Quote Originally Posted by Ironside View Post
And the only time conception is a non-arbitary point is if you don't think hard enough. For starters, to separate embryos from alive, unique induviduals that we consider in principle dead, then we need to introduce a truely arbitary thing caled potential for life.

Sure easy enough for those who end up born and living a long life, but that would for example mean that a foestus that will die before birth isn't a human so it's perfectly fine to abort it by the charming method DA described.

But we cannot have that so then you have run with that they might have a potential for life. Arbitary? No, of course not.



And that is a legal hellhole if the law is going to follow that principle. For example, you cannot shovel up a bottle of liquor on child and force them to drink, so by the same principle a pregnant woman cannot drink. But it's also considered extreme negligence if a child aquire the liquor by accident, so a sexually active woman can't drink.


Kukri, the rhyme method have periods were the ovum get fertlized but not attached, aka no pregnancy. http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/32/6/355.pdf
Lol thats a fallacy. As soon as woman finds out she is pregnant she sould stop drinking and smoking the effects in the earlier part of the pregnancy (the part in which she doesnt know) are negligible.



Quote Originally Posted by HoreTore View Post
Let's compromise here; we do not have the right to kill a fetus, but the woman has the right to deny the fetus living inside her. So, we will have to take the fetus out, and then let it live and grow on its own. Sounds like a fine thing, right?
Ok than we can do that but then we should do it for all the infants small children cancer paitients paraplegics and retarded pepole. All types of humans that need help to live.