[wwjdn]

My real point is that any argument premised on full rights from conception has very bad consequences to you and I that are not being addressed. If you ascribe effectively unlimited moral value to ALL people, born or otherwise, then every parent is a criminal of the worst kind. If one doesn't accept the full consequences of ascribing these values to a fetus, then the argument is reduced to moral relativism which I believe most pro-lifers reject (I know I do). These problems have never been properly worked out and make the foundations of the pro-life movement shaky indeed if they cannot be addressed in reasonable manner.

I must have missed something. I don't see your point. How are we all criminals of the worse kind if we belive that ALL life is sacred?

[tortoise]

I must have missed something. I don't see your point. How are we all criminals of the worse kind if we belive that ALL life is sacred?

Because you risk the lives of those around you on a daily basis for your own convenience. You can't say that "ALL life is sacred" in any kind of absolute sense and then risk the lives of your children etc without being morally culpable. It is hypocrisy to only apply the standard where convenient (e.g. unborn children) but not where it is inconvenient (e.g. born children). I don't have an argument with your fundamental position per se, I have an argument with the gross inconsistency of its application.