since you are amking abortion,being sterile doesn't matter

that is a very low possibility

but it is true that it gives a little,tiny damage

my vote:

NO,it is not murder

It is murder, because organic life is organic life, but it is certainly a beneficial factor for the control of world population.

Every embrio to be aborted is a living human, just like you and me, doesnt mater two days old or two months old. Some adults make mistakes, but their ex children pays the price of their guilt. This is disgusting, and inhumane.

But in some conditions, such as rape and defective baby, abortion can be considered, but in a limited time after the forming of the embrio, like two months...

To be blown up by a bomb for instance.

I've never really understood the mentality of US conservative abortionists. Abortion's a crime but a bomb from a US plane landing on a school or hospital is justified.

They're terribly ill and misguided people.

Abortion is a democratical right for women.But when a nation or country faces the problem of low birthrate,in red degree,then it shoud be under special conditons or prohibited.

it's prevention of life, if you want to call that murder is open to anyones interpretation...

personally if a couple is too dumb to use condoms or the pill or whatever they deserve having a baby, but on the other hand some couples shouldn't have children at all, there are too many occations were women get ridd of their unwanted babies or even kill them. but then, how dumb are some couples..."hey, let's have sex for fun", and later complain "I had no idea sex could lead to children!" maye the EU should issue warning shields like they have with cigarettes, saying "caution! Sex could lead to children and responsibility!"....

Abortion is murder because it is a human being genetically.

I do not feel it is right to force values on others though so I feel that the people themselves should decide if abortion is right or wrong.

I dislike statements such as these because both cases ARE wrong, but whether we choose to justify one or the other doesn't mean that either is wrong or right.

This question is too broad for instance do we accept only 1st trimester or 2nd trimester abortions, or are 3rd trimester abortions to be included as well, if that's the case then is the child that can survive outside the womb denied their basic human rights at the whim of the mother.

Also if that is the case then can a mother decide to commit infanticide because she cannot take care of the child.

I mean abortion is a slippery slope and morals are a major part of it, basically the question comes down to when you consider someone human and alive. Culture dictates when this is, but I feel that biologically something should be given rights when it is a unique and separate from another organism. Whether it be an internal parasite or not.

I think the point he was trying to make was that we often do try to justify one over the other.

I personally think that using abortions as birth control is horrible, but I do not think that they should be banned. There are many different conditions where a fetus may be endangering it's mother's life that are undiagnosible untill well after the pregnancy is underway. The same goes for terminal conditions that affect the fetus itself.

Another thing that should be considered is that if abortions were banned we would simply be returing to the days of backyard abortions when mortality was high and the practice was still common. Making it a crime doesn't mean that they will magically stop happening.

I think education is still the most powerfull tool to prevent unneccisary abortions.

Another point of is how many anti-abortionists are pro comprehensive sex education in school and the free availability of contraception to children of all ages?

Its not murder.

if a girl gets raped, then she would have to live with this, her job could be a disaster, and after the child is born, she will have to care for it. doesn't seem fair. and if abortion is legal, than all girls will say they got raped. its a hard suject :/

I could not agree more !!!!

So the gov't shouldn't get involved when a woman [or any person for that matter] wants to kill herself, or slit her wrists, or cut off an arm. It's not the actions that someone does, its the reasons why they do it that I believe the gov't should get involved with though.

Actually Murder is ending someone's life voluntarily. Taking away someone's right to live [their life] is what extremist anti-abortionists do.

Abortion is acceptable in cases where a natural abortion (miscarriage) would occur and the mother would almost certainly die, i.e. Tube pregnancies.

What do you define as human? I define it as an organism that shares the genetic structure of human beings. I believe that means that a zygote, embryo, fetus are human. Or do you believe that a child who isn't fully grown not human? They are just different stages of humanity.

