Do you seriously remember being a baby? As in just a few months old and younger?  I honestly don't think anyone can.

no, thats not what i mean, i just dont consider something to be alive before its born

i have a vague memory of being 1 or 2, but no not a few months old, i was just stating part of my opinion, read my other post

Life? Or human life?

Human life i'd say when brainwaves manifest. Which is about the 13th week.

Life... not even sure.  Sperm is alive, my hair is alive etc.  There is nowhere life "begins" as in coming from non-life really.

Obama responded that that is above his pay grade.

The reason many pro choice advocates for abortion say it is the womans body and she can do what ever she wants with it, which science shows us the baby is not the womans body yes in it but not it.

Remember "what you do for the least, is what you do for me"

Who really has the right to determine if someone could die?

I believe conception is life, that if no outside forces change the situation it is what it will be. That since the embryo will become a human it is.

I awknowlege it should be allowed if the physical health of mother was at risk yes, and rape, but not in cases that the child may be born with an illness, then that and abortion is playing God when we obviously are not God.

Yeah that was an odd response considering he deals with laws based on that every day. He was just worried about upsetting the religious right he's courting.

I however disagree that if no outside forces change the situation that is what it will be.

If the mother stops eating, the baby dies as well. The baby until it is born is basically a parasite. The baby steals nutrician from the mother.

If the mother did not feed the baby it would not become human life. Expectant mothers give up a lot and make a lot of decisions to make sure a baby becomes a person.

At 40, apparently.

Certainly, a living cell is alive from conception. However, bacteria are also alive, and no one on Earth has any problems killing them. Your question is therefore loaded, and ought to be "When does a foetus acquire full human rights?".

Since it is equivalent to a bacterium at conception, and a full human being at birth, the line should be drawn somewhere between the two places. I think it should change based on the purpose.

Abortions for clear-cut medical need (i.e. high chance of death or extreme disability in either the mother or baby) should be done as soon as possible after the result emerges, anything up until birth. Abortions for lesser medical needs that are not life-threatening (Down's syndrome, mother's psychological health, baby's welfare) should be done, again, as soon as possible after the result emerges, but would have to be more and more serious to justify later and later abortions.

Careful consultation between several doctors, the mother and in most cases the father should be done to determine, on an individual basis, whether a late abortion can be justified. Medical estimates of when pain-sensing or awareness starts should only be used to aid the process, not set hard lines or dates.

Unlike medical abortions, Purely social (I don't want one) abortions should not be allowed after a short amount of time after conception. That is a line the legislative authorities should decide, with the aid of scientific evidence. I would say about 10 weeks or so.

--

For people who attempt to use religion to justify completely banning abortions, remember:

i) There is no scientific evidence for the truth of religious beliefs, and therefore:

ii) You can't force your belief on other people's actions.

So, you can continue to let religious ideas influence you, but you can't claim what anyone else is doing is wrong purely on religious grounds.

In the ballsack.

I'm going to assume you're not being serious, but for those who are serious about this ("the potential for life", Natural Law, etc., etc.), your beliefs either come from a religious position or a moral one (I've yet to see anyone argue from the latter however). The religious position, as above, is YOURS and not justified by science so cannot fairly be forced on the entire population, not all of which share your beliefs. The moral position of potential life is also flawed, because most sperm are destroyed before they reach the egg and most foetuses spontaneously abort before birth, so "killing" sperm is not removing the potential for life to a greater extent than turning left instead of right at a junction would.