If it is an independant human being is dying – why would we not be channelling medical funds into reducing this incidence? We try and stop many people who would otherwise die naturally through medical intervention – if a zygote is a human then why do they not get the same medical intervention?

Are you being serious? At the moment, the Government is spending millions every year ($20m+ in 2003) to intervene in women’s pregnancies to kill (unborn) babies, yet you expect them to invest in making women’s wombs more receptive to fertilised embryos?

Call me a cynic, but I can’t see that happening.

However, having said that, I expect someone somewhere is already researching it as that would be a great help to couples that have difficulty having children. Some people would pay a lot for technology that would reduce the incidence of early miscarriage.

“Dr. Mackay said she would like to have a child some day. “I would like to have a child some day,” she said. “Sadly, I don`t have children, but we are trying very hard to have children. But unfortunately the time was not right. I am working overtime until the end of the month and the money`s really good.”

EHHHHHH??????? Was this satire?

Mr Dennis – why is it irrelevant if a conceptus dies naturally? If it is an independant human being is dying – why would we not be channelling medical funds into reducing this incidence? We try and stop many people who would otherwise die naturally through medical intervention – if a zygote is a human then why do they not get the same medical intervention?

Of course, the fertilised egg does not always go on to grow into one human. Sometimes it divides and forms two (identical twins). Other times it naturally does not survive.

Scribe has explained well why the fact that it sometimes dies naturally is irrelevant. Also, the fact that it sometimes divides and forms identical twins is in my mind irrelevant – this only means that you might be killing two humans rather than one, which can only be worse, not better.

The distinction between what you talk about — the failure of a fertilised egg to embed in the womb — and an abortion (or the use of the “morning-after pill”) is that one is natural and one is induced. The former cannot be helped; the latter are conscious attempts to stifle the natural processes of a woman.

Does that constitute “death”? Well, the zygote/embryo would have all the necessary ingredients to become a person, so that’s up to you.

BTW The “morning-after” pill can be contraceptive — i.e. stop conception before it happens — but it can also force the ejection of a viable zygote/embryo.

This also means that the more abortions we have, the more voters there will be who support abortion on demand
Move over fiscal drag… meet your cousin ‘ethical drag’!

Sometimes even if this happens, for some reason or another the woman’s body kicks out this ‘new life’ and effectively aborts it. One of the ideas behind the so-called ‘morning after’ pill is that it fiddles with a woman’s hormonal balance to ensure that this happens if there happens to be a fertilised egg.

So, would is this considered to be a death and appropriately recognised?

Cheers, Chris W.

No. A zygote is not a human being. Genetic distinctness is irrelevant. Nor do all embryos go on to form a single human being. It would be nice if the antiabortion movement would take the time to the time to learn some reproductive biology but I don’t see it happening. A few years ago I went to a talk on stem cells, by a visiting american doctor, that had been organised by Ken Orr since I was curious to see what such a talk by the antiabortion movement wuld be like. The doctor spent the entire hour trying to explain what embryonic stem cells were but didn’t once mention pluri-, multi- or toti-potency which are the issues which underlie the stem cell debate. The audience were unaware that they weren’t being given a complete picture. This seems to be true of the aniabortion movement in general – they simply don’t know that they’re getting their biology wrong.

One time when no calls was a a good call

Her abortion was granted on the grounds that her mental health was at risk. She said she has been mildly depressed since lunchtime last Tuesday but it had recently got much worse.

“I`m not sure if I am more disappointed over the fact that Dr. Mackay returned to work after having an abortion or the fact that she had an abortion, ” Mr. Copeland said. “And if her mental health was really at risk, what’s she doing back at work?”

It is understood it was Dr. MacKay’s second abortion and that she used contraception at conception. “I was fully protected,” she said. “But unfortunately, not protected enough. I`m so depressed. It was lucky I made the decision to have an abortion before I got pregnant because I hate making these types of decisions when I have a new life inside of me”.

“It’s better aborting it out than adopting it out to some family that doesn’t want it.”

Right To Life spokesperson Ken Orr said the reason she was depressed was obvious. “She had an abortion. Had she kept the baby she would not be depressed and she would have been on paid parental leave, where she should be.”

Dr. Mackay said she would like to have a child some day. “I would like to have a child some day,” she said. “Sadly, I don`t have children, but we are trying very hard to have children. But unfortunately the time was not right. I am working overtime until the end of the month and the money`s really good.”

Presumable Dr Mackay would have no objection then if I were to ask her for vicodin, oxycontin, morphine and cocaine to treat my various aches and pains.

It is easy to get caught up in emotion when discussing this issue, and hard to stick to logic and science. If I do so however, my logic goes thus:
- Conception is the only scientific point where a new human is formed (genetically distinct from both parents so no longer part of the mother’s body).
- Therefore killing a conceived embryo / fetus must be killing a human.
- On the other hand, preventing conception (through contraception) is not killing a human (with the exception of some forms of contraception, such as the morning after pill, that can allow conception then kill the resulting embryo).

Although there are many emotional reasons to believe every side of the debate, I have never seen any logical argument that can refute the basic facts I have presented above. Accepting these points as fact is however extremely difficult for anyone who has had an abortion or fathered an aborted child, which I can fully understand, because of the personal implications. It is much easier to continue to believe that the fetus was not a human.

This also means that the more abortions we have, the more voters there will be who support abortion on demand…

And all trolls are morons…