I could go on forever about my pro-choice views but I'll try to keep it short. There of course is no definite

time that will ever be agreed on. My last debate on the time-line came down to the "God's will" aspect. One woman said that even if a

pregnancy is the result of  rape, the living embryo is still the result of God's will.  I asked her if the life is God's will and he is

all knowing, then didn't the circumstances leading up to the pregnancy(rape) have to be God's will.  Her only choice here is to

back-peddle and say that the rape was the will of the Devil and the life is the will of God, or to admit that God had nothing to

do with any of it, -so I thought anyway.  She stuck to the God's will theory and said that God works in mysterious ways and if rape was the way to that

child's life, then God had his reasons. As the discussion went on, she then admitted that if her own daughter was being gang-raped by

filthy criminals and there was a gun lying there, being the only way she could stop it from happening, she wouldn't even pick up the gun.

I personally do not want people this stupid walking around loose in our society. 

and don't sweat the "on-line IQ" thing. Some people think the best argument is to see how many big words they can fit in a sentence. 

Abortion? It's always a risk, so the earlier it is done, the better. With the size of a fetus, the physical and psychologic consequences for the woman increase gradually and significantly. I'd consider 4-5 weeks as the safe time limit for abortion without second thought, after that the choice becomes a tougher one. Abortion is a really ugly kind of surgery (chopping the fetus apart etc.) and best prevented through education, contraception and... I heard that somewhere in U.S. teenagers might receive fleshlights or dildos as a part of sex ed and STD prevention, which to me sounds way too much enlightened and embarrassing to be true.

But... you ask about the baby? I'm not an expert on this, but I have a second, supernatural worldview handy. Let's say I know an authority on the supernatural and he says that between 4th and 5th week a soul starts getting interested in the fetus as a potential ticket for ride into the physical world. So after that the abortion gradually has greater karmic consequences. But how steeply the karmic curve increases and reaches the full murder rate, that I don't know.

Anyway, it's curious how the people who believe in immortal souls care the most about their temporary mortal vessels. 

Right now, scientist are trying to take the hair of a wooly Mamoth and create a clone. This means "all the information necessary is in there". http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mammoths-Could-be-Cloned-Starting-From-Their-Hair-66990.shtml

This means if your reasoning is consistent, you should go around collecting all the hair from barbershops and saving it for future cloning. Also get all the hair out of drain pipes, there are people trapped in there.

If you get passed the imbeciles who think a fetus comes from some god there is no problem. As with food crops, you plant three seeds and rip out two. All is life. There is no difference.

I'm in favor of abortion, but there are a few arguments from pro-abortionists that I don't like.  (I say "pro-abortionists" because I don't like the loaded terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life."  A purely descriptive term works for me, and promotes honesty in society.)  The end of the second trimester is when the nervous system develops sufficiently to be considered human, and a two year old has a more developed nervous system.  And, I know, the brain continues to develop well into a person's twenties on its own; even throughout the person's entire life if you include learning.

I don't like the pro-abortion argument that says "The fetus can be terminated if it can't sustain its own life, separate from its mother."  This logically includes sufficiently mentally and physically disabled children and adults -- they can't survive on their own.  If you want to go to the extreme, you can say that most people can't survive completely on their own, because we depend on each other for work, pay, love, information, etc.  But, it's not necessary to go that far.

I don't like the pro-abortion argument that says "A fetus living inside a woman's body can't make a decision on whether or not it wants to or should live, so the cognitively developed mother has the right to make the decision for the fetus."  This is nonsense, too.  It's not fair that a fetus, providing that it will develop relatively normal cognitive functions on its own, should have another person make that choice for it.  It's not like a Terry Shiavo case where it's a permanent vegetable.

The final pro-abortion argument I don't like is that the fetus is living inside its mother's body, so she can decide its fate.  This is similar to the previous argument, but slightly different.  This is the argument that says "It's the woman's body, so she gets to decide."  No, I don't think that's a good argument either.  The fetus is incapable of living outside the mother's body, and had no choice to not be there in the first place.  The fetus is a separate developing human lifeform, and not part of the woman's body.

But, I'm in favor of abortions because it's far too impractical to give every zygote as much concern as a two year old or an adult.  It's just a clump of cells with no sentience.  And I'm not going to give up on the enormous potential of stem cell research.  I don't want to sound cold-hearted, but the potential of stem cell research far outweighs the importance of whatever person the blastocyst most likely would have grown up into -- even my own blastocyst. 

We're the ones that created our own world. We want to decide everything.We live in the world as other creatures. With our intellectual abilities we can create reasons to pursue a particular idea or thing. Purpose can be momentary, such as a dog that's lying around with no purpose to be or do anything. But, when the dog gets hungry (something it cannot control) what has developed is a purpose to do and be something. The purpose it has encountered is satisfied by becoming a predator  to hunt something to eat. Four items have entered, need, hunger, predator and eat, which means a purpose has been created. We are in this same world, but having greater intellect we can then pursue without purpose of need. Instead of living naturally we can pursue pleasures. But, being that nature presents the pleasures we can reason to pursue but might not want the consequences. So, going further then the dog we now create the circumstance of consequence by over-pursuit. We don't really want to pay the price for pleasurable pursuits so we enact a remedy. Considering that we've accomplished our basic needs, food, shelter, winter heat, etc. But that leaves us with a lot of time on our hands, so now we can pursue other gratifications, such as affluence, and pleasures of all sorts, and even invent them. We spend more time and effort on pursuit of affluence upkeep and pleasure seeking then for anything else. If we don't want the consequences of sexual gratifications we find ways to negate the effects. If the negating effects fail we look for the final remedy. It's one's animalistic nature rather then the human nature that rules. From that, we find ourselves in all sorts of troubles. Abortion is merely relieving one's self of obligation. This is a product of one's animal characteristics. The intelligent animal is exactly that, and that may be worse then the dog, of which one's intellect is used to surpass, which is extended from the notion of human animal, of which there is no such thing. One is not the other.  Simple, ain't it.

Is this about those two idiot "bioethicists" from Austrailia?

I don't have to be pro choice or pro life in order to be pro safety.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1

I think women who don't want to get pregnant should use birth control, and men who don't want to get women pregnant should use birth control, and then we can use abortion only to handle pregnancies that are life-threatening to the woman and pregnancies resulting from rape.  But since making abortions illegal only endangers women without protecting fetuses, it doesn't matter whether or not we should try to protect the fetuses because we can't (at least, not through abortion legislation).  We should instead strive to make sure people have access to birth control and don't have a bunch of people telling them they'll get torured if they use it.