NEWS: And So Shines a Good Deed in a Weary World

haha, yeah I know. same with pulling weeds or eating a fruit before it falls off the tree...everything is just one big sticky situation connected to something else. sorta like trying to boycott the big bad companies...who just so happen to own a lot of the small companies by another name. Once you start, where do you stop?

The problem with trying to use scientific definitions for this question is that whether a fetus is a "baby" or a "person" are just arbitrary labels that we place on different human developmental stages. There aren't any strict scientific criteria for differentiating between a ball of developing cells and a "baby".

Ok sweetheart, how much more coherent do you want me to be?? It should be decided by SOMEONE whether a fetus is a living human life or just some organism that can be discarded of at will. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm not coherent. I don't believe anyone should have the right to kill a baby, but whether it should be a personal choice or not, some high and mighty fuckers should come up with a clear cut definition of whether an unborn baby is actually human or not! Each individual woman shouldn't be fit to make that decision without years of medical school degrees under their belts. So you know what you're killing when you make your selfish decision. And I don't want to hear all the "what if you're raped?" "the health of the mother" crap I've heard it ALL before. What I want is for someone to honestly tell me they know who/what they're murdering.

At 2 months, 23 days, 12 hours, 14 seconds, you've got a ball of cells in there, and you can do what you like with it. At 2 months, 23 days, 12 hours, 15 seconds, it's a baby, and you'd better not fuck with it.

And that's by my watch, not yours.

You feel better now?

"Shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves..." What the Hell? Really think about what you wrote and give it an honest assessment. I'm not going to wig out on you and say your wrong but I'll say that you shouldn't really be so gung-ho to make such statements such as "that should have a fucking definition," because thats a good portion of the debate: when is it a human? So, to tell someone to make up their mind when their is a lot of differing opinions on the definition of, or maybe I should say, declaration of, in your words, a "thing" or a "human," seems kind of asinine to me. To say it SHOULD have a definition and then to tell someone to make up their mind after implying that you don't know what that definition is, is silly.

OK sweetheart, I decree that the person whose body it's in gets to be the SOMEONE who decides.

There we go.

There is no clear cut definition and there likely never will be, and having all the medical degrees in the world makes no difference whatsoever in this case.

Get over it.

You don't want an abortion? Fine. Don't have one. That's your choice.

For pregnant women, their choice is what to do with their body.

I'd like to play the devil's advocate here a little bit. For a pro-lifer it doesn't really make sense to say "it's each women's right to decide whether a fetus is a person." If one truly believes that having an abortion is committing a murder (however misguided that opinion is) it is one's moral duty to stand against it. For them, you might as well say "It's each individual's choice to decide whether killing is right or wrong." That's why the debate will never go away.

....I thought at everyone knew this, when a zygote is newly formed at the instance the sperm connects with the egg a automatic response of movement, respiration, sensitivity , growth,excretion, feeding, reproduction is formed. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF LIFE. ..however on a philosophical point of view a 'being' as opposed to 'person' does not have a right to life..it only has a right not to have pain inflicted upon it and a right not to have its future preferences and desires interfered with in accordance with standing law." A 'fetus' has no future preferences or desires due to it lack of sentient thought..so by this definition neither does a 6 day old baby. It has instinctive responses that are automatic..which are not the same as preferences and desires...so in rational thought if one could 'cull' a 6 day old baby without inflicting pain then no offense has occurred."-peter singer p.h.d (actual one) of ethics

We also now know that hair colour, temperament, height, eye colour,skin tone and a myriad of other phenotypes and genotypes are instantly decided at zygote stage.

It is not the mothers choice to decide whether she is carrying a fetus or being...it is already decided by nature. The moment sperm contacts an egg there is;
Movement
respiration
sensitivity
growth
reproduction
excretion
feeding
temperament
hair colour
eye colour
height
weight
bone density
personalty
intelligence
However there is no future preference or desires yet..so therefore no sentient or cognective thought....abortion is killing a human...whether you believe that human is a being or not is the debate...so the question is truly now whether abortion is indeed painless...due to ethical reasons we cannot experiment on this point..however in medical practice if something cannot be clearly proven it is by default inconclusive and a assumption of common belief is instituted...on this topic it would be "does sucking a fetus out in pieces hurt the fetus in question?...we cannot prove it doesn't...but common though suggests that it would.
Therefore you are breaking the first law of human or being life...not to have pain inflicted upon it.

If you are going to write an article of abortion then use your phd name and research it, rather than stand on a archaic argument towards pro choice...we cracked the human genome 6 years ago..we know a lot more about life now and development than twenty years ago when that dusty old argument existed of that it is the womens choice...it is no more her choice or a judges or a doctors to decided the status of a zygote...it is already decided by nature...evidence clearly shows that even a zygote has all the characteristics or life and being a 'being.'

all this article proves is that American medical and judicial systems are effectively 20 years behind the rest of the world in up to date research and knowledge...however i can see why people ignore this research..when they terminate a being they don't want to go home knowing they killed a human life.

By "the rest of the world" do you mean the multitude of developed countries in which abortion is legal, far more freely available and far less contentious a public issue than in the United States?