Abortion

[dreama]

I agree, sugarmouse

Well I don't. The idea that unborn babies are disposable is affecting more then one unborn baby. It affects lots and lots of unborn baby. It can also affect mothers who were often pressurized into making this choice by irresponsible boyfriend.

It is also very upsetting for people like me when there is talk of aborting just because someone is disabled. As if being disable is something really terrible that needs to be got rid of. Just think if Louis Braille had been aborted. There would be no books for me to read.

[Blue moon]

Yes it is as an inocent unborn child is being murdered! Same as an inocent animal has to die if you eat meat. I can't believe someone who considers themselves as vegan should hold such views but it's typical of people who are for murdering unborn babies to be rude like this I've noticed it before.

My comments were not intended to be rude (as indicated by a smiley) as I know people have strong views on this - on both sides I might add.

Saying it's unvegan and murdering a baby, on a friendly vegan forum where people have stated they have had abortions.... hmmm.

Sugarmouse I agree with everything you've said, except I don't think you're not vegan!

[snivelingchild]

I was thinking the other day about how it's not really acceptable (in my mind) to be for, against, or lay any judgement on an action or consequence, since there are a million reasons that one consequence could have happened. For instance, say someone drives past you and slashed rain water from a puddle onto you. Most likely, they didn't realize, but does it warrant the same reaction of someone who's really pissed at you and does it on purpose? I think every situation is different, so how can you judge only the end, and not the process leading up to that point? I wonder if there has ever been a woman who aborted because they thought the child just plain didn't deserve to live.

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I was raped at 14 and I got a doctor who believed that the morning after pill WAS abortion, and I had to wait for hours in stirrups, with my mom and this volunteer who (bless her heart) just made things worse because she was so nervous and told bad jokes. Anyway, they finally dragged another doctor who would do it at 3 in the morning. However, suppose that I, like MOST people who are raped, DID NOT report it to the police, and did not tell anyone (especially since he said "tell anyone and I'll kill you") and did not realize I was pregnant until more than 72 hours later. Would an abortion be very different being vacuumed out on the fifth day than preventing being attatched on the third? Does a twelve year old girl who is raped have more of a right to want to live her life uninterrupted as a 35 year-old woman who just wants to live for herself? Does giving your child up for adoption scar a mother any less?

If I were to get pregnant after using condoms and spermicide, and were not to realize until a week later, or got a morning after pill and it failed, shall I give up school and dancing until I birth a child and put myself in even more financial turmoil? (by the way, if anyone wants to pay for a vasectomy and can find a doctor who is willing to perform it on a 22 year-old man with no children, go ahead. I will not have anyone tell me I am irresponsible for having sex when I don't want children. I will not volunteer to have a sexless life with my husband until menopause. I will not increase my risk of cancer by going back on the pill, and even vasectomies are not 100%. You cannot eliminate unwanted pregnancies.) I've said before that I don't consider a fetus (especially under 8 weeks, which is when I believe an abortion should be performed) a child. This is because I don't believe it is fair to make judgements based on what something will BECOME.

I think how a person arrives at the decision to abort is very important. Not wanting a child is different than not wanting a CERTAIN child. I believe it is VERY different than eating meat. You can stop eating meat without serious consequences. Having a child has HUGE consequences. To eat meat, a fully-formed, thinking, feeling, animal with love and memories had to die. In my mind, a fetus (under 8 weeks) does not experience. It has no memories, no brain waves, no formed nerves, and has only random cell movements (starting at 4 weeks) that take until 12 weeks (correct me if I remember wrong) to turn into an actual rhythmic pulse.

THIS IS MY PERSONAL BELIEF:
LIVING (THE EXPERIENCE WE HAVE AND HOW WE LIVE OUR LIFE) IS FAR GREATER THAN THE CONDITION OF LIFE ITSELF.

I believe death is only sad for the people who miss the deceased. I don't believe being alive is necessarily better than not, it depends on your LIFE. This is why I am pro-choice, but think the only person who should have the right to kill a (born) person is that person. In theory, if people were born out of pods with no consequences to the mother, I would be dead set against killing the unborn. Completely, inconsequently, against it.

