My comment is simple. If an argument is vacuous of empirical and impractical value, then F off.

Abortion has the advantage of cost savings.

End of story

End of debate

Actually I think both Foolio and IA are incorrect.

You_fool has only considered the mother's right to choose and not that of the baby. At some point over the life of a person from conception to old age a person gains the rights which you are defending of choice and personal freedom. The question is not whether those rights exist but at what point they start to exist.

Justinian has indeed made a very simple comment, but it isn't necessarily correct even empirically. Over the course of a lifetime most humans who survive to adulthood will do work. Now if the mean human "cost" more than he or she added in terms of the work he or she did over their lifetime then humanity would consistently be on a downward poverty spiral. In actual fact, empirically it has been seen that humanity has become richer over the existence of the species, suggesting that the average human adds more value than they cost. Therefore the argument that abortion has the advantage of cost saving is incorrect.

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> We have an impending end-of-the-world crisis on our hands that will kill billions, and the
western world squabbles over the definition of pre-born flesh. For shame.

When the filth of the impoverished turn into a neo-plague, black death 2.0, you wont even
have second thoughts on this crap.

Agreed. But only so far as abortion is an effective way of population control (discussed in another thread).

But also consider the quality of life of the person being born. If a 16 year old girl is raped, should she be FORCED to keep the child? Now lets add in that she is a bright student, who wants to go on to university to study, but is now forced into motherhood. What about drunken teens, (although they can only blame themselves) will they make excellent parents? Do they have stable income, own their own house, have the ability to ensure both a mother and father figure in the childs development?

Now if we start putting rights on a fetus at conception (which I might add is just a collection of cells without any real consciousness) then the same rights should start to be placed on animals (which the entire argument against equal rights for animals is their lack of consciousness or higher brain function, which a featus until the 24th week lacks both).

"Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester." (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise).

A single human life being valued above everything else in the world starts to become arrogance. Killing a featus before it reaches consciousness should not be considered inhumane.

"The law of endangered species respects this science"

Yet these same rules do not extend to non-endangered animals (in fact we have a tendency to control numbers, we protect endangered species, whilst culling species that pose a threat, ie. sharks, dingoes, etc). The human race is not endangered...I did not suggest selective breading, but merely the choice to breed. You are taking it one step in one direction, when the step in the other direction is banning contraceptions...maybe versectamies (hope I spelt that right) should be banned too?

"That ignores the science of DNA, which notes the basic and unique blueprint of the human being is created at conception and present in every cell at conception. "

It is also present in sperm, so my sperm has rights? (well actually I think it does, in regards to donating, theft, etc) but my sperm has rights to self-determination? (next time, will ask my sperm permission before I bust one out)

The start of brain development is not on day one.. those cells are trying to multiply only at that stage. Nor day two.

There is a date where it happens however.

I did not make this movement, but I do note they exist with unique potential. Since I have a little brother my mom adopted.. this is 'good' to me. Life is precious. However I believe birth control should be allowed. I have issues with abortion, and would outlaw 3rd trimester abortions, except where death of the mom may occur, outright. I have argued if the baby can live with medical assistance, then you should not abort.

The Personhood movement goes further than I do at this moment.

I do have a form letter to fill out from Right to Life... going to be interesting to see my grade

""The law of endangered species respects this science"

Yet these same rules do not extend to non-endangered animals (in fact we have a tendency to control numbers, we protect endangered species, whilst culling species that pose a threat, ie. sharks, dingoes, etc). The human race is not endangered..<<

The facts of reproduction don't rest on endangered status.  It is because we choose to actually preserve a species that we respect the facts of biology for that species, while pretending confusion when it comes to our own species.

"That ignores the science of DNA, which notes the basic and unique blueprint of the human being is created at conception and present in every cell at conception. "

>>It is also present in sperm, so my sperm has rights? (well actually I think it does, in regards to donating, theft, etc) but my sperm has rights to self-determination? (next time, will ask my sperm permission before I bust one out)<<

The DNA in your sperm is the same that was present from your conception and is unique to you.  If you spooge into a yoohoo and knock up some girl, your unique DNA will share with her unique DNA to form a unique third DNA combination in a zygote, present from conception.

Then what next?  An egg is human?  A sperm is human?  Illegal masterbation for the destruction of thousands of sperm will land you in prison?  What's that?  One thousand counts of Sperm Destruction?

Seriously.  This is all about the whole regligious/soul/human rights stuff.  And this question has already been answered by the Supreme Court, and the law courts of over 50 states.

It is not the same however, as sperm cells are haploid cells while most cells in your body, the ones that give you your appearance, are diploid, containing chromosomes from both your father and mother as i'm sure you are aware of.
The variation between sperm cells is incredible, however. Humans have 46 pairs of chromosomes, of which every time only 1 of the pair is passed on. Add to those crossing over and mutations, such as deletions, insertions and translocations, that may have happened that the cell didn't repair, and you'll have even more variation. The sperm cells are almost as unique as the zygote.

Disregarding the uniqueness of the sperm cell while using the uniqueness of the zygote as an argument... how  convenient.

"that farfetched circumstance has happened about 7 billion times over the past 80 years..."
That process is so dependent on communication between cells to allow for a correct development and so easily interuptable that yes, i'd say connecting 2 steps that are so far apart directly to each other is VERY farfetched.

The variation is limited, yet still quite large. The function of the zygote is to divide mitotically, without increasing in size. Mitotic division does not result in further variation. Occasional mutations could, however, i'll give you that.
Another thing the zygote does is to travel down the oviducts into the uterus to settle in its lining (at which point in time it has developed into a blastocyst consisting of an inner cell mass and a trophoblast, and is no longer considered a zygote).
Plus, the variation originates in the meiosis of both the gametes. The zygote only combines both of those variable factors to form an even more unique cell, combining the DNA from both parents.

Pretended confusion? are you kidding me .

And you keep ignoring the fact that the variability is a result of the meiosis of the gametes, focusing too largely on the formation of the zygote. I'm sure you understand that if there were no variation in the gametes of both the male and the female, all of the zygotes formed from said identical gametes would be, well, identical. The variability of the gamete is essential to the variability in the zygote and therefore in the later human.

By the way I am not saying that the formation of the zygote is not essential to the formation of the brain, I'm just saying that it is not a direct connection.
Plus have you considered all the times the formation of the brain was not succesful? There have been plenty as well, caused by natural factors. Plus what I mostly disagree with is the way the statement puts a timestamp on the zygote, saying "development of the brain/heart starts here" whilest the zygote is at the very least concerned with developing the brain or heart.

If you are so sure about the number of times the formation of a zygote has ultimately lead to the formation of a brain, I would be very interested to know whether you have numbers for the amount of times the formation of a zygote did not lead to a brain.

*giggle*