The parents should only be allowed to make this decision after a doctor has "prescribed" this as an option. Else what qualifies as a genetic disease? Cystic Fibrosis is a good choice for genetic disease where the child wont likely live to be old. But then again what about down's syndrome, many afflicted live relatively long fulfilling lives is this a genetic disease that requires abortion. If we keep going down this ledge then being a girl or having blue eyes could be considered genetic "disorders" liable for abortion. Should we allow parents who only want boys to be able to kill a child on a whim?

Also I feel that women who get raped should have free counseling available paid by the state, via the offending party paying damages. Which should aid in their choice.

I also feel that the adoption policy in the US should be less strict and regulated as this only causes more children to end up in fostor homes.

(  Those fostor "parents" should not be paid for taking care of children, that is just ridiculous.)

Scientifically yes its a living human and thus legally killing it is murder.  But who cares? Murder is a significant part of the human existence, and sometimes it is better to kill than not to kill.  Studies have shown abrotion legalization directly coorelates with dropping US crime rates.

And most people who get abortions would not make good parents and might be abusive, and adoption is not a viable answer like its made out to be, becaue orphanages and whatnot are overflowing.

I personally think there are too many dman people in the world anyway, we will destroy ourselves if dont pursue a zero population growth policy.

The irony about the US is that we have among the worst sex ed in the world yet are often agaisnt abortion.  If you want less abortions give better education!

Of course I could live in a state where abortion was outlawed, but only as long as it was still legal for rape victims and incest and whatnot.  No one should have to be humilated by rape any more than the rape itself.

Its always good to side with the side that gives people personal choice, always, then they have no one to blame but themselves.

And peopel speak abotu it like its a new phenomonon, and that makes me laugh at their ignorance.  Infanticide is what happens if theres no abortion, and its been very comon throughout all of history, and is more comon in th emore sustainable societies that do it for population control (New Ginea highlands) and reached its peak in the 18th century.  Not new at all.

no,if you get an aabortion up to seven weeks it is not murder

P.S.tobodai your approach on the matter was very interesting

What i know is that everyone must be responsible of his/her actions. Immaturity and irresponsibility are the main reasons for undesirable pregnacies. With the irresponsibility of some persons, mostly young, they are bringing to life a uncertain life. A life which is being hovered from the decision of his/her immature parents.

And they are coming afterwards not to can bear up the "weight" of a human life, which is their own creation and finally they are consenting to the murder of it.

But again it isnt that easy to accuse them so easily since i admit there are always missfortunes. A broken condomn, a pill who didnt worked and many more. But in the end we must all be responsible of our actions.

yes it could be but my girlfriend's-friend got prgegnant(18),and she got an abortion.Now in turkey if we had a very low birthrate her life would have been ruined.

you should never ban choices of people.If they choose not to be rabbits,it's their choice.

I think you should only make abortion up to seven weeks time.

I couldnt agree more...

Com'on, so a woman does something wrong and becomes regretful about it, and she agrees her baby to pay this gult's price for her. Dont you realize how selfish it is? Of course, not in cases of rape and irregular babies.

How do you identify a murder? Is it just killing a person with regular mental and physical abilities? So we just kill defected people according to this mentality. Murder is murder, no matter it is only an embrio or a new born baby.

Yeah, sorry, but it is the same thing, you claim it is a democratical right for women.

So what about the democratic rights of babies?

no, because sperms do not become babies, they only do when they come into contact with the female equivalent of it. equally, you will not kill a chicken by eating hens eggs, because the eggs were not in contact with sperms.

on your logic we should not be eating meat

Oguzoglu,the best way you can stop abortion is by shrinking the time to like 6 weeks(can't be exact)

�n seven weeks the baby has heartbeat,so that is as good as you will achieve

It is unthinkable to ban abortion

I never said that Hugo, in fact because of that very arguement I was very leery about saying that. What I did say was....

Therefore sperm cells, egg cells, hair cells, skin cells are not human, but when a sperm cell and an egg cell combines into a zygote then it is human, its been a while since microbiology, but I believe humanity would occur somewhere around (meiosis?).

Yes exactly.

Technically the food you eat will become part of your body, but it will not become a living cell, at least not directly, it will be reprocessed and repackaged until its most basic compounds are refitted into your human body.

