Abortion.

[HLGStrider]

I believe it all comes down to two things:

When life begins?
and
What makes human life wrong to end?

You may think the second is a given, that everyone believes it is wrong to end a life, so why bother with the why, but the why is everything in this context. I mean, how many of us are vegetarians here? Probably at least one of us, I guess, but most of us probably eat meat or use products from "dead animals." I live on a farm and am within a quarter mile of cows we plan to kill in two months and then eat and I don't have any moral qualms about it. However, I do have moral "qualms" about killing my brother (even when he deserves it.). Why the difference?

Because I believe human beings have an immortal soul, mainly. I think humans are granted a precious gift called life. I believe in some cases it is forfeit. If a man tried to kill me and I had a gun, I'd shoot him, no bones about it. I don't want to die, and I think if I could I would kill to save my life. However, let's leave that out of the conversation for now and just assume that for some reason it is wrong to kill an innocent human.

So, why do you pro-choice people think it is wrong to start killing off your next door neighbors? Why do we have laws against murder?

I can't see any other reason than that humans have something special about them. It is something that defies definition.

And I think conception is the only reasonable place for this something to join with a human being to make it a human being.

The birth of a soul, if you will.

Viability has increased over the years. In my own state babies have survived from incredibly pre-mature ages. These children are only partially developed at the point they are "severed" from the womb. I'd say they are very much human. However, they are also at the same age when a child in the womb can be legally aborted. What is the difference between one or the other? If a nurse so much as pulled the plug on that baby's incubator, causing death, or if the parent did so, they would be prosecuted, would they not? So what does being within the mother do to make the child different?

I have heard the word parasite used to describe such a little passenger. However, parasite or not, he is still a human (Many brother-in-laws are parasites, and I can't get a hunting license on them.). A human parasite perhaps. Perhaps dependent on a mother, but when is an infant not dependent?

If you left an infant alone in a room for long enough and ignored it, it would die. If you left it on the street it wouldn't last an hour. A parent who leaves a child in the park to fend for itself would be prosecuted because that child is dependent on them. A feutus is dependent on the mother. The only specification is that for nine months the feutus is dependent on no one but ther mother, as opposed to an infant who can be passed off to the government or a relative or another set of parents.

But, if a mother gave birth while on a camping trip for some odd reason and didn't want the baby, would she be justified in leaving it in the middle of the forest to die? Let's say she is a week's journey away from someone to hand it to. We would expect her to keep it for that week, would we not? If she didn't, wouldn't we call it murder?

Why can't we expect her to keep it for nine months prior?

Dependency makes no real difference.

Then there is the amount of cells. This would be an argument that a man born with no arms is less of a man than one with arms because there is less there as far as cells goes, isn't it? I mean, you ask where to draw the line, when you say "two split cells or six" but I ask you, why not 1,000 or 1,000,000. What difference does the number of cells really make?

Less identifiable, but when do you think that something enters a human?

What truly makes it wrong to kill a human being? I'd like everyone to answer that question, if they would.