abortions

Originally posted by Mid
It has human genetics and a human soul.

Click to expand...

Ah, that's we we differ. I don't think we have humans have a soul. If we had one I could not condone abortion either.  

Originally posted by Mid
I don't think we have humans have a soul. If we had one I could not condone abortion either.


Fair enough in that respect. Do you ever question that maybe we DO have souls?

Click to expand...

 
I did. It's illogical to have one. - If you like we can start a new topic on pro/cons having souls.

Originally posted by Mid
If you would wish Hank.

Click to expand...

Wish what?

 

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/

I find it interesting that Christians want to steam roll their value system on everyone else, yet at the same time they believe in a God that is going to torture three quaters of the earths population because they are not Christian. I would think the prospect of torturing a human being for thinking and being free is far more rediculous than someone killing a fertilized egg. :o

Originally posted by Mid
If you would wish Hank.


Everyone that is against abortions, may I have your attention? I have here a petition to stop abortion. I would like you all to sign it so that we can stop the slaughter.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/417135522?ts=1033604307&sign[partner_userID]=182437254&sign[memberID]=182437254&sign[partnerID]=1&sign[password]=&sign[firstnam


thank you for your support in this serious issue.

Click to expand...

Online petitions are worse than useless. The signatures cannot be verified and they are easily faked. No one in a position of authority would take an online petition seriously.

My problem with abortion is a problem with definition. We currently have no way to reliably define at what point the fetus becomes human (beliefs notwithstanding). My position is that we cannot morally abort a fetus until that boundary is reliably established. I also do not believe in forcing my opinions on another. Therefore I use my vote, and letters, to make my views known.

 

I find it funny that so many people make the claim that "since we don't know when life begins, abortion and embryonic stem cell research should be acceptable" 

But by this statement, those people are making the assumption that they know life to not begin until birth, or until some time later than the embryonic period (and yet they do so without providing evidence on which to base that assumption – in other words they are 'begging the question').   If in fact it is true that we  don't know when life begins, we cannot take a chance on destroying it.

Imagine if a demolition worker said, "I don't know for sure that there are no people inside this old building, but I'm going to tear it down anyway." Or a hunter who shot at the rustling bushes without being absolutely certain that the shadow was a deer and not his hunting buddy… we would find such people to be very negligent; and yet proponents of abortion and ESCR try to take that very same position with regards to the embryo.  Again, if you don't know for sure, you don't destroy it. 

Kristine

Science tells us that life begins at fertilization.  Where people get stumped up is regarding when we will grant the rights of personhood.  But the scientific and philosophic case for the personhood and humanity of the unborn is sound.  I wrote this up for my web-site in response to embryonic stem cell research, but it works just as well here.  Enjoy:

Scientific Case: 
The law of Biogenesis tells us that  "every living thing reproduces after its own kind". (Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, and humans can only produce humans)  If we want to know what something is, we simply ask: "What are its parents?"  In the case of the human embryo, its human parents produce human offspring.  Indeed that's all they can produce.   It is not biologically possible for two human beings to produce an entity together that is not human, but that later becomes one. 

Secondly, unlike sperm, ovum, and other cells containing human DNA, the embryo has the inherent capacity in and of his/her own genetic makeup to grow arms, legs, organs and to grow into a mature human adult. In other words the embryo has the ability to 'develop itself' into a fetus, then into an infant, then into a toddler... all the way through to her adult maturity.   While cells like sperm and ovum, if left to their own individual capacity, will never produce arms or organs, and will always remain a sperm or ovum until their death (in fact both sperm and ovum cease to exist upon fertilization); the embryo is already a distinct, unified, self-integrating human organism.

Dr. Landrum Shettles, the first scientist to achieve conception (fertilization) in a test tube, writes that conception not only confers life, it "defines" life.&nbsp;&nbsp; That is to say, at no point does this distinct organism that came into being undergo a "substantial change" or change of nature.&nbsp; Nothing more needs to be added to its physical being.&nbsp; It is human and will remain so.&nbsp; Yes it is an immature human, as is an infant, but a human being nonetheless.&nbsp; Living things do not become entirely different creatures in the process of changing their form.&nbsp; Rather, they develop according to a certain physical pattern <I>precisely because of the kind of being they already are</I>.&nbsp;

The Philosophic case
Philosophically, the evidence is sound that the embryo should be regarded as a member of the human family.&nbsp; All of the differences between them and an infant can be divided into four main categories: they are of different size, they are not as physically developed, they are often located in a different environment (uterus or a Petrie dish), and they are dependant on their mother to survive.&nbsp;&nbsp; But as we look at each of these differences, it's clear to see that none of them are morally relevant to one's status as a human person.&nbsp; If we are going to disqualify the embryo from qualifying as people, based on these reasons; we would need to apply these standards to all others who fall under these distinctions: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o></o>

The following has been used as a teaching tool by Bio-Ethicists such as Greg Koukl, Frank Beckwith, and Scott Klusendorf (advisor to President George Bush on bio-ethical issues) and helps to illustrate what I explained above.&nbsp; It is commonly known as the 'SLED test'.