However hot dogs do not become human the same way zygotes become human, if you put a hot dog into a womb it will not grow into a human nor a hog nor another hot dog. However if you put a zygote in a womb it will grow into a human.

Looks are not only what defines humans, are people with horrific deformities not human, it is our genetic framework that determines humanity, in the sense that a cell on its own, given the proper environment, can grow into a human being. 

So you prescribe to a belief in "You must be this tall to be human"?

We can most definetally interact with a lump of cells, if we could not than abortion could not be possible. Do you define it as being able to hold a human, well you most definetally can hold cells, even though you can't see or feel them, or does their small stature make them not human?

So people who are braindead are not human, people with severe autism are not human. Or do you mean just without a brain. Many different organisms at the single-cell level show learning and conditioned responses to stimuli. Is this not thinking, do you not believe that chemicals released by the zygote do not interact with the mother that it is dwelling inside. Now of course it cannot read poetry or ride a bike or express love just yet, but neither can a newborn, the zygote is just limited in its physical nature, in a short period of time it will develop its first specialized nerve cells. That's all our brains are, stem cells that have become specialized to store information and process stimuli.

Of course I would rescue the living human, but that does not make the embryo any less human. To illustrate this I'll give you a scenario:

If a building was on fire and there was a newborn baby and an 16 year old girl and you could only save one, which would you save? Is the other one any less human?

Also, Hugo I too respect and like you, even though we have a difference of opinion. I do not believe I can, nor do I wish to change your mind, only clarify my own beliefs on the issue. Which you as always are helping me do.

In the roman law even phoetus had some civil rights and could have even had protector who in latin was called "curator ventris"(protector of stomach). Unborn child - nasciturus - had conditionary legal personality. The condition was to be born alive.

"nasciturus pro iam nato habetur, quotiens de commodis eius agitur"

It is hard for me to translate it into english but it moreless mean:

"unborn child is considered being born, as far as it concerns his profits"

Most of the systems of civil law in continental Europe, which are in majority based on the old institutions of roman law still have the institution of nasciturus.

And in the same time women have "democratic" right to abortion.

So, consider such example:

Woman gets pregnat but her husband is being killed in car crash. Unborn child - nasciturus - will get half of the monay after his father - under condition that will be born. So the mother makes abortion and gets whole inheritance after her husband. Whats the difference between this abortion and murder for monay.

Most of people think about us lawyers rather bad things. But consider the fact that for 2000 years we stay on the guard of life and we try to protect even the interests of unborn whom you dont even consider "human".

Murder. Noone have right to take a life.(Not even rape)

I dont agree It is sometimes necessary for goodness.

who kill one man is not much different than kill all humanity.

Noone have to be killed for humanity.I dont see any different for killing someone for humanity(human) goodness or sacrificing a man/woman for gods favour.

So you prescribe to a belief in "You must be this tall to be human"?

We can most definetally interact with a lump of cells, if we could not than abortion could not be possible. Do you define it as being able to hold a human, well you most definetally can hold cells, even though you can't see or feel them, or does their small stature make them not human?

So people who are braindead are not human, people with severe autism are not human. Or do you mean just without a brain. Many different organisms at the single-cell level show learning and conditioned responses to stimuli. Is this not thinking, do you not believe that chemicals released by the zygote do not interact with the mother that it is dwelling inside. Now of course it cannot read poetry or ride a bike or express love just yet, but neither can a newborn, the zygote is just limited in its physical nature, in a short period of time it will develop its first specialized nerve cells. That's all our brains are, stem cells that have become specialized to store information and process stimuli.

Of course I would rescue the living human, but that does not make the embryo any less human. [/quote]

Why did you chose the human being? What made you decide to go for her instead of the petri dish?

But let me change the scenario a bit. If it is between a petri dish and a baby, which one would you go for?

To illustrate this I'll give you a scenario/P] If a building was on fire and there was a newborn baby and an 16 year old girl and you could only save one, which would you save? Is the other one any less human?

