So defining a 9 month old fetus/unborn child/-1 day old baby as a baby is an incorrect definition but egg, grape and meat sack are cool?

Are you sure you're not confusing the definition of fetus with embryo?

A -1 day old baby most definitely has consciousness.

One of the reasons why late stage abortions are so rare is because doctors don't want to risk a murder charge when the baby survives the abortion and the law won't recognise 'fetus survival' as being any different than regular childbirth.

Birth control: Acceptable
Drinking alcohol: Unacceptable
Divorce: Acceptable
Sex between an unmarried man and woman: Acceptable
Gambling: Depending on the extend
Smoking marijuana: Unacceptable
Gay or lesbian relations: Acceptable
Having a baby outside marriage: Acceptable
Stem cell research using human embryos: Acceptable
Medical testing on animals: Acceptable
Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur: Unacceptable
The death penalty: Unacceptable
Doctor-assisted suicide: Acceptable under special circumstances
Abortion: Acceptable first 12-18 weeks
Sex between teenagers: 15+ acceptable
Pornography: Acceptable with proper working conditions
Cloning animals: Acceptable
Polygamy: Acceptable
Suicide: Acceptable under special circumstances
Cloning humans: Depends on what is meant. The process itself is acceptable, but can be used for many unacceptable things.
Married men and women having an affair: Unacceptable

I sense a huge amount of hypocrisy in these numbers.

For example, only 36% say porn is okay, but I bet a lot of the other 64% consume porn.

Only 38% say teenagers having sex is okay, but I bet more than 38% of people had sex as a teen. In fact, the average age of losing one's virginity in the US is 16-17: https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/faq.php

I think eating meat is immoral (at least knowing what we do about how meat animals are raised and treated by most companies), but I do it. Don't think that makes me a hypocrite... just weak.

I'm in agreement with you on teenagers having sex with each other.

As to pornography though, hypocrisy isn't likely a significant factor. You might be surprised to learn that the most current survey data I've seen on the topic (already linked to in my earlier post on porn here in this thread) indicates that 53% of American men and just 25% of American women consume pornographic material. Cumulatively, that amounts to a minority of the population. Any seemingly contradictory difference that might be left over can likely be explained in addicts who want to quit.

Doctor-assisted suicide chills my spine, because, at one point of my life, or rather, a few years ago, I always wished that it was an option for people so I could take it. I couldn't imagine doing it myself, so, that's why.

Nowadays, I wouldn't know which stance I'd take about it.

I don't know if the questions are more personal to me, or to people I don't know. Because some of these things wren;t morally acceptable to me as a person aka my own moral code but I wouldn't have much of a problem if other people did it since they don't follow my moral code nor should they be forced to. My answers depend on that. For me, alcoholism and gambling and even lying is morally unacceptable, even if I do lie a lot more than I should. It's my ideal, not my reality. And for me suicide is a sin for my own personal moral code but those that don't follow my moral code, I'm more iffy about. For me having any sex outside marriage whether teenager or adult is morally unacceptable and so is homosexuality, but for others, I am ambivalent. The death penalty I agree with and animal testing as well, as long as it's done in a proper manner. Wearing wool is also fine with me but not the skins of endangered animals like some jackasses do. That one I'm not fine if other people do it as well.

Similarly, it's complex for all issues. I can't just say yes or no because it might be no for me but yes if other people do it or even eh, I don't really care. See what I mean.

Thanks for contributing your thoughts! I was interested to know in your case. I think I get what you're saying about how you approach these sorts of questions.

Oh hey, to let you know in case you wanted to go back and edit, I think you may have accidentally written the bolded part the wrong way because the way it presently reads suggests that you think it's okay for you personally to be gay, but not necessarily for anyone else to be...which makes me laugh. I think you meant to say "unacceptable" there, as in those are things you wouldn't personally engage in, but also wouldn't condemn others for, right?

In that, case as long as they don't claim to follow a specific moral code and do these things, I don't care and will treat them with respect. I will reprimand those that do claim to follow the same way of life I do but still treat them with basic human dignity.

Yeah thanks for the correction. To be a bit more clear, I would have issue with people who claim to follow my moral code as well in these issues since we are supposed to be following the same way of life. For others though that don't ascribe to that, I don't really care either way. I'll still treat all humans with basic human dignity, even if they do these things while claiming to follow my way of life but I would reprimand them and ask to show where they are getting they're viewpoints from except if they are murderers by intent, war mongers, pedophiles, war profiteers, oppressors or rapists. So I wouldn't trust George Bush or Netenyahu or MBS or Modhi with basic human dignity.

Otherwise it depends on all issues and is complex for all of them as well.

I get you. Makes sense to me. Thanks for responding!