[RubyDuby]

If you look at the big picture of the world and what is happening
around us, there is a huge overpopulation problem. The more people
there are the more selfish we become, looking for a way to stand out and to have what we want. Maybe it has just become difficult to think of the others around us because there are so many. People (strangers) are so rude and uncaring in our everyday lives. I moved to L.A. 4 years ago after growing up in a tiny town, so maybe it's just amplified more for me. Too many people are having babies out of a feeling of obligation, and our world is filled with children who never grew up. Of course, the pregnancy should be avoided. Sometimes shit happens. Should somebody who is not ready to be a parent put themselves and another life through hell on earth because they are pressured into thinking abortion is murder? Like sniveling child said, it isn't a baby yet! It's not the same as slitting the throat of an almost born pig fetus. Every egg is a potential life. I don't believe that being fertilized by a sperm makes a baby. People miscarry in the first days all the time and don't even know it. I had an abortion at 5 weeks when I was 23. It was not easy. Nobody wanted to help me. Nobody pressured me to have or not to have the baby, but doing it was aweful. I don't feel guilty. I made the right decision. I would have been a terrible mother. They say children are resilient, but the truth is they carry that childhood with them throughout life. Nobody should have to be raised by a bad parent. It's being set up for failure and ruining 2 lives. I'm not saying that sometimes good people don't come out of a bad childhood, but also like sniveling child said, who says life is better than death? Especially for an innocent not-a-baby-yet.

[flying plum]

abortion is such a hard subject because as humans we are sentimental - we feel that is not a collection of cells, it is a potential life. however, when a woman has a miscarriage, we mourn not the loss the mass of cells, but the loss of the potential child that woman had invested in emotionally. we are, in effect, sorry for HER loss, rather than that of the actual loss of the life. if you think about how you react to the information of a miscarriage, this is true. very few people think 'how sad, that loss of life', but rather feel sympathy for the woman concerned.

it's an intersting translation to abortion, where we start to think not of the woman, but of this unborn child instead. for myself, i dont' think i could have an abortion because i would always be sad for myself about that loss of potential. but, for another woman i would not deny the choice, because i think, while the child is still just cells, it is just a potential life, and not a child, and it is up to the mother whehter or not she feels she will mourn that potential.

that is the difference between a first trimester abortion and abortion of pig foetuses, which i presume are fairly fully formed when they are aborted, for the purpose of the abortion. there is also the issue of the mother sow having now choice over her own body, of course.

where abortion, for me, becomes more of an issue is, to use american legal terminology, where the life becomes 'viable'. where the life is not longer potential, but an actuality, in that if the child were to be born, it could survive...

amanda

[flying plum]

Well I don't. The idea that unborn babies are disposable is affecting more then one unborn baby. It affects lots and lots of unborn baby. It can also affect mothers who were often pressurized into making this choice by irresponsible boyfriend.

It is also very upsetting for people like me when there is talk of aborting just because someone is disabled. As if being disable is something really terrible that needs to be got rid of. Just think if Louis Braille had been aborted. There would be no books for me to read.

this surely depends on the disability. blindness is one thing, but a disability that means the child will only live a very short, painful life that, indeed will only exist because of modern medical advances that mean, in effect, the child's life can be artificially extended for a few years beyond the mere days or weeks they might live is something else entirely altogether.

however, i will say something about abortion with regards to disabled children, and it sort of follows on from my above post. i am always interested why people do not feel like they can put such children up for adoption. there is obviously the pregnancy, but this can't be the deciding factor for everyone.

i can fully understand someone not feeling able to take on a heavily disabled child. however, why do they not consider adoption/foster care? i can't help but feel that's got something to do with guilt or something. while you can abort the child early on, it is just potential...once born, is there an fear the the child becomes 'real'?

i realise this is a slight contradiction, but this si soemthing that just occurred to me...

abortion is one of those subjects that i just can come down on one side of the fence or the other on...ARGH! *l*

amanda

[Roxy]

No actually I wouldn't. Although I didn't choose to abort. I simply took the morning after pill so there may not have been a baby to abort. Personally I don't consider the morning after pill as being the same as abortion, but even if some people would consider it the same as abortion I still wouldn't take offence. (Even if I had had an abortion due to this I still wouldn't take offence as I think it's wrong to kill only I may have felt differantly back then as I was still omni).

I agree with Seaside saying abortion is unvegan.

The original "blanket" statement that I was referring to was:
Originally Posted by Mija
If you cannot take the responsibility for a possibility of a small human being, do not fuck. As simple as that.

Just to put things in perspective.

I'm glad you don't take offence to Mija's comment, Dreama - but I'm sure that many women who were raped, conceived and then aborted, would take offence to such a blanketed comment.