Size:&nbsp; It is true that embryos are smaller than newborns or toddlers—perhaps smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence.&nbsp; But since when do rights depend on how large you are?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Men are generally larger than women, but that hardly means they deserve more rights.&nbsp; Imagine the absurdity of arguing that Shaquille O'Neal is more of a person than Celline Dion simply because he is larger.&nbsp; <o></o>

Level of Development:&nbsp; Yes, an embryo is not as developed as an infant.&nbsp; (S)he is not yet capable of rational thought (brain waves aren't detectable until the 6th week), the heart won't be developed and beating until the third week of gestation, all other major organs won't be primitively present until at least the 8th week.... but since when does one's level of development have anything to do with one's personhood?&nbsp;&nbsp; Is a 14 year old who can reproduce, more of a person than a toddler who can't?&nbsp; Is it less tragic when an infant dies than a four year old, because that infant can't walk yet?&nbsp;&nbsp; The embryo, like the infant, is at the stage of development that it needs to be, at this point in its existence.&nbsp; It is foolish to say that because one has not yet attained a certain level of development that one may be killed and prevented from ever attaining it.&nbsp; <o></o>

Furthermore, as Scott Klusendorf put it: <SPAN>The all-important question becomes: What kind of mind [or physical function] merits personhood and who gets to decide who qualifies? Do smart and articulate people have the right to define the small and vulnerable out of existence simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves?"

</SPAN>Environment:&nbsp; One's location is not relevant either.&nbsp; A child conceived in a test tube is no less human than one conceived in a uterus.&nbsp; You and I don't become a different kind of being&nbsp; when our location changes from being inside a building to being outside of one.&nbsp; No one would say that because an astronaut is inside a space ship and dependant on this environment to live in space (see dependency below) that his being <I>inside</I> the spaceship makes him <I>a part of</I> the space ship.&nbsp; There is no principled argument for saying that a change in location suddenly transforms a 'glob of cells' into protectable human life.&nbsp; Where one is has no bearing on who one is.&nbsp;

Degree of Dependency:&nbsp; While the embryo has unquestionable dependency on another person's body to receive nutrients and oxygen to survive; being dependant is not a true mark of one's personhood or humanity.&nbsp;&nbsp; Many infants are entirely dependant on their mother even <I>after</I> birth due to allergies to anything but her milk.&nbsp;&nbsp; A conjoined twin may depend entirely on its brother or sister's heart or lungs to provide blood or oxygen to his/her body.&nbsp; Truly, the fact that one is dependant on another person isn't moral justification to cut that person off, or to disqualify him/her from personhood and legal protection.&nbsp; <o></o>

Ultimately, the case for disqualifying embryos from personhood rests on their current lack of&nbsp; the shape and functions which we recognize in more mature humans.&nbsp; Some have argued that the embryo who lacks in common human functions is like a dead person.&nbsp; The following illustration demonstrates why this position is faulty:

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Imagine you've opened your cupboard and found two sets of bananas: one very rotten and crawling with worms, and another that is still very green. Both lack current capacity to function as food.&nbsp; But while you'd throw away the rotten ones, you wouldn't throw out the green ones, because you know they have <I>inherent capacity</I> to function as food and will develop that in time.&nbsp;</SPAN>

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>The same can be said of the current functions that the embryo lacks.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is a difference between no more (dead man) and not yet (the embryo).<o></o>

<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=FR-CA>&nbsp;<o></o></SPAN>
Kristine

Kristine, I agree with most of your premises and the bulk of your conclusion. Where I am a little fuzzy is in the specific definition of life. As a biologist, it is hard for me to accept the embryo as a human. I agree with most of your arguments, except your distinction between the "petri dish and uterus," or the argument of location. Your argument of the banana doesn't seem parallel to me. If left to its own device, an embryo in a petri dish will not develop into a toddler. In fact, it will not develop even into a blastula. The embryo needs the uterus to develop at all.