Also, Hugo I too respect and like you, even though we have a difference of opinion. I do not believe I can, nor do I wish to change your mind, only clarify my own beliefs on the issue. Which you as always are helping me do.

OK then we have to make a 5 week ime limit

Man I hate nitpicking.

Ok how about this definition, a human being is a living organism, with the genetic code of a human being that has the ability to grow given the proper conditions into a thinking individual, that has the potential to create more human beings. -Don't know how to squeeze braindead babies and sterile people into the mix, although it does get rid of hair and fingernails being people.

Hugo I never said that, I said about a human baby:  "...it cannot read poetry or ride a bike or express love just yet..."

.....Hugo your always doing this, treating me like one of those psycho internet nuts that just spouts off the whole I told you so arguement.

Newborn, no petri dish, no wait newborn......

Seriously the petri dish loses every time, not because its not human, but because it's less likely to survive.

But wait, I too must end with this repetitive scruples question.

What if you and your wife have tried unsuccessfully to have a child, and finally doctors were able to get one of your embryos fertilized.

In doing this it renders you sterile, so this is your only shot to have a child.

And then the fertility clinic is going up in flames and you can either save the petri dish or the 78 year old receptionist lying unconcious on the floor.

Who do you save?

OF CORSE IT IS MURDER. How can you justify killing a baby? Im sick of all of you. So realy the argument is whether it is a baby or not before it is born? thats like saying you are asleep if you sit on your bed. or you arent alive if you walk into a cemitary. Or arguing that its the parents choice whether to kill their son. why dont we allow parents to kill their kids any other age while were at it. This is discusting

So it would have been OK if your moms had decided they didnt want to have birth so they kill you while you were not born yet? Or are you saying that its ok if everyone else does it to their babys?

Morals went down the drain didnt they?

I only can see it as acceptible if it is the result of incest or rape I consider that as euthenasia. Otherwise it is murder, plain and simple afterall, it is illegal to kill unwanted children. 

If you are going to be stupid about having sex then you must face the consequences.

For me abortion is a murder... regardless wht was the cause of the pregnancy... but i kinda agree with zagros

if it is due to incest of rape... doesnt mean u hv the right to kill.. but... wht can a girl do in tht particular situation...  

if due to having sex with bth partners agreement... tht's definitely a murder..

abortion is not always a solution... sometimes the choice was limited due to the society expectation... which made the girl need to do beyond her willingness... any comment on this?

i am not sure but i think its ok to do it in the first or the second week of the pregnancy.

more than do it is considered a murder.

iam not very sure but i heared something like that on TV.

azimuth... u mean it is ok to do abortion in tht particular period in wht term?

moral.. religion or biological?

if biologically.. in the first 2 weeks ... it is safe for the mother to do abortion.. but after tht it wil be high risk to proceed the procedure.. can kill bth mother and of course... the foetus..

 I'll never change my mind on this topic, abortion is never right, the fact this has become so common even accepted by many is sickening at best. Purely on moral grounds for me, nothing religious.

 Ive spoken to people who are for abortion if the mother wants it for whatever reason but fiercely oppose euthanasia, so its okay to destroy a life for possibly the most trivial reasons, but not to end the life of somebody who is in agony and begging for death to come. Thats always confused me.

 You can be sent to prison for years for assisting your partner or whoever to commit suicide, but its nice and legal for a woman to get an abortion and end a life just like that.

 I feel like exploding when I hear people who got an abortion because it'd of got in the way of their career or they just didnt want one at the moment and I think to myself if they didnt want a baby then why the hell did they have sex without using a condom or the pill?  

 Then you get the ridiculous excuse of "I was drunk" have people no obligation to be responsible anymore? Is it the unborn childs fault that somebody has been irresponsible sexually?

 Babies are being treated like objects or possessions that can be discarded at will, these are lives being legally destroyed, I really dont care what the scientific definition of life is, X number of weeks or whatever. I'm so disgusted by abortion and how it has become accepted by so many people, I feel like these people have lost their minds.

