No you misunderstand me, I'm not making a scientific claim that "bam, now its human".  I don't delude myself into thinking that I could absolutely know such a thing, I'm saying I am comfortable on a personal and moral level with staking a life on it, that up until week 12 it is unambiguously (ie in all cases) not a human life yet.  This is a personal opinion.  One that I'm comfortable with and fully recognize the consequences of in both the cases that I am right, in which case a non-human life dies, or in the case that I am wrong, in which case a human life dies (even so I'd prefer it if abortions were avoided in all but the most extreme cases, I just don't support Gov intervention to facilitate that). 

The thing I was pointing out to Rath and other pro-choice advocates is that abortion is quite clearly the destruction of life.  What stage of development it occurs at determines whether it is a human life being destroyed or not, but it is nevertheless a life.  I think all pro-choice advocates should be comfortable in the knowledge that they are advocating a woman's right to destroy a life in order to exercise her rights.  I don't believe in flowering up my world views to make myself feel better or to convince others.  It is what it is, and if people aren't comfortable with that then I think they are being inconsistent in their views.

I ascribe to this position the same sorts of possibility in human error as I do anything in life.  But I recognize that a decision, specifically a point in development at which it becomes human, must be reached.  At one point it is sperm & egg (clearly not human) and then at some point it is a born baby (quite clearly human).  With these two basic facts and the recognition that a woman should have a right to control her body, while holding the position that a non-human life doesn't supersede that right while a human one does, I draw the line at 12 weeks because I view it as the last unambiguously non-human stage for ~100% of cases. Really abortion can be boiled down to that one simple question..."When do you think that last unambiguously non-human stage of development is in ~100% of cases?".  The key is finding a position you are comfortable with. I have.

Again a key part of my position is recognizing that a decision must be made (even if doing so is distasteful to some) and that you cannot simply overrule someone's rights "just to be safe" from any possibility of ever ever ever being wrong...even once.  But rather you should find a point at which the rights are afforded while still allowing the utmost regard for the possibility of being wrong in even a minute percentage of cases (but still not the one in a billion freak case).

Here is my "Where do you stand on abortion" chart:

1. Does a woman have the right to destroy a non-human life in the name of her right to control her own body?
   • YES: See #2
   • NO: Vehemently Pro-Life: Logically Consistent Position
     
2. Does a woman have the right to destroy a human life in the name of her right to control her own body?
   • YES: See #3
     
   • NO: See #4
3. Are you comfortable with murder?
   
   • NO: Pro-Choice: Logically Inconsistent Position
   • YES: Pro-Choice: Crazy, seek mental help
4. When does the sperm/egg become a human life and thus can no longer be aborted?
   
   • Conception: Pro-Life: Logically Consistent Position
   • Conception to end of 2nd trimester: See #5 
   • After 2nd trimester before birth: See #6
   • At/After birth: See #3
5. Do you recognize that abortion, at any time post-conception is destruction of life?
   • NO: Pro-Choice: Logically Inconsistent Position
   • YES: Pro-Choice: Logically Consistent Position
6. Do you feel you should err on the side of caution when preventing the destruction of human life in the name of a woman's right to choose?
   • NO: Vehemently Pro-Choice: Logically Consistent Position
     
   • YES: Pro-Choice: Logically Inconsistent Position

I'm sure folks will find plenty to object to in the chart but this is how I view the issue. It is of course not necessarily the unmovable truth of the matter, but I do think there is a substantial amount of truth to it (not that I'm biased or anything).

In the context of law obviously murder has a specific human meaning.  I was using it in the same sense of the word "kill".  Mostly because if someone killed my dog, for instance, I would regard that as murder.  We can go into the semantics of murder but it really is irrelevant, the point is conveyed just the same.

Specifically....

The life that was alive is now dead... we can call this:

• annihilation
• assassination
• butchery
• death
• destruction
• dispatching
• foul play
• massacre
• offing
• rub out
• slaying
• snuff out
• taking out
• And many other thesaurus listings, etc....

But the meaning is ultimately the same.

The point you eluded to somewhat is "What value does the life have?".  And I would point out that this is actually the crux of the entire debate and thus is not really suited to be addressed under the pretext of a semantic dispute over a single word in a larger argument.

I actually don't object to the brain development line of reasoning tbh, I was pointing out that it was a hard issue to pin down is all.  The brain, and actually many organs, continue to develop well after birth so I don't know that a single organ, particularly one that continues its development after birth, is a good choice for basing the criteria.

My point is that if it continues to develop after birth when it is human then why is its development before then considered non-human? 

I mean, I'm not trying to play gotcha or anything, just tossing out ideas to give some thought.  Its not a simple issue and I know there were many positions I held and later revised with the help of additional information.

No I actually do disagree with you Sqrl.

I believe it is 'life' but I do not believe it is 'a life'.
However in the end I think thats all semantics, we are talking about destroying the same thing - the first steps toward an individual human life. I am comfortable with that being destroyed as long as its before it reaches a stage where it has any possibility of any knowledge of anything being done to it.

Call it murder if you will.

I addressed the semantic portion a bit with jv103, but I'm not following your disinction of "life" vs "a life".  A "life" is "a life" is alive =P  Whether it is human or not is the real issue, no?  The specific word used is not really at issue, its the effect that actually matters and something that was alive becomes dead...whatever word you wish to use.  I personally opt for the blunt and direct word because I don't believe in sugar coating...just the opposite in fact.

The word 'a' implies indepedence, I believe that it is 'life' not 'a life' because it is entirely dependent on its mother.

I am with MM on this one.

Its far less dependent than it is while in the womb =P

I consider full dependence to stop at the point where a fetus can be born and breath on its own, I think just after 20 weeks is the earliest ever case of this?

Sorry, for the absence, Barcelona took priority over the interwebs.

I fully agree that the lump of cells is alive. They are carbon based cells with DNA in them and hence alive. I'm just arguing that until later they can't really be considered human. Potentially human, yes, but potentially the roof is gonna fall on me and I will die too....

As rath pointed out, a baby is almost infinitely less dependent on its mother than a fetus in the early stages. While a human is solely dependent on food and water from any source, that fetus depends thoroughly on the mother, in fact I consider it a part of the mother, not its own individual self, that or a parasite. The reason I'm pro-choice is two fold:

1) Who the fuck are you, me, anyone to tell others what to do with their bodies ini a way that doesn't affect you one single bit?
2) Scary fucking shit happens when you start giving government the power over people's bodies. As I said earlier, tax me, give me guns, do whatever, just leave my body alone.

To anyone who is pro-life. If you give that much a damn, figure out a way to get the fetus out of the mother and sustain it until it grows into an actual human if you care so much.