It seems to me that implantation is a more logical and biologically sound point to assign personhood. Fertilization happens all the time when people have intercourse. It only implants (if I remember the numbers right, please correct me if I'm wrong) 25% of the time. Those embryos that don't implant don't become fetuses. They don't become anything, the just remain an embryo until they die (much like your&nbsp;example of the distinction between gametes&nbsp;and an embryo).

Sorry if I got too technical for this forum. But, if we are talking about abortion and why it's wrong, I think we should get a little tech-ish.

Originally posted by Osanya
Where I am a little fuzzy is in the specific definition of life. As a biologist, it is hard for me to accept the embryo as a human.

Click to expand...

As a biologist, you should know that non-living things do not have the ability to grow.&nbsp; In the human body they are either spontaneously eliminated, or reabsorbed.&nbsp; If the embryo was not alive, it would not have the ability to grow and to gain increasingly complex human functions over the course of time.&nbsp; That's basic science: living things develop according to type of being that they already are.&nbsp; Kittens don't suddenly grow horns, and if a living entity is growing a trunk, we won't assume that it's anything other than an elephant.&nbsp; If an embryo has the ability to grow human body parts, including arms, legs, and all human organs, what kind of science would have you imagine that the embryo could be of any other specie than human?&nbsp; (science fiction? maybe?)

From a biological standpoint if the embryo is not a human being, you must be able to answer these questions:&nbsp; how is it possible that in defiance to science, two humans beings have together created something that is not human.&nbsp; But not only that, this non-human thing has the inherent ability to later become human, despite science telling us that living things do not change specie in the process of changing their form... again, biologically and scientifically speaking, how is this at all possible?&nbsp;

In fact, I believe the evidence shouts loud and clear that it is not possible.&nbsp; The embryo, even before implantation, has inherent inside of itself the ability to 'grow itself' through all stages of human development.&nbsp; From the moment the embryo is formed to the moment he/she dies, hopefully as an older adult, she will continue to develop herself to form fully functioning organs and body parts that will continue to develop and mature all the way through to adulthood.&nbsp; The embryo is a very immature human, but it is human none the less.

I brought up the question of location to show that where you are doesn't have any bearing on or change who or what you are.&nbsp; When you step out of your house to go to work or school, do you change beings?&nbsp; If location is not a relevant factor in your personhood, why should it be a factor in the unborn's personhood?&nbsp;

Likewise with the embryo needing the uterus.&nbsp; I know of a little girl born prematurely who absolutely cannot live without being in an incubator.&nbsp; She is dependant on the incubator to sustain her life until she is less dependant and able to breathe on her own.&nbsp; But if someone were to run in and slit her throat while she was in the incubator, would that be morally justifiable, simply because she cannot live independently yet?&nbsp; So why is dependency a good justification for slitting the unborn's throat (and body)?

Finally, even if it is the case that 25% of embryos die, this does not justify their intentional destruction, or in any way prove that they are not human.&nbsp; Many infants die of Sudden Infant Death syndrome, would we say that because infants die accidently it's ok to kill others intentionally?&nbsp; So again, why are you willing to make this exception and allowance for smaller and younger humans?

Biology is all too clear about how all living things grow develop, but if you feel you can produce a more solid evidence than the one I have provided you, by all means... I'd love to see you put up walls under the roof of your conclusion.&nbsp;

Kristine

The fact that life begins at fertilization is well known among the scientific community. After all, they are cloning animals and they know where they must begin to get to get one of those to grow.

Politicians and lawmakers also know when life begins, but they don't want to outlaw the killing of womb-dependent children because it is the rich people who want the option of killing their womb-dependent children. It was for rich people that the law was first enacted that allowed the killing of womb-dependent children. People tend to believe it was because poor women were getting coat-hanger abortions in dark alleys that spurred the lawmakers, but that scenario never really happened and was just some made up propaganda by the rich that got widespread dissemination.

The proponents of legalized killing of womb-dependent children wage a constant propaganda campaign to keep such killing legal and to increasingly desensitize the public to the actual deaths of the aborted children. They do this by giving it innocuous sounding names. First it was "abortion", which is just the name of a procedure, and now they are getting away from that and are now calling it "family planning", which is actually the total opposite of what they are really doing when you understand that they are actually killing one member of the family. The "family planning" term has a comforting sound to it and hides the obscenity of what they do, so they also are changing the terms for the actual killers from abortionist to "technicians" or "family planning practioners" and other such gentle names. Eventually they won't even use the term "abortion" at all.