Everybody has an opinion on abortion but few no someone who has gone through with an abortion.

First of all women that get abortion are NOT savage blood-lusting, killers who want to kill their babies it is often a very tough choice for them. And I mean if a 14 year old girl gets raped by a 50 year old guy how is that girl a killer. I know I would never want to have a child and give it up for adoption, knowing I have a cild out their. Basically, I believe abortion is a woman's right.

The topic of abortion is a very deep topic with a lot of ethical views.

Where there can be certain circumstances as to why a female would get an abortion, it seems to be that we are on the subject of "Is it murder" and "Is it considered human".

In my personal opinion it is murder and it would seem to me that we are asking ourselves the wrong question in "Is it really a human?" whereas we should rather be asking "Is it going to retain life?". the simple answer to this question is yes.

No matter what stage the "human", "embryo", "seed", or whatever you would like to call it is in, the simple fact of the matter is it will develop into a human life. Now we cant be certain of this because we can not forsee the future in that it may have birth problems but the question then becomes "In the action of abortion is that halting the human or would-be human from living?" and the answer is yes. that is by definition murder.

We are emphasizing to much on "Is it a human" rather than focusing on the fact that no matter what stage its in it will be a human life and thus by aborting it you are stoping it from living, thus "killing" or "murdering" it.

It is a murder it is a kill like you kill any other.

fetus is human or will be then how you could kill him or her.

Though it is a private matter of the couple, I think abortion is murder. It should not be considered like a contraceptive method. I believe the life of those unborn babies should be taken more into account.

In cases where the mother's life is at stake or when there is serious malfunction and deficiency in the embryo (medical), abortion should be allowed.

a topic that is very subjective to discuss... for the people who are not to be in the position.. it is very easy to talk about principe and moral of humanity....

I am totally against abortion (exc. for rape cases)... it is inhuman... selfish... so unjustice... but for those women who are considering to do it or already done it... there must be some explaination for their action

Certain cases... the mother herself unable to make her own decision due to pressure from some reasons.. maybe the father reluctant to take the responsible or her family refuse to give her support... which cause her to decide to proceed with abortion even she might consider to keep the baby by herself... still this shouldnt be an excuse for her to kill her own baby.. but what can she do without support from others?
So therefore.. not only the woman should be blamed on this matter but also the father.. whatever it is.. consequently.. the mother will have to carry the guilt forever in her life... tht's for sure...

Of course, I mean physical survival. That's the generic sense. 

Hmmm, and did your mother think of you like that? That you were just a burden? If she does, I'm sincerely sorry for you my friend because most mothers do cherish their children above all things.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a woman should be something like a mere birth machine. I defend family planning. The woman's right to not have children. But I honestly believe that abortion shouldn't be a resort in terms of unplanned pregnancies.

Of course, having a baby is not the same as having a cat or a dog. The responsibility is much greater. But the emotional envolvement, the attachment and the gratification are uncomparably greater as well.

 I'm sorry but I find it hard to have any sympathy for the woman who decides an abortion is the best option, if for example she got pregnant during a one night stand or whatever she then has a responsibility whether she likes it or not to that child.

 I still fail to see what wrong that child has done, what has the unborn child done to deserve death before its even experienced life outside the womb?

 Not every woman who gets an abortion got pregnant through rape, i'd bet the vast vast majority got pregnant during one night stands when they were sexually irresponsible by not using contraceptives. Whos fault is that? its certainly not the unborn childs yet its the one that pays for it with its life.

 I'm sure abortion is traumatic for the woman, I dont doubt that, but then you have to think whos fault is it that your in this position in the first place? the vast majority of the time it wont be because of rape.

 There is so much emphasis on the well-being of the woman and almost nothing on the fact she is carrying a child, doesnt this seem abit one-sided to anybody? I think its about time the other person in this equation was considered.

