Summations Only

Hi shadow71, That it began around three and half billion years ago.The issue is not when life begins, or even when an individual life begins. It's when person-hood begins and that must always remain a somewhat arbitrary judgement. Just as WK says, it's not a question to which science can give us a definitive answer. As such, the question of when an individual life begins is not relevant to the abortion debate.Mutate and Survive

Well then, science tells us that human life has been around for about 200 thousand to 500 thousand years ago, depending on what you define as "human".You're still asking the wrong question. Clearly not everyone agrees with you there.Personally, I agree that a zygote is a "human life". I would not agree that it is an individual human life, nor a person. Of course, this is just a personal opinion and others may well disagree. Whatever the case, it's not a question that can be directly answered by science, only informed by science. Ultimately, a subjective ethical judgement must be made. However I define it, a functioning brain would seem to be a requirement, along with the ability to survive independently of the mother to some extent. But like I say, it's a personal opinion, not one that can be objectively defined. Well welcome to the world! In the real world we have to make these kinds of judgements. We live in a society of laws and laws are clumsy things. In the absence of a clearly defined natural boundary of person-hood, we have to make a judgement and create a (somewhat arbitrary) legal cut-off point. It's not a perfect solution but then, we don't live in a perfect world.Mutate and Survive

Hi jar,And to make things even more complicated, we have a whole raft of other issues that affect the context of any abortion. Is the birth viable? Is it even safe for the mother? If not, what is the risk and does it apply to both mother and child or just one of them. What are the ramifications for the mother's future fertility? Will the child be born into a loving and supportive environment? Will the father be around? Can the child be supported financially? What would the mother lose out on by having the child?I can see that how early or late term the abortion might be is one of these questions, but it is far from being the only factor. Trying to make a simple definition of "human life" the only factor in such a complex and individual judgement is overly simplistic. I think that in most cases societies are transformed for the better when women are empowered and in control of their own lives. Plus, a quick check on the World Population Clock shows us closing fast on 7 billion humans worldwide. That kind of growth is not sustainable. I'm afraid that shadow71's clear conscience just has too high a price.Mutate and Survive

There is no boundary. Even if there were, it would vary between individuals. That's up to you, but playing semantic games isn't going to help anyone. That's what this whole thread was about isn't it? You define an embryo as a "human life" and then you accuse pro-choicers of being Nazis. Sad.Anyway, Godwin's Law applies. You mentioned Hitler, thus you lose. What exactly makes you think that mine aren't?Mutate and Survive

Hi shadow,Godwin's Law is kind of an internet joke; it states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." It is intended as a way of discouraging the use of Reductio Ad Hitlerum arguments, such as the one that you used. I agree, but I think that any comparison to the Nazi regime must be a valid one. By comparing abortion to the Nazis, you trivialise the holocaust and demean the suffering of its victims. The two are not comparable. The termination of foetuses, however many, does not compare with the extermination of millions of actual human beings.In actual fact, the comparison does much to argue against regarding foetuses as human beings. If grown humans were being murdered in comparable numbers to abortions, everyone would be up in arms. Liberals, conservatives, theists, atheists... everyone would be against it. The fact that no such consensus exists is a clear demonstration of the reality that the issue is more complicated than you're portraying it to be.The real world rarely supports the kind of black-and-white morality that you are promoting.Mutate and Survive