It's not as simple as saying "don't fuck" - people don't always choose to have sexual intercourse.

[sugarmouse]

I am eternally grateful that Iwas able to have an abortion. If i hadnt,my life would have been truly ruined. If I had kept the baby, the baby would have not had a nice life with me thaats for sure. if I had it adopted, I would be adding to overpopulation,strain on the governement and the foster industry.
Thankyou for your comments windfall, although I am vegan for the animals. If being a misanthrope means I amnot vegan,then I am not vegan simple. I am an animal lover, thats all I wantto be known as.
Human beings to me are disposable.
I am sure I have said this before, but I did use contraception, and i did take the emergency contraception. Neither worked, for various reasons.

[loratwopointone]

I've also had an abortion after failed contraceptives. Split condom then the morning after pill. I was 17 at the time and my Mother (the only person in my family living in this country) was diagnosed with cancer and went to have a mastectomy, I split up with my long term boyfriend and I found out I was pregnant within three weeks. At that stage there was too much going on and I was not in a good place to have a child. It wouldn't have been fair. How would I have cared for my Mother, doing heavy lifting and things like that if I was pregnant? I couldn't.

I still think sometimes what it would be like if I'd have had the baby, but I know I made the right decision... a personal decision based on circumstances and failed contraceptives.

It's not an easy decision to come to, how can it ever be. I understand people who are pro-life, but for me it always will be the womans right to choose.

I know if I got pregnant now I'd have the baby but give it up for adoption, I want through the horrible operation once and it isn't something I'd ever want to repeat, but I still think abortions should be available to those that need them.

[Klytemnest]

Hi, Marlene, and welcome on board! :)

Not that words are that important, but....: First time I saw the expression 'pro-choice', I actually wondered if the person meant choice for the mother, or choice for the baby... (Now i know.) Since this is a board for people from many countries - where 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' aren't used - maybe it would be a good idea to avoid these descriptions? What do you think? Nobody would say that they are 'against life' or 'against choice' anyway..... I hope!

Plus, personally, I think ProLife almost sounds like something you can buy in a health food store....

Actually, I think the two opposing factions should be labeled "Pro-Choice" and "Anti-Choice". Regardless of whether or not the fetus is indeed a human person, those who call themselves pro-life are in fact arguing that a woman's body be highjacked against her will and used as an incubator. The argument again boils down to, who is the owner of our bodies? We? The government? God? Do we have the right to our own bodies? If the answer is yes, then a it's a no-brainer. A woman should not have to house another organism against her will. It doesn't matter whether this organism is a tapeworm, a blastocyst, a tiny fetus or a 9-month old fetus. If we are the owners of our own bodies, then no one has a right to use our bodies without our consent. This is why we do not force people to donate blood, kidneys, livers, semen or eggs.

That is what is boils down to - self-ownership. Those who oppose choice are very often trying to punish the woman for not having kept her legs crossed. So yes, even though they would never admit it, I think some Pro-Lifers would be more acurately described as being "anti-choice".

Glad I got that off my chest!

[RubyDuby]

Klymtemnest--
I think it's more of a question about whether you believe the fetus should have a vote and whether the woman had a choice to the prevent the life inside of her.

this doesn't reflect my opinion... like i said before, I'm 'pro-choice' for lack of a better term.

[Klytemnest]

I agree that that is what the question is for those who are anti-choice. They have decided, by fiat, that the fetus has a soul and is a person. They have decided to use emotionalism to assert that the fetus is an innocent, defenseless baby. And so any kind of reasoning that attacks their emotionalism and exposes it as illogic is seem as lack of compassion for the baby. Oh, those wicked, wicked liberals...

But more importantly, as you pointed out, it is a matter of punishing the woman. She could have prevented the pregnancy - if she had just kept her legs closed! But she didn't. She used her "free will" and sinned. And she deserves to deal with the consequences. How dare she sin and get away with it?

That's what it is about for many of the "pro-lifers". And they seem to be utterly unconcerned with the woman's right to her own body. I'm sorry, but if we truly believe that our bodies are our own, then if at any point in the pregnancy the woman wants to have her body rid of any organism, she should be entitled to that. If we believe that she does not have this right, then let us be honest with ourselves and admit that we do not believe our bodies belong to us.

