Absolutely, and the key to it is the requirement for the mother's body and the mother's absolute sovereignty over that body. There's nothing viable about the embryo whatsoever w/o the mother's body being involved, until some later stage of the pregnancy — later stage being the keyword. For the purposes of this discussion, contraception is essentially what's involved here.
I suppose these lines are drawn at the point between conception and human life at "some later stage of pregnancy." I'm of the opinion that human life begins at conception.
Absolutely, and the key to it is the requirement for the mother's body and the mother's absolute sovereignty over that body. There's nothing viable about the embryo whatsoever w/o the mother's body being involved, until some later stage of the pregnancy — later stage being the keyword. For the purposes of this discussion, contraception is essentially what's involved here.
A human being comes into existence when the information from an egg and sperm combine to create a new unique individual or set of individuals in the case of maternal twins (unlike cloning which comes from a single existing individual's DNA).
To purposefully abort a human being or to use contraception that does not prevent conception, by definition, ends the existence of a human being and is wrong. There are forms of contraception that prevent conception, and by definition, do not end the existence of a human beings. Unfortunately the most popular form of contraception does not prevent conception, only prevents a uterus from being viable for pregnancy. This is how the standard birth control pill and the morning after pill are similar as pointed out by Dr. Ron Paul in one of the debates.
Ending the existence of a human being at any stage of their development is wrong, whether a non-productive senior that requires someones dedication and complete care for many years, or a baby in the womb for 9 months (and that is what most proud pregnant people call a human being inside them).
Simple logic.