So the people who disagree with you are fanatics, huh?

No it doesn't. That is a belief made by individuals not some objective claim about reality. It is not a scientifically testable nor an objective measurement. It is a label which some people choose to make. Life isn't that simple in science. I personally believe that a unique life is created upon conception (the newly unique genome and development start at this point.) Whether we can call such a being human or not is a different story.  Furthermore, the child is still a parasite upon birth. It will not be able to survive without said host. So for that reason is child abandoment justifiable? 

sc94597 said: naruball said: I'm 100% pro-choice. I'm saying this as someone whose mother wanted to abort him and his father didn't let her. They were having financial difficulties and couldn't afford bringing another child to this world. Thankfully things worked out for them in the end. Out of curiosity, how many of you say I'm 30 years and 9months old? We don't count those 9 (or 8,7,6) months as parts of our life for a reason. The way I see it, up to the day you're born, you're not really a human being, but a part of someone else's body. If the mother wants to get rid of that part of her for whatever reason, she should be given the choice to do so. I'd much rather not be born at all than have a mother that doesn't want me (e.g. the woman who aborted her fetus for being male). It's also very interesting that the vast majority of people on this forum are male and express this opinion. I think that had they been women, they'd feel differently, especially if they had female friends who explained to them just how much their life changes after they get pregnant and go through with it. 1. What is the biological difference between a baby that is in the womb right before and after labor? What makes them human? 2. Do you believe there are no pro-life women?

Sorry to butt in but I feel that I have to say this in regard to question 1: What defines a human life will never be well...defined. That is, because we have Scientists, Religious People, and Religious Scientists...everyone has something different to say. Religious people will say that whatever even begins to show growth after sexual relations, it is human because well...humans give birth to humans of course. A blastula, from what I remember from college bio, is a collection of what eventually becomes a human. We all know that what is growing in the uterus will be a baby, that's no secret to anyone.

Then there's scientists that will define life without validation. They will say that a heart is the qualification for human life.

Then there's the religious scientists that will play ping pong with both thoughts and won't setlle on a definite answer.

And of course I'm being broad here, very broad about the 3 types of people, but the bases are concrete. I fall into the Religious Scientist section because I'm indecisive.

2. I'm sure there are many pro-life women. I don't think most are anti-choice, though, especially the non-religious, well-educated ones.

1. I don't think there is a huge difference, but I can't see society accepting killing babies after they're born. As far as I'm concerned, it'd be fine until a certain age (6 months old or something), but I know that very few people would agree with me. The difference for me is the experiences they have, their personality that they have made and the connection they may have built with their parents or people who are taking care of them. Before they are born, for me they are insignificant. After they are born and start changing the world around them in some way, I consider them as people.I remember wathcing an episode of Homeland with a mother trying to drown her infant for a few seconds (until she changed her mind) and I didn't blame her. I would never do it, but I wouldn't judge someone if they did it.

A law does have to apply 100%, but a theory does not. The 24 week thing is not a law. When people use the "just a theory argument" we can really see how ignorant they are. If you need a better explanation look at this.

I'm so surprised I totally didn't see that coming.. 

You can believe that, that's up to you dude. And no, a child can survive on it's own after 24 weeks (I know 2 people born after 6 months, they made the paper it's quite cool), it has full biological function at that point that's why it's considered life. I'm extremely tired but basically thats the jist.

You can believe that life starts at conception if you want but the law and science disagree with you my friend.

I agree. I was asking how he defines it though. This is not a scientific question. It a belief one/label. I'm an athiest and would fall in your "religious scientist" option by the way. 

Again, you know exactly why that's irrelevant. The law and science does not regard a fetus human life until it can survive on it's own. That is all for now, until you can come up with a different measurement then whatever. (I apologise I'm growing more apathetic as it is now 4:35am)

Abortions are horrible things to go through so if they can make it easier I'm all for it. However I can't imagine they'd go through extracting the foetus to develop it in some sort of mechanical womb. 

Can a child survive on its own after 9 months? Of course not. Again that is your opinion, not some fact. This is not how science works. 

As far as I recall any cell is a living being. Although living beings aren't precluded to cells (even though we haven't seen such a being.) In biology the first thing you learn is life can't be easily and quickly defined. It is defined by its characteristics, and self-sustainability without a host isn't one of them. Otherwise countless worms would not be living beings. The law might disagree, but that doesn't mean much, especially as the law is diverse based off places. 

Yes, what we need is more parentless children...