To combat this further depersonalization of the womb-dependent children, the pro-lifers should also abandon the term "abortion" and call the fetus to be killed a womb-dependent child or some other personal term so that the public cannot become desensitized to the womb-dependent children's plight.

I think I phrased things a little poorly in my last post, but I am not making the case that abortion is morally acceptable. Rather, I am making the case that abortion is wrong. I just don't entirely agree about the definition of personhood and where it should be assigned in development. It is my belief that for the purposes of ethics,&nbsp;a fetus should be given personhood after implantation.

Kristine, those are really good points.&nbsp;I agree with your points. I don't think it is all that clear cut of an issue though. Of course I would not hold that the girl in the incubator is not a human. And I'm not making the argument that simply because the body never implants 75% of embryos, that they aren't human. I just don't think that birth control and an abortion are the same thing.

I'm also saying that&nbsp;the issue gets really complicated. If an embryo is a human because it can develop into an adult, are adult stem cells human?&nbsp;Should we preserve the rights and autonomy of the stem cells in our bone marrow? After cloning was possible, we found out that we could make almost any adult animal cell into a fetus. Does that make all our cells individuals,&nbsp;do we give them personhood? Dolly came from such a cell. She never came from a fertilized egg. Is she not a sheep? What about all the millions of fertilized eggs in fertility clinics that sit there in liquid nitrogen? Are all of them human? They will never develop into anything except a fertilized egg. They are very much like the cells I keep in my lab.

That's partially why I believe that personhood should begin at implantation. The issue is very complicated. It's not an open and shut case. While it may seem arbitrary on one hand, a definition of personhood is very much needed.

Originally posted by Osanya
a definition of personhood is very much needed.

Click to expand...

So how should we define personhood then?&nbsp; In a way that is exclusive of some, or one that is inclusive of all regardless of their size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency?

From the sounds of it, you believe personhood should be granted at implantation.&nbsp;But this falls under the E of SLED.&nbsp; How does the embryo in the petrie dish differ from the one inside the uterus?&nbsp;

Should we preserve the rights and autonomy of the stem cells in our bone marrow? After cloning was possible, we found out that we could make almost any adult animal cell into a fetus. Does that make all our cells individuals,&nbsp;do we give them personhood? Dolly came from such a cell. She never came from a fertilized egg.

Click to expand...

Ok time to pull out the school-teacher glasses and give you a quick biology lesson in cloning.&nbsp;

Most embryos are created when 23 chromosomes of genetic information in sperm is merged with 23 chromosomes of genetic info found in the ovum.&nbsp; In order for the DNA of an adult cell to be able to form a fetus, the complete DNA of that cell (all 46 chromosomes) must be transffered into a hollowed out ovum (that has been emptied of its 23 chromosomes).&nbsp; Then this cell must be electrically shocked into life so that it will begin to take the genetic information now found inside this hollowed ovum, and grow according to that pattern.

In other words, in order for a new human being (or sheep) to be cloned from the genetic information found in your skin or bone cells, an embryo must be artificially created.&nbsp; Skin cells and bone cells, in and of their own inherent capacity lack the ability to become anything other than a skin or bone cell - nothing can 'come from' such a differentiated cell.&nbsp; Only an embryo has the ability to grow the body parts, form and fuctions of whatever specie it belongs to (be it human or sheep).&nbsp;


Don't feel bad that you don't know this.&nbsp; It's unfortunate that society is so quick to promote cloning and stem cell research that they are neglecting to educate people as to how these things are actually done.&nbsp; (Although I&nbsp;am inclined to&nbsp;wonder what kind of trainning you've been given as a biologist - maybe you should demand a refund. )

I'd be glad to provide you with more info about this if you're still unclear

Kristine&nbsp;

Thanks for the lesson Kristine,

That's not new information to me though. In fact, that's a lot of what&nbsp;I do for a living. I am a cell and molecular biologist. Good to know you are somewhat educated in the field.

Anyway, that doesn't change the point of my statement. It's true that cloned embryos come from manipulated oocytes and extracted DNA. But, you said a human is formed by the fusion of a sperm and an egg. Dolly came from an egg and a skin cell. True, she came from a pseudo embryo, but so did about 600 of her sisters that didn't develop fully. But, that's&nbsp;a different. True that some clonings come from a&nbsp;DNA injected&nbsp;oocyte. But, they don't have to come from oocytes.

