You all know how I would vote. So lets see how many like me are out there.

Apparently not, since a lot of scientists can't agree about when life begins. It's NOT very clear when life begins, otherwise, there wouldn't be a huge controversy over abortion.

I disagree. I think all scientists are clear about when life begins. I just think they disagree about when that life becomes valuable. And that's the crux of the matter -- why does one person's opinion decide the value of another's life?

I think all scientists are clear about when life begins. I just think they disagree about when that life becomes valuable.

I disagree with you. And I think that the scientists that I am around on a daily basis would disagree with you, also. Scientists are unified about when the potential for future life begins. Obviously, that would be when a sperm penetrates an egg. They aren't unified on when that life begins, though.

And that's the crux of the matter -- why does one person's opinion decide the value of another's life?

Because that's a part of life. We decide another person's value all the time. Civil suits, criminal cases, media, etc. It is decided all the time. Yeah, it would be nice if the world wasn't like it is, if people weren't like they are. But it is, and they are.

I think the laws should be based on a scientific definition of human life.

Out of curiousity....

Do you believe in the theory of evolution or that in the begininning God created the heavens and the earth? Science points to evolution while religion points to God.

Maybe it is a bit off topic but if you don't believe in the scientific theory of evolution then why can you use a scientific definition to define life? Can you just pull bits and piece of what you like to support your argument but throw away what goes against the things you believe?

Out of curiousity....

Do you believe in the theory of evolution or that in the begininning God created the heavens and the earth? Science points to evolution while religion points to God.

Maybe it is a bit off topic but if you don't believe in the scientific theory of evolution then why can you use a scientific definition to define life? Can you just pull bits and piece of what you like to support your argument but throw away what goes against the things you believe?

Very well put. Science, nature, everything we see, points to a creator. The very conception of human life as wonderful and miraculous as it is, points to a creator. Evolution is just a theory whereas creationism points to all things seen and unseen factual hard evidence that we can touch see smell, taste and hear. Therefore those of us who do believe in intelligent design do definately embrace scientific evidence of a creator. I do appreciate your valued opinion.

laurend, your points and babygirl's go exactly to the crux of the issue that's been debated here. But you will never get any satisfaction from trying to debate it with people who are so closed up to anything but what they believe with all their hearts and minds. That is true about rabid people on both sides of the fence, by the way.

Abortion is not just a scientific question. Abortion is a religious one, a political one, a psychological and emotional one. It isn't as simple as arguing when a life begins, scientifically. If science came out and declared that life begins when the fetus is 8 weeks old, or after the baby has been born or somewhere in between, abortion would still be an option for women. It always has been and it always will be. That is the major reason why certain men and women, even though their convictions are strong enough to cause them to be outraged - absolutely certain that they are correct - should never be making decisions about it for everyone, whether those outraged men and women are for a woman's right to choose or against a woman's right to choose.

Read what tink says. You'll get my point. You see they don't believe that there is a scientific answer to when life begins or how the world came about. They've decided everything points to intelligent design. How are you going to argue science with someone who believes that?

laurend, your points and babygirl's go exactly to the crux of the issue that's been debated here. But you will never get any satisfaction from trying to debate it with people who are so closed up to anything but what they believe with all their hearts and minds. That is true about rabid people on both sides of the fence, by the way.

Abortion is not just a scientific question. Abortion is a religious one, a political one, a psychological and emotional one. It isn't as simple as arguing when a life begins, scientifically. If science came out and declared that life begins when the fetus is 8 weeks old, or after the baby has been born or somewhere in between, abortion would still be an option for women. It always has been and it always will be. That is the major reason why certain men and women, even though their convictions are strong enough to cause them to be outraged - absolutely certain that they are correct - should never be making decisions about it for everyone, whether those outraged men and women are for a woman's right to choose or against a woman's right to choose.

I agree with the highlighted portion of the above comment wholeheartedly. I think that you hit the nail on the head. As for the rest you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine that we should always always want to preserve life. However, I appreciate your approach and your opinion.

Thanks, tink. I believe I understand your opinion too and I certainly believe there is room enough on earth for both of us to live together in harmony as long as we can respect each others' opinions and beliefs on this issue.

Thanks, tink. I believe I understand your opinion too and I certainly believe there is room enough on earth for both of us to live together in harmony as long as we can respect each others' opinions and beliefs on this issue.

.

AGREED!

That's precisely why I don't believe the decision about abortion should be a "majority-wins" decision. I believe it should be based on the scientific facts about when human life begins. And if you base it on those facts (separate DNA, circulatory system, beating heart, etc.), then you get a decision independent of someone's whim.

Bingo. And that's where the very real disagreement comes from. At what point does a human life begin. We don't all agree on that point, and won't. For me, it's when one can live without having to depend on being within another's body for life.

In the case of a slave, clearly their life had begun.

I think the laws should be based on a scientific definition of human life. It is very clear when human life begins: when conception occurs, and a completely separate being begins developing, with separate DNA from the mother.

Yes, it's very clear to you. It's every bit as clear to other people that it begins at other times.

What is then your definition of when human being is formed?

Great! Then let's legalize slavery, genocide, and infanticide -- just so long as we understand it should only be OK if the person committing the slavery, genocide, or infanticide justifies their position by saying the victim's life hasn't begun yet.

And of course on the flip side, we need to outlaw mastrabation by men, and any birth control at all, right?

Lisah have you ever had a child? If so, you are willing to say that your child was not a human being until he/she could live outside of your womb? What about her heartbeat that you saw at 6 weeks what about his kicking that started at 3-4 months? Your baby would not have survived outside of the womb then?

What is then your definition of when human being is formed?

When it can live outside of the womb. A 6 week fetus cannot do so therefore I don't think of it as a human. I think late term abortion is sickening. I also think that people who have had several abortions and have not tried to prevent those pregnancies are sickening. But it is not my place to make the decision of what a woman can and cannot do with her own body. It is not my choice, it is her choice.