And again, even if the fetus were a person, it does not change anything. This "person" would be inhabiting the body of someone else. And if one's body belongs to oneself, then one should at all times have the right to make decisions about what is to go on inside one's body. This is why even if my life depended on it, I would not be entitled to the use of your body, organs, blood, etc, without your consent. And even if you give your consent and then change your mind, you are entitled to do so. After all, it's YOUR body. No one is entitled to any part of it, not even your fetus (sorry, I'm not sure if you're a woman or a man).

Yes, it sucks that abortions must happen sometimes. But luckily, the killing of a fetus is, in most cases, the killing of an insensate collection of cells. It is not a person. It has not thoughts, no awareness, no emotions, no sensation. What is it that would qualify it as a person, then?

[ClawsyWP]

This is why even if my life depended on it, I would not be entitled to the use of your body, organs, blood, etc, without your consent. And even if you give your consent and then change your mind, you are entitled to do so. After all, it's YOUR body. No one is entitled to any part of it, not even your fetus (sorry, I'm not sure if you're a woman or a man).


I agree, i think it is quite amazing to think it is OK to take away peoples rights over their own bodies.
Why not force terrible criminals to do the same-maybe they should be forced to "donate" their body parts to help other people.

[Tibetan Snake]

Some are conserned with the amount of ''criminal'' organ doners in China.
A condom ripped when I was 24 and I was in no place to become a farther. I think it is a very nessary procedur to have available, and should be free in all cases.

[Roxy]

I like how Klytemnest refers to the "pro-life" camp as "anti-choice". That's how I've always seen that group of people too.

[BlackCats]

I used to know some people who were very pro-life (Catholic upbringing) and the thing that mostly used to annoy me was the assumption that if a woman finds herself in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy she is to blame/responsible as she is the "vessel" for carrying it.

So many people are so judgemental, stating that the woman should refrain from having sex if she doesn't want to have a child, never a mention of men abstaining from sexual activity if they do not want a child.:mad:

I snapped one time at a particularly irritating remark made to me and said "Sometimes I wish more people would turn gay as there wouldn't be any chance of unwanted pregnancies between gay couples".

It didn't go down very well, but it was totally worth it to see the looks on their face.:p

(Btw I don't believe people can "turn gay", I just used that phrase as they believed homosexuality was a choice. )

[Veggie4Life139]

I believe in the choice for abortion. No, it shouldn't be used as birth control, but if a woman is in a situation where she feels she can't support a kid or go through pregnancy, I believe she should have the right to choose. I am extremely happy being child-free (have never wanted kids, my fiance and I have not included them in our future), and also do what I can to prevent pregnancy with birth control. Now if that birth control ever failed, of course I would get an abortion. Unfortunately America's doctors still want you to be a certain age and have a certain number of kids before many of them will even consider permanent birth control, but as soon as that becomes an option both my fiance and I are getting the surgeries. Because as much as I want abortion to be an option, I don't want to have to get one.

I completely do not agree with the idea that being vegan makes you automatically "pro-life". I am vegan...I support not killing life unless necessary. In my opinion, no one has scientifically proven when a fetus has life, can feel, has a soul, whatever. I agree that it might be life from early on, but it is still within my body, feeding from it like a parasite (keep in mind I am not comparing fetus's to parasites in a rude manner, but instead in a manner to help explain things) and therefore is a part of my body. If I ever happened to get pregnant I would find it necessary to get an abortion since kids aren't in my future and I am awfully afraid of pregnancy and everything that comes with it.

But back to the vegan thing, I don't think it is ever necessary to kill an animal unless in self-defense. There might be exceptions that I can't think of now.

It bothers me when people say they are "pro-life" because that should mean they're against the death penalty, are vegan (which on this board is a check), do not use bug spray or any pest services, etc, etc. Of course, it doesn't, so the term "pro-life" is misleading, and I agree that "pro-choice" can be, too. I personally am for all choices. If someone chooses to get an abortion, okay. If they don't want an abortion, they can choose not to have one. Great. What's good for one person isn't necessarily good for the next. I just wish that "pro-life" people would stop spending all their time on fetus's and start worrying about all the unwanted kids already here. Instead of standing in front of an abortion clinic protesting with a sign, why aren't you volunteering at an adoption agency or adopting kids instead of making more? Then again, it is their choice.

But so-called "pro-life" people who bomb abortion clinics and kill everyone inside...doesn't quite make sense to me.