In other words, in order for a new human being (or sheep) to be cloned from the genetic information found in your skin or bone cells, an embryo must be artificially created.&nbsp; Skin cells and bone cells, in and of their own inherent capacity lack the ability to become anything other than a skin or bone cell - nothing can 'come from' such a differentiated cell.&nbsp; Only an embryo has the ability to grow the body parts, form and fuctions of whatever specie it belongs to (be it human or sheep).

Click to expand...

Enter stem cells. That's what makes stem cells so great. You can get stem cells to develop within an embryo. So, yes. A stem cell can become another cell. And some of those stem cells are found in bone marrow. And they&nbsp;do have the capacity to develop into many cell types, including skin and other tissue. What does it matter if it's artificial or not? Aren't all sheep sheep, whether manipulated or not? That girl in the incubator is kept alive 'artificially' but that doesn't make her anything but a little girl.[/quote]As a biologist, you should know that non-living things do not have the ability to grow.&nbsp; In the human body they are either spontaneously eliminated, or reabsorbed.[/quote]Or the body will eject the non-living thing. Though it's a bit gruesome, that's what happens to most embryos. Anyway, I would say that an embryo is alive, just not the same as a person or a fetus.

So, I hold my position and I still ask, what do we do with fertility clinics? Are they committing mass genocide? What about research facilities? Every time I grow cells in a petri dish, am I hindering a child from its full potential of growth? You have to admit it's much more complicated than all embryos are human and should be saved.

Originally posted by Osanya
Enter stem cells. That's what makes stem cells so great. You can get stem cells to develop within an embryo. So, yes. A stem cell can become another cell.

Click to expand...

Sure. Stem cells are pretty amazing things, I think it's incredible when a cell from bone marrow can be stimulated to produce liver or brain cells &nbsp;&nbsp; But the bottom line is, the only way a new living entity can be created is that an embryo is created.&nbsp; All fetuses exist because the information in the embryo 'told them' to sprout arms legs, and organs according to the specie they are.&nbsp;

Unlike the bone marrow cells, or any other human cell containing human DNA and stem cells, embryos are fully integrated living organisms.&nbsp; That is to say nothing more needs to directly added or taken away from that cell to cause it to hold the info needed to starts itself down its life-long journey through all stages of human development fetus, infant, toddler... The embryo hold the full inherent ability to grow into a human adult that an infant does. All that both require are time, and a life-sustaining sustaining environment.

Dr. Landrum Shettles, the first scientist to achieve conception (fertilization) in a test tube, writes that conception not only confers life, it "defines" life.(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That is to say, at no point does this distinct organism that came into being undergo a "substantial change" or change of nature.&nbsp; Nothing more needs to be added to its physical being.&nbsp; It is human and will remain so.&nbsp; Yes it is an immature human, as is an infant, but a human being nonetheless.&nbsp; Living things do not become entirely different creatures in the process of changing their form.&nbsp; Rather, they develop according to a certain physical pattern precisely because of the kind of being they already are.
&nbsp;(1)(Landrum Shettles, Rites of Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) p. 27)

Harvesting stem cells in and of themselves are not a moral wrong, as you mentioned, there exists the harvesting of adult cells.&nbsp; Adult cell harvesting does not harm the host and can be taken from a live individual or a recent cadavre without in itself causing death.&nbsp; But embryonic stem cell harvesting is morally different in that the harvesting destroys the embryo.

What does it matter if it's artificial or not? Aren't all sheep sheep, whether manipulated or not?

Click to expand...

Agreed.&nbsp; It's not a matter of an embryo being created artificially or not.&nbsp; An embryo is an embryo, and both have the inherent ability to grow to be a fetus and and infant... granted not all make it, but as you agreed, that doesn't mean they're not human since not all infants survive either.

&nbsp;You correctly said "That girl in the incubator is kept alive 'artificially' but that doesn't make her anything but a little girl."&nbsp;&nbsp; So why are you willing to set a different standard when it comes to the embryo?&nbsp; That he/she is living in an embryo or a petrie dish or was&nbsp;created&nbsp;a single cell of DNA rather than from fusion sperm and ovum doesn't make him/her anything but a human embryo.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Anyway, I would say that an embryo is alive, just not the same as a person or a fetus.
So, I hold my position and I still ask, what do we do with fertility clinics? Are they committing mass genocide?

Click to expand...

