I saw the statement. As one who has actually been to college, and read a great many textbooks that teach the sciences, I can say that when an author presents his opinion, it is stated that it is his opinion, or that it is the opinion of many scientists as students are likely to see different information in other textbooks written by authors who hold different opinions.

The statements that I referenced are not stated as the opinion of either the author or of any number of authors. They are stated as fact, which is what they are. You won't find differing "opinions" in other textbooks on the same subjects any more than you will find differing opinions among chemistry books on the structure of a water molecule.

And I understand that you don't want to talk about who understands strawmen as it has just been proven beyond doubt that you don't understand strawmen.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

However and again, this is not what I am arguing - you wish to argue something that is easy to argue yet has nothing to do with my point. I also see no point in arguing a strawman (or what one is).

One more time, and the last time: You have yet to present science which supports your claims that an early fetus is a viable human being.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

And this represents yet another logical fallacy on your part. You are begging the question and assuming that viability is what makes one a human being. It isn't. Viability is a relative term and has nothing to do with what a particular entity is,or isn't.

If you are set, unprotected in the vacuum of space, or at the bottom of a deep ocean trench, you will find that you are not viable either. You remain a human being, but will die if you are put into an environment in which you can not survive. Unborns require a particular sort of environment which is a completely natural part of their development. To suggest that a human being is not a human being because he or she requires an environment that is a perfectly natural part of his or her development is foolish.

Viability speaks to your ability, or inability, to live in a particular environment. It does not, however, speak at all to what you are. To prove my argument, I ask that you consider, for example, those afflicted with polio prior to the advent of the polio vaccine. Many were unable to survive, that is the were non viable outside the environment of an iron lung which operated their diaphram for them. They were non viable, but remained human beings. Any number of examples can be named in which people become non viable and all manner of support aparatus has been invented to help them continue to live. In their case, as with all cases, viability only speaks to their ability to live in a particular environment and not to what sort of creature they are.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

OK. We have put to rest the existence of science which demonstrates that an early fetus is a viable human being. Now, you wish to focus on the relevance of viability, which is not too much of a surprise.

As human beings are terrestrial animals, your point about a human being being beneath the waves is irrrelevant, except in that a human being beneath the waves will be dead - non-living.

And, you are right. I do base my definition of a human being as one who is viable in the environment that human beings find themselves - on Earth - among other things.

Now, continuing with the absurdity of a human being at the bottom of an ocean trench, we can look at that another way: if an individual must provide that submarine human with life support (ie. a pressurized vessel, oxygen, nutrients, etc.), who should that human be? You? Me? More to the point, who decides who that human who provides such life support should be?

You seem to continue to say that a fetus is human. I see few who disagree with that. A fetus is human. It is a human fetus as opposed to a bovine fetus, for example.

A being, human or not, is a mono- or multicellular organism which is viable in its environment normal to its lifespan, thus the importance of "viability".

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I am surprised to see that the majority of posters here seem to agree with my point of view on this. Usually this site leans to the right. Legal with restrictions, that being once the fetus is viable outside the womb, it is a reasonable stance that the state has the right and authority to protect the viable fetus, even while in Utero. In situations where this conflicts (really only the health of the mother is at risk, incest/rape should not supercede the states right and authority to protect a viable human), the state should presume to protect the wellbeing of the mother, as a functioning citizen's rights supercedes those of a possible to exist person. Before such a time, the fetus/embryo/zygote isn't much more then a mass of tissue anyway, and falls under the legal pervue of the pregnant female that carries it, she may abort it or carry it to term as she sees fit.

Situation one can result in a feticide charge but chances are a jury would be sympathetic to her widowed state. They're not as apt to be as lenient if she just got drunk at a party and killed her baby. Unfortunately though, feticide penalties don't fit the crime. The man that killed my great-niece, a nine-month "fetus" was charge with feticide and served less than two years.
The reason I'm against abortion is that more often than not, it's used as birth control. I have no respect for someone that takes the chance of creating life just for sexual gratification and then aborts that life because it's "inconvenient".

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

LOL I'm not sure of your medical background but if you have one, I suggest that you get a refund because you're dead wrong. I, on the other hand, have a license for practical nursing (LPN) and know for a fact that if the embryo couldn't attach to the uterine wall, it could obtain no nutrients. Occasionally though, the embryo instead, attaches itself to the wall of the fallopian tubes, resulting in an ectopic pregnancy.
Well, since you'll not believe me in spite of my medical background, I guess I'll do the legwork for