great if a drag racer could protect himself from accidents but still keep doing what he loves to do? This hypthetical situation shows the difference between the existant 'you', and the hypothetical, non-existant 'you', which would have been the case if your mother would have gotten an abortion. If you still insist that you existed immediately after conseption then answer this - how would you know if your mother had an abortion (know - as it was done or afterward)? (Remember you have no conscience prossesing of external information). Thats nonsense - just because there is a cure for polio, doesnt I'm not going to avoid it (quite literally) like the plague. By you logic we should also remove seat belts becuase they promote bad driving. I think your the one thats lost respect for life if you think that mothers will be happy having unwanted babies (it happens) and babies having unwanting mothers (even more terrible). You mean like weed. Thats a terrible reson for doing it. I would illegalize all substances that cause a major kind of adiction and harm (including alcohol and tabbaco). Like I said: conscience is a progressivly building function, so the best I can do is draw a line where I know that the fetus is definitly not conscience. But as to the question of where the line realy is - by the article I'v read either nobody knows or/and it shifts from person to person. "gift of life"? Whats that, more emotionaly charged rhetoric?

Can you give a link to that? You obviously have no scientific training.
A zygote IS a diploid cell, but under specific conditions - lack of genetic inhibitors, is positioned in a supporting environment ext' - if you where to take any cell and put it in those conditions, it WOULD become a baby. Its called totipotency:
Cell potency - Wikipedia
(the differecne between a regular cell and a stem cell are various
genetic inhibitors).

And yet women seem to get pregnant more often then that - intersting! Besides, even if it were a 1 in a million chance (though I dont understand where you got that from) it would still be a potential life.

Lets sum it up a little before we continueanglagard said: regarding unfertilized eggs.then you said: then I said:then you said: Number of Sperm released by the common male animal per ejaculation - Everything2.com
The actual number is 500,000,000 sperms per ejaculation, and each time there is one egg. So its not that one sperm can fertilize the egg but, each sperm. The actual computations are a bit more complex, but, as you can see, getting pregnant usualy isnt very hard (odds are good).

they dont ALL have to become babies, the he was trying to make is that by your reasoning EACH ONE of them is a potential life.

Thats what I'm saying - potential life ISN'T life - so the potential of a blastosist (even single celled) to be a baby has nothing to do with life. In other words, the pre-conscience fetus is not alive.

How can it be dead if it was not alive in the first place, hence the word pre-conscience. Even if you did say that it was 'dead' - then that would mean that alot of things (if not everything) are 'dead' because they arent alive; for example: water is dead because it isnt alive. That is incorrect because things that are 'dead' that were alive are different from things that are dead that were not alive, by definition:
Dead Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
#1 dead after being alive
#2-5 dead not after being alive

Can you give an example? Remember - we are talking about humans. I though not having somebody respond to your posts was doing better?

you said: I said: you said: So the question is whether you can give me an example of a human with no conscience that is alive - remember, we are talking pre-conscience. I like popcorn - I also like the think thats in my picture - does that mean that the thing in my picture is popcorn, I mean if I like it - what exactly am I liking if not popcorn?
In short, women have maternal instincts toward lots of things (dollies was the example before).