response 76 of 209:

Jul 29 18:29 UTC 2003

Because every sperm is sacred, and killing a sperm is the equivalent of
killing a human being. Likewise, I understand that this is the reason that
masturbation is sinful. 

response 84 of 209:

Jul 29 22:58 UTC 2003

The only ones done that late in this country are those where the mother is
at extreme physical risk.  Usually risk of imminent death.

response 86 of 209:

Jul 30 05:24 UTC 2003

(Prediction: he will not be able to just mind his own business.)

response 88 of 209:

Jul 31 03:50 UTC 2003

nope, I cannot.  Anynore than I could stand by and watch a 12 year old raped
and murdered in a parking lot, or a 6 year old beaten to death by a group of
bullies.

Sperm is sperm, it has no righ to remain alive or procreate.  An egg is an
egg, with no more rights to life than the sperm.  A zygote is a zygote, but
tell me the day and hour it becomes a fetus and I will accept abortion prior
to that date.

response 90 of 209:

Jul 31 11:49 UTC 2003

Re #88:  In other words, you refuse to distinguish between innocent
individuality (the right to be left alone) and infringement upon the
very body of another?

The distinction between embryo and fetus isn't a bright line that's
crossed in an instant; the transformation is a process, and the
criteria appear to be based largely on appearance.  The thing that
actually makes a human being (the brain) takes a long time to catch
up.  Are you saying that *outward appearance* of humanity is more
important than the fact?  This is eerily similar to the primitive
superstition that putting a face on a doll gives it a soul.

IIRC, RU-486 acts during the zygote/embryo phase.  If so, you should
have no objection to its use.

response 92 of 209:

Jul 31 17:22 UTC 2003

As I said, I do not believe in abortion because I do not believe you can state
the time and place when they become a human being.

zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, infant, child et al are just conventions we have
established to try and define when a human being reaches a certain stage. 
But the age of the stage varies from person to person.

Some people are still children developmentally even after they have reached
the age of majority.  some children are much more adult than some parents I
have known.

My wife, Twila, was born at a stage in the pregnancy when it would have been
legal to abort.  Yet she survived adn I am thankful for it.  I know some
people say that at cetain points, teh brain is not fully functional, but evn
some adults do not have fully functional brains, and to kill them would be
considered murder.

even if you have a person who is brain dead, adn you pull all life support,
sometimes the body will go on living.  and if you were to kill one of these
people, it would be murder.

So, if we cannot define a set of criteria that we all can agree on to say
"this is life and it is sacred"  How can we make the decision to end a life
because it is inconvenient for us?

response 94 of 209:

Jul 31 18:35 UTC 2003

Re #92: in fact, you would be completely oblivious of it if the fetus later
named Twila had been aborted. You would probably now have a wife anyway
about whom you might say the same thing, but it would be equally meaningless.

It is the human condition that we must make many choices of ages when
things are permitted or unpermitted. We choose the age 18 to vote and 21
to order alcohol (in Michigan) - although there is no instant at which a
person converts from should not be able to vote to should be able to vote
(or drink, or drive, or be president, or anything else for which we choose
specific ages). Doing the same for the right to abort a fetus is just as
necessary. Since you accept the right of abortion but only quibble about
the date at which it goes from permitted to unpermitted, the only recourse
is to have society make that choice - which is has done through the action
of the Supreme Court.

response 96 of 209:

Aug 1 04:07 UTC 2003

Re #92:  I can state the condition under which a human organism is
no longer a human being despite vital signs (brain death).  Given
that one can also measure the appearance of the neurological attributes
of humanity (much more accurately and reproducibly than their
disappearance), it's my opinion that your opinion is unsupported by
anything resembling a fact and deserving of no weight in public policy.

Defining "a set of criteria that we all can agree on" is impossible so
long as you have one holdout who refuses to accept them because they
fail to support their preconceived conclusion.  This is why we have
nonsense like the claim that a zygote is a human being from the moment
of fertilization; the people behind this wanted to justify their stand
against contraceptives which prevent implantation, so they argued
themselves into a stance which forces them to stand against in-vitro
fertilization as well; they want more babies, as long as you don't
make them THAT way!  Ironies abound.

response 98 of 209:

Aug 1 13:50 UTC 2003

A zygote outside the womb does not have a chance to become a baby. 
Whereas one in the womb does. So it's understandable that a woman 
would be able to make a decision regarding the zygote in her womb 
wihout getting the courts or anyone else for that matter involved. 
It's still part of her body. 

While it is bizarre to think that once the zygote leaves her womb, she 
has no say, I can see how they would argue that her rights were 
different now.

About the divorced woman wanting to use a zygote with her ex's sperm, 
would she have had to have the court involved if she wanted to destroy 
it, as opposed to using it?