Am I pro-abortion? Sure, why not? In certain circumstances. It doesn't make me evil. It just should tell you that I'm willing to stand back from another person's business and let them run their own life and make their own decisions.

[dreama]

this surely depends on the disability. blindness is one thing, but a disability that means the child will only live a very short, painful life that, indeed will only exist because of modern medical advances that mean, in effect, the child's life can be artificially extended for a few years beyond the mere days or weeks they might live is something else entirely altogether.



You can't really tell the degree of disability from these scans. Some people with Rubella damage are very severely disabled and need to spend the rest of their life being cared for. Some people are rubella damage and it only affects one sense and they grow up to be capable adults with nothing else wrong with them.

I read about a mother who was told to abort because the baby was suppose to be severely disabled and only live a short life. She decided to have the baby anyway as she'd rather the baby died in her arms then for her to be responsible in the babies death. Turns out the baby wasn't disabled at all. It had all been a big mistake. She would have killed that child for no reason at all. I could have been severely disabled because I was born premature and was very ill at birth but luckily nobody decided to have me killed so here I am.

Anyway most of the disabled babies who get murdered are not severely disabled. I know people with downs syndrome and spina bifida and they function perfectly well, yet it's perfectly legal to murder them before they were even born. I've heard they even concider cleft lip a disability that means the baby should be killed.

[dreama]

I believe in the choice for abortion. No, it shouldn't be used as birth control, but if a woman is in a situation where she feels she can't support a kid or go through pregnancy, I believe she should have the right to choose..

Well in that case she should be allowed to choose to be sterialized. I was denied that choice so if I'm ever raped again and become pregnant as a result I'd just have to have the baby as abortion is totally against my beliefs.

Why is it we allow mothers to murder their babies yet we don't allow them the choice to have sterialization on demand? This is something I really don't understand. Along with a lot of other hollow clieches that the pro abortion lot come up with such as "The woman's right to do what she wants with her body".

First of all its not always the woman who chooses to abort. Some women experience a lot of pressure from their families or boyfriends who don't want a baby. I read about the case of a woman who hanged herself after aborting because she'd been presurized into it and not given adequate councilling. People will do things under pressure that they really don't want to. They suffer a lot as a result.

Then there is the thing about ones own body. I have not been granted the right to be sterialized because I don't want any children. If someone wanted to have an eye or a limb removed that choice would also be denied them. I've even been denied the choice to donate blood. Not because there is anything wrong with my blood but because I've got petit mal epilepsy. So the process may cause me to have a seizure. I'd also like to be a live kidney doner if they will let me.

The final thing is that the unborn baby is not really part of a woman's body. The baby is just attached to the mother by the cord a way of getting fed.

So altogether it's complete nonsense and I know people who say they believe in a woman's right but if you ask them about other rights then it's a differant story altogether. Like they go all mental about a woman with BIID who wishes to amputate both her legs yet they are happy for a woman to commit murder. It defeats logic as far as I am concerned. I think people should have the right to be who they really are wether it be male, female or disabled, even if it involves chopping bits off but nobody has the right to commit murder.

[seitan]

Well in that case she should be allowed to choose to be sterialized. I was denied that choice so if I'm ever raped again and become pregnant as a result I'd just have to have the baby as abortion is totally against my beliefs.

Why is it we allow mothers to murder their babies yet we don't allow them the choice to have sterialization on demand? This is something I really don't understand. Along with a lot of other hollow clieches that the pro abortion lot come up with such as "The woman's right to do what she wants with her body".

First of all its not always the woman who chooses to abort. Some women experience a lot of pressure from their families or boyfriends who don't want a baby. I read about the case of a woman who hanged herself after aborting because she'd been presurized into it and not given adequate councilling. People will do things under pressure that they really don't want to. They suffer a lot as a result.

Then there is the thing about ones own body. I have not been granted the right to be sterialized because I don't want any children. If someone wanted to have an eye or a limb removed that choice would also be denied them. I've even been denied the choice to donate blood. Not because there is anything wrong with my blood but because I've got petit mal epilepsy. So the process may cause me to have a seizure. I'd also like to be a live kidney doner if they will let me.

The final thing is that the unborn baby is not really part of a woman's body. The baby is just attached to the mother by the cord a way of getting fed.

