[DoughtyOne]

Looks to me like they are still trying to get by for the first trimester.

It seems to me that if a egg has been fertilized and is living within the host, then it is alive. It will if uninterruped, become an adult human being. To stop this process, one must take intervention and end the process. That termination is ending life IMO. I realize many will disagree.

I think it reasonable to use this definition because I honestly do see fertilization outside the body as a possible medical technique. Outside the body this fertilized egg would not be viable to become an adult human. It would be fertilized but die shortly therafter.

Look, this is a tough issue. I'm not sure what it will take for folks to agree on this.

For me it has to do with the fertilized egg being in a host and in healthy condition headed toward birth.

Now, is the other an actual life? In my ultimate heart of hearts I believe so. I do not however see it as the same type of termination, since it will not continue to birth under normal conditions.

[hocndoc]

The embryo that is created outside the body is still human. Location doesn't affect inalienable rights. Govenments and people may not endow humans with human rights. Humans have human rights because they are human, at least according to the Declaration of Independence and many other philosophical and political documents.

Humans may not kill or endanger other humans beings except to save lives, right?

It's an old principle of law that if one person endangers another or causes the second to be in danger, it is the responsibility of the first. The same holds true with parents and with anyone who creates a child in a vulnerable position, such as acting to cause him or her to be outside the uterus by in vitro fertilization or by cloning.

Two other old principles are that all humans are equal in possessing inalienable rights and that legitimate government is supposed to protect inalienable rights or enforce laws that are designed to protect those rights.

The human is. The human is alive. He or she did not cause the vulnerability, some one else did. The one who caused the vulnerability is responsible for endangering life and must act to protect the life he or she created and placed in harm's way.

[jethropalerobber]

That termination is ending life IMO. I realize many will disagree.

i think most abortion supporters privately agree with you.

all arguments about what defines "life" are merely tactical. when it comes down to it, they feel the host woman has a right to withdraw life support from the unborn, just as someone might withdraw life support from an elderly relative for no other reason than wanting to be free of the obligation to care for them.

i'm not saying i agree with them, but perhaps someone here can tell me how those two situations differ, apart from the future life expectancy of the dependent life.