 These women need to start taking responsibility for what they have done, if you get pregnant then you should have to deal with it you have from that moment on a responsibility, the destruction of a life like this is never justified IMO.

heraclius wrote:

I'm sorry but I find it hard to have any sympathy for the woman who decides an abortion is the best option, if for example she got pregnant during a one night stand or whatever she then has a responsibility whether she likes it or not to that child.

but to get pregnant.. is it only one party involved? i dont think so...

And why must be only the woman is to be blamed and being critisized on this issue? Man should be responsibled on wht he had done too... not by running away when he knows the girl he slept or had sex or whtever happened b4..is getting pregnant his own child... why the society must be that bias?

totally agree.

And to kill her child is a natural thing for a mother to do? I doesn't seem too a pro-family solution to me.

I totally agree. Many men just run from their responsibilities.

hugoestr wrote:

The vast majority of women getting abortions in the U.S. are married and already have children. They get pregnant because of anticonceptie failure. They do it for economic reasons.

In most cases, abortion is done for economic reasons.

Well in this case... abortion is not the efficient way and probably not so cost-effective solution... use prevention method then... use pills.. condoms or wht not to avoid from getting pregnant... if abortion is for economic reason.. how much the cost to get rid a baby compare to buy pregnancy preventive pills or whtever thing which can avoid a woman to get unwanted child?

hi to you back morty...

wel.. i respect ur opinion then...

hey morty...

I heard once people said... for a woman to have an abortion or miscarriage.. it is better for her to have normal delivery... due to health reason... why is that?

by the way... are u a woman?

I agree with morticia.  They still do illegal abortion now, and one method is using a clothing hanger. People die from the illegal abortions, and before it was made legal alot of women did die because of it. Abortion is going to happen whether it legal or illegal, and because of that I believe it should be legal so that it is safe.

Also I think rape victims should be allowed to have an abortion and those who have a STD or know that the child will be in suffering after it is born for the rest of it's life.

 There isnt only 1 party involved in the beginning of pregnancy, but there can only be 1 party involved in the ending of that pregnancy.

 The decision to abort can be purely the womans, the man can rant and rave to her about keeping the child but if the woman wants to abort she can regardless of what the father thinks. AFAIK that is the situation certainly in the UK, its gotten to the point here where teenage girls below 16 who get pregnant can get an abortion without even informing her parents nevermind the father.

 It may well be that the father is just another kid who is totally naive or ignorant of his own responsibilities, but there can be times when the father is fully aware of his responsibilities but is excluded anyway and the abortion takes place. Not even getting a chance to have a say on whether or not his child lives or dies.

 Say for example an adult woman accidently gets pregnant (for whatever reason) to her husband/boyfriend, he doesnt know she is pregnant she can then organise a date for an abortion and have it done without letting him know, the fact the child is as much his flesh and blood as hers doesnt seem to come into the equation. There are in this scenario 3 people directly involved.

 The 1st the unborn child is about to be aborted, the 2nd the woman doesnt even have to include the 3rd person the man and even if he was involved he would be pretty much powerless to stop his partner from aborting if it is what she wanted AFAIK.

 Accident or not a life has been created, it should not be discarded because it is an unexpected inconveniance or yet another financial burden.

 Does the unborn child not have the right to exist like anybody?

 Is it so difficult to use a condom or a pill these days? if you dont want a baby dont have sex without using a condom or the pill, there is no reason why an unborn child should have to pay for somebodys elses irresponsible behaviour IMO.

 I dont think I am being unreasonable there.

SearchAndDestroy "Also I think rape victims should be allowed to have an abortion and those who have a STD or know that the child will be in suffering after it is born for the rest of it's life."

 I watched a program recently about abortions and people who can pass on genetic diseases and yet decided to get pregnant anyway.

 I think it is awful that some people are willing to have a child knowing the risk of passing on a potentially lethal or atleast debilitating condition/disease is high.

 Personally I dont think it is fair for people to do that, if 2 people know the chances of passing a disease onto their children is high then they should not I believe have a child, because that child is going to suffer for the rest of his/her life. I think adoption would be a much more suitible and sensible option here.