So altogether it's complete nonsense and I know people who say they believe in a woman's right but if you ask them about other rights then it's a differant story altogether. Like they go all mental about a woman with BIID who wishes to amputate both her legs yet they are happy for a woman to commit murder. It defeats logic as far as I am concerned. I think people should have the right to be who they really are wether it be male, female or disabled, even if it involves chopping bits off but nobody has the right to commit murder.

youve raised some good points, ill keep my eyes on this thread :)

[cobweb]

dreama i am horrified that you've been through that (rape), so sorry to hear that, appalling.

i think it should be MUCH easier to get sterilised on the NHS. I don't understand why they just don't make a rule that, should you wish to reverse the decision you have to pay for it privately. I think sterilisation should be encouraged.

[sugarmouse]

. I think sterilisation should be encouraged.

Me too. And in some cases, forced:D;)

[Shrapnel]

OK... I have some strong views on this subject, and am sorry if it offends anyone. It's not my intent, but I do feel really strongly about the ethics... so I'm sorry if I offend.

For one, I don't like the way terms are used. It seems that the doublespeak is taken to Orwellian levels. People against abortion are anti-abortion and pro-abortion are pro-abortion. Anti abortion people aren't pro-life; some are... but being pro-life is much more than just being against abortion. A true pro-life person should be against meat eating, the death penalty, racism, sexism, homophobia, and everything else that demeans and cheapens life. Abortion is just one aspect. And abortion advocates aren’t' exactly anti-life, any more than meat eaters are anti-life. They are against life in one aspect, while anti-life implies they are Hell bent on the extermination of every living thing on the planet (which is kinda the point of using loaded terms, to add meaning). Likewise, anti-abortion advocates aren't anti-choice. They just don't think people should have that particular choice, not for the government to control every aspect of people's lives and preventing them from making any choices; anti-choice would imply preventing people from making any decisions. And, likewise, I sincerely hope no one is totally pro-choice, since there are some choices that people should not have (like the choice to commit rape, murder, or drive on the sidewalk while drinking a bottle of gin). Alright... got that off my chest.

Now, as for abortion, I feel that falls under the choice people shouldn't have, since it's the choice to end a human life. Yes, it’s her body, but it doesn’t affect just her. Killing takes away all a person has and will ever have. I’m probably borrowing from a quote form Unforgiven here, but it fits. Abortion simply kills a person, makes it so that baby will never have a life, never know love, go to school, have friends, experience life… I could never in good conscious condone it. I don’t think the right to take away the baby’s life is one anybody should have. Just like my hand is part of my body, but I accept that I shouldn’t be allowed to randomly punch people in the face, since my right to do what I choose with my body doesn’t trump people’s rights to not be punched in the face.

Beyond the opposition to the killing of the baby, I also don’t like the sexism inherent in abortion. What I mean is that abortion is so often a women’s issue, when men should have some say. The father is also a parent, yet his son or daughter could be killed without even his knowledge. I would feel horrible if my son or my daughter was killed and I could do nothing about it. Now, I also feel that responsibility is important. If a man gets a woman pregnant, even if contraception was used, he should take responsibility (and I am not alone; we have the term deadbeat dad to refer to fathers who decide they don’t want to be dads and skip out), but same goes for the mother. It’s simply not fair that one parent has all the choice regarding to keep the baby, yet both are responsible. And of course, rape brings up another aspect, since there the mother had no choice. I would say that the baby should be born, since he or she is no less deserving of life. Though, I also think in that situation there should be an additional crime, to charge the rapist with, since besides the act of rape, the rapist also is taking control of the woman’s body in forcing the baby upon her, which should carry additional penalty, as well as forcing him to pay child support. And while I’m not unsympathetic to the fact that it is a woman’s body being used to carry the baby, I feel that it’s the lesser of the two evils between that and killing someone.


Sorry for the rambling, but I had a lot to get off my chest.

[cobweb]

i think it depends a lot on when a foetus becomes a person with rights - is it at conception, at 8 weeks of pregnancy, 20 weeks, etc?..........

[Shrapnel]

i think it depends a lot on when a foetus becomes a person with rights - is it at conception, at 8 weeks of pregnancy, 20 weeks, etc?..........
Yeah, that's I think the biggest thing. I know that there's some point where the baby becomes, well, a baby, and before is just a bundle of cells. The problem is where to draw the line. It's almost impossible to tell.

Though, for me it's also that at conception, that bundle of cells has the potential to be a human, and will be a person unless something horrible happens. To kill it while it's still not identifiable as a baby will still take away its future life as a person. Though it can't appreciate life at that point in time, it will eventually.