Abortion questions...?

You do realize you are a set of cells yourself. Since you think it is ok to abort a foetus, does it mean it is ok to kill you ? (since both are a set of cells)Clearly, not every set of cells are equal. It's just a matter of determining which is, and which isn't.

The reasoning you were using was: ''If it is ok to kill one set of cells, why isn't it ok to kill another set of cells?''A foetus is also simply a set of cells at another stage then the zygote, as is a newborn, as is a child, as are both of us. So what I was saying is that the right question is: ''Which set of cells is it ok to kill, at which stage does it become ok ?''Now, I perfectly understand that you are arguing that there are no reasons to put the line between the two haploids and the zygote. But you have to put a line somewhere, and since this is a continuum, it is not sufficient to look ''before'' and ''after'' the line, see negligeable differences, and therefore argue the line cannot be put there.After all, society has put the line at birth. But really, what is the difference between when the baby is inside, and when he is outside a couple hours later ?But since you have a line, and that it is a continuum, then you have to put it at least at a critical moment. The birth is such a critical moment. The fertilization of the ovum is another.

Are you saying all these deaths are ok ?Because as a christian I think it is totally unacceptable. Unacceptable that we, the more fortunate and able in this world, go about our daily lives as if those tragedies aren't happening every second. Unacceptable that it seems to be only a superficial concern for us, that we send 10$ in the mail and feel that we have done our part. And certainly unacceptable that people think these deaths somehow justify feeling comfortable about paying 500$ to abort a foetus.

There is a critical difference between the dying children of Africa, and aborted foetuses. For a christian, both are humans deserving to live. The differene is a social one: you don't have to convince anyone that dying children in africa is wrong, 99% of people think it is. SO it serves no point in parading in the streets tryign to convince people of something they already agree with you.Which is different with abortion, because even before we can fix a problem, we have to agree wether or not there is a problem.And don't worry, christians (I would hope) do their part for the poor in this world, although it probably it isn't half of what they should be doing, I still feel it's more then the average person.

Oh but come on, some people do feel absolutely comfortable with it. How then could they be at their 10th abortion ? or 15th ?I'm not saying this is a majority of people, but it is certainly present. I try to do my part in this world. And even though I am part of a small christian community, we already have over 1 million dollars invested in Haiti (since before the disaster, obviously). And we also support a home made for young women who want to keep their child instead of aborting it, where they have support from professionals.Don't think I'm concerned only in words with these things.

Fidelity in mariages, abstinence for underage people, preservatives for the others (which means unmarried adults).This is how I think it should be promoted. In fact, if I remember correctly, this is the 'formula' that the pope is trying to promote in africa, andit had resounding success in diminishing HIV in the countries that applied it.

My personnal view, and I'll have to say it is not very popular with my christian friends, is that the line should be put at around the 100th cell division. Since this is when the cells start to specialize, and seperating the lump of cells effectively kills it.Before that, seperating it only creates two individuals. In fact, you could actually make as many clones as you want if you just make sure you seperate before each reached a hundred cells.So as of right now, this is where I would put the line. This means that I do not have problems with methods that prevent implantation, since at that stage it hasn't reached the 100th cell. (this is all from memory from my biology classes from way back, if anyone knows I'm totally wrong about this feel free to tell me)

Well, I know that in Canada, the constitution gives you rights only at birth. Now the abortions are obviously done before that, but intrinsically, there is nothing legally speaking that would be charged against a doctor who would kill the baby right before the birth.I was pretty sure it was about the same issue in the US. After all, up until 2002, babies who would survive abortions would be left somewhere to die.And I also remember an interview from a doctor here talking about a case in the US where the mother actually shot here baby when only his head was outside, and the doctors pursued here for murder but she was found non-guilty for this very reason: if it wasn't born, it wasn't a human. The doctor's point was actually to defend the view that it wasn't murder, in reaction to comments from a well know pro-abortionist in europe who had claimed that according to him, abortions at such a stage was murder.

Yes that is what I was saying. But I have arrived at this conclusion strictly from thinking about the biology of it, because at other times it brings some questions I find difficult to answer. Yes, but a baby still can't survive outside the womb if what was given to it inside by the mother isn't still given to it once outside.It's not like it was fused with the mother when it's inside. It's only connected to it and exchanging the necessary nutriments it needs. This exchange continues once outside, albeit in a different way. I haven't yet studied the theological aspect of it.

American 'abortion addict' who had 15 terminations in 17 years publishes her memoir | Daily Mail OnlineI figure if she felt uncomfortable about abortion, she would not have had 15 just to make here husband feel bad.And I personnally know a girl who has had multiple abortions and is very comfortable with it.Now, I know that an abortion is a serious thing, and that it can have some pretty big psychological effects on a woman, especially if she is young. I have another friend, who's mother's friend cries everytime she sees her because she reminds here of the abortions she had at about the same time my friend was born.But I think it's just like anything else. Some people feel bad about lying, others don't. Some feel bad about stealing, and others don't. etc. I don't see how it owuld be different about abortion. Besides, this is clearly irrelevant in determining if it is morally right or wrong to do so. And it almost got shut down by pro-abortionists lobbying who bashed it in the news.I'm not saying all pro-choice are against places like these, but to me it is surprising that some would want a place like that to close.

I think that if the formula I mentioned was applied, there would be very little problems taking care of the much fewer unwanted pregnancies. As of right now, only the use of preservatives is focused on, while abstinence is laughed at, and fidelity in marriages is only superficially upheld as a value. We have all those things here in Quebec (apart for free schooling. but then again it is amazingly cheap) and yet, the ones who do care for the single mom who would like to keep here children are the pro-life.You'll have all the help of the world if you want to abort, and you'll get access to a doctor before everyone else. But if you ever want to keep the child, the help is clearly insufficient. And as I just said, surprisingly enough, there was pressure recently to paint in a bad light a home for those women who kept their child.

So your position is that it is in some way fused to it's mother up until that point ? That the connection between the two is more then just an exchange of nutriments ?

I don't see how our current technological development has anything to do with the ''human status'' of such and such a foetus at such and such a stage.There's nothing ''magical'' about the womb, and if we could mimick it perfectly in a lab, and premature babies would then survive, would they then suddenly become humans ?

Well you were sort of accusing me of lying on this point, just so you remember ... You have this very twisted view of christians, and apply it to me constantly.I don't want to argue on semantics. But if being anti-abortion means someone who is against abortion, pro-abortion is nothing more then someone who is for abortion. I ascribe no pejorative connotations to the word. I can use pro-choice if it shocks you less.As for more information, I'll try to find the news article, but it'll be in french. But after the article, a political party wanted the government to impse a pro-choice certification, that would mean that you cannot counsel a pregnant woman if the organism isn't pro-choice.

Your assuming something is human simply because socially we say it is or not. If in the future, a 20 weeks old foetus can survive outside the womb, it will be considered a human, but at the same time right now it isn't ?