Quote Originally Posted by Piamed View Post
That health care professionals are primarily concerned with maintaining each and every life cannot be positioned as a problem. From the moment of conception what is growing inside the women is very clearly alive both scientifically and morally. Anyone who knows anything about basic biology can attest to the former. The moral rationale underpinning the validity of life regardless of age or stage of development, is clear to those for whom it is important.

The result of an abortion is that an innocent human being is killed simply because they're in the way and can't defend themselves. That is a legal definition of murder. Don't believe me? Then look check out California state law: "Murder defined: death of a fetus. Paragraph A- Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought." There is a caveat provided to ensure mother's do not get prosecuted as long as they effectively do it in a state registered clinic where the practitioners are also exempt from prosecution Otherwise it's murder pinishable by law. Bottom line: it's murder but if done in a state registered clinic we will not prosecute you.
Anyone who knows about basic biology will know that the post-conception fertilised egg is not any more alive than the sperm or ovum, and they have the same potential for creating a human being. Should we save them all too? This line in the sand is arbitrary.

A fertilised egg or embryo is not a human being. Even you indicated in your initial post that it was a ‘potential being’. I am a potential millionaire, but unfortunately I won’t be making a down payment on that Sunseeker just yet. To call a ball of cells a ‘human being’ is a bigger misnomer than calling a week old embryo ‘a baby’. Therefore to apply principles accepted for human beings to the blastocyst is a logical fallacy.

Far from the suggestion that ‘ I suspect that the notion that what is effectively murder is misplaced, stems from a desire to tone down the truth. What I have said is correct both legally and morally as any review of the extant literature will reveal.’ This is plain wrong. The dictionary definition of ‘murder’ also refers to killing of a human being. So you are the one with terminology issues. Unless you really believe that week one embryo is a human being. That to me is extreme.

And to cherry-pick legislation to support an argument will not achieve much when it is the exception. That one US state takes such an interpretation does not make it more than an aberration. Even the legislation quoted refers separately to a human being or a foetus. Most in the US and Western Europe do not take this view.

If we are to speak on legality, then I am glad the UK is enlightened enough to enshrine a woman’s rights over her body until the foetus can reasonably survive to become a viable human being without her body. I can’t see it changing any time soon, thank goodness.

This is a deeply personal decision for the mother and to a lesser extent the father. She has the most invested, the most to gain or lose from her decision. Personally, I think anyone else has zero right to comment. A friend should support her, or stop being her friend. Advice is fine if it is based on experience or expertise, but not from personal beliefs. They are called ‘personal’ for a reason.