That depends on whether or not you can make your case that the embryo is not as human as a fetus.&nbsp; I hear your conclusion, but either I'm missing it or you have not provided it, but I fail to see any substantial supporting walls for your argument.&nbsp; Based on what factors do you disqualify the embryo from personhood, but are willing to grant it to the fetus? (as I believe you are).&nbsp; What is the significant difference between the embryo and that fetus that is so morally relevant as to justify disqualifying only&nbsp;they who are in a lower stage of development than others?

K

I think it is so wrong, and I know a woman who have had an abortion who wished she had never done it. After the abortion, she went into depression. It is not just killing the unborn baby, but killing the potential life of the individual that God created.

Sure. Stem cells are pretty amazing things, I think it's incredible when a cell from bone marrow can be stimulated to produce liver or brain cells <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border=0>&nbsp;&nbsp; But the bottom line is, the only way a new living entity can be created is that an embryo is created.&nbsp; All fetuses exist because the information in the embryo 'told them' to sprout arms legs, and organs according to the specie they are.

Click to expand...

As of right now, you are right, there is no way to make a baby without using at leas one embryo. However, the line between stem cells and embryos is very thin. Back to the cloning issue, stem cells do become babies. It's not just stem cells turning into other tissues, but stem cells turning into every tissue. I use mouse stem cells to make transgenic mice. So, is the stem cell a mouse? At what point is it a mouse and not part of a mouse? The line gets really fuzzy.

Dr. Landrum Shettles, the first scientist to achieve conception (fertilization) in a test tube, writes that conception not only confers life, it "defines" life.(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That is to say, at no point does this distinct organism that came into being undergo a "substantial change" or change of nature.&nbsp; Nothing more needs to be added to its physical being.&nbsp; It is human and will remain so.&nbsp; Yes it is an immature human, as is an infant, but a human being nonetheless.&nbsp; Living things do not become entirely different creatures in the process of changing their form.&nbsp; Rather, they develop according to a certain physical pattern precisely because of the kind of being they already are.&nbsp;&nbsp;(1)(Landrum Shettles, Rites of Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) p. 27)

Click to expand...

Good to see you're reading your biology book. The truth is, I don't really agree with Shettles. I do subscribe somewhat to the SLED train of thought. I don't like what people have done with SLED and I don't agree with all of the definitions, but it's hard to deny that biology is developmental by nature. It is hard for me to accept that&nbsp;one step in development is all that different than the next step.&nbsp;Shettles' statement implies that sperm and egg aren't human or living. That's just not true. A sperm is human. It's alive too. It's a haploid human cell. Not less human, just a different phase of development. As far as I can see, all of development is a cycle. There are no points that are more or less important than another. However, killing a sperm is different from killing a child. So, that's why I think there is a need to assign personhood at some point in development. The point is somewhat arbitrary, but implantation seems most logical to me because that's when the embryo begins to develop structures. It's hard for me to see a difference between an egg without the sperm's DNA, an egg with the DNA but without integrating it into the nucleus, an egg with the DNA integrated, but none transcribed, and an egg with all the DNA transcribed but not divided. It gets really nit picky. Also, I can't see that much difference between stem cells, and fertilized eggs. There is a lot of gray area and like I said, it's somewhat arbitrary, but it works. I don't think abortion is right, but I also don't think artificial insemination or birth control is wrong. I don't see the need to assign personhood to the fertilized egg. It just makes more practical sense to say it's at implantation.

As far as I can see, there is a much bigger&nbsp;difference between an unfertilized egg and&nbsp;one fertilized, than between a fertilized egg and an implanted fetus.

I hope I was clear.

&nbsp;Opps, this post is a mistake.

"So she sinned once, now has to pay for the rest of her lifey not sinning again"

Click to expand...

Not to be inflammitory, but I tend to look at it this way, from a courtroom perspective:

1. The Woman and or Man together or seperately (in the case of rape) committed the act.

2.&nbsp;There are consequences to anything we do in life (whether we believe in God or not), not the least of which are (to those who believe in them) our sins

3. In this courtroom, someone is guilty - either both of them for committing the act, or 1 of them for committing the act against the other

4.&nbsp;Outside of this courtroom is a innocent individual (or if you want to argue not 1 YET) who is going to recieve a DEATH SENTENCE because of the Acts of another.....

Even if I wasn't a Christian, I cannot bring myself to charge an innocent person for the actions of another - and I cannot see how someone can say "This person must die because someone else messed up.."

"Since the 1973 decisions, it is estimated that there have been more than 40 MILLION abortions performed in the United States."&nbsp;

40 million "death sentences" for totally innocent individuals.......may God forgive us