A totally bias opinion.... from hera...

pregnancy is only happened to a woman (well not 100% accurate nowadays..  see http://www.malepregnancy.com - www.malepregnancy.com .. but tht's out of question)

still.... it is not woman fault alone if she get pregnant... in ur point hera.. u deny any circumstances of woman to have a right in order to proceed with abortions.... which is same with my opinion.. but only i am not agree to put all the blame on woman when the time the man refuse to take the responsibility.... which is differ with your point of view..

 I believe a man has as much responsibility to a child as a woman, I dont want to get into the whole rights of woman and men when its comes to kids etc its veering off the topic somewhat.

 In the end it is a womans decision to have an abortion, she makes the decision regardless of what her husband/boyfriend whoever the father is says, if there is blame to be attributed for the actual abortion then it has to be the womans, for the pregnancy itself then it is equally the man and womans fault for being so irresponsible in the first place.

 However when it comes down to the abortion the choice, decision is all the womans unless I am very much mistaken the man has little to no legal role in the abortion process, I cant speak for all countries perhaps the father must be consulted first in some places etc I dont know.

 Accidents happen, but does that justify abortion? I dont think it can, that accident comes with added responsibility whether you like it or not life has been created, it cant be justifiable to discard it based on an accident.

 I could probably understand somebodys wish to abort if raped even then it still just doesnt sit right with me, but never because the child was an *accident* or is inconveniant for the parents that is just sickening.

 I think even many pro-choice supporters will be unhappy that some people abort simply because the child is an inconveniance, especially when the man and woman had been irresponsible when it came to contraceptives.

 Illuminati I dont know about you, but i'd prefer to take my chances in and out of foster care rather than never exist at all. If I had had a choice in my own existance of course, of course I nor any other person had a choice they were made for us, but I think its better that you have the chance to live than not at all.

 A child suffers by being sent into foster care, you say that as if it is worse than not existing at all. You dont know how good or bad a life somebody is going to have until they live it, assuming the worst before the child has even been born is absurd. Its not ideal, but then neither is abortion I believe being put in foster care is preferable than being aborted.

 Theres always adoption, a woman can have a child and decide she cannot cope with that child (for whatever reason) so she can give he/she up for adoption and the child may or may not be adopted by somebody within a short time and the child will not know any different. Of course theres a million examples of kids spending years waiting to be chosen by a family and given a better life.

 However plenty of people are born into families stricken by poverty or other problems and have absolutely everything against them, yet they can still turn out to be good standing members of society who live good full happy lives.

 Are we going to stop people having children because they are certain to face adversity now? after all they will undoubtedly suffer something from the circumstances they are born into. Life is not easy, but people still deserve the right to exist and live their lives and make the best of whatever situation fate has them born into.

 Thankfully I was born into a warm and loving family, that wont happen for everybody, but does that mean every child who suffers adversity from the start turns out badly or depressed or wishes he/she was dead? I mean you get people who were abused as children by their parents yet as adults are happy and have families of their own and are living.

 So suffering problems early on in life doesnt mean it'd of just been better if you had been aborted.

-I totally agree with this entire post.

-So what you are saying is that a cows life value is the same as a humans? So what would you have us eat? The difference is that we as humans have souls and animals do not. I doubt anyone here on this forum would say that they would let their child starve to death before killing and feeding a chicken to them. Why? because a human life is rightfully held in higher regard then an animals. Now Im not saying an animals life isnt important. For instance, your family pet is probably pretty important  to you, and in some homes is regared as just another one of the family but if the chose had to be made between killing rover and one of the other family members, there is a very definant reason why a human life would never be chosen.....so please dont put human life and animal life on the same level.

It seems youve misinterpreted my post. The point I was trying to make is that its not so much "Is it at the stage where its considered human", rather the point should be "It is eventually going to be human no matter what stage its in". You just misinterpreted my post

Doesnt it seem unfair that the man has no say for a life he has created. Is the child any more the womans than the mans? I totally agree that the man should take responsibility for the child after it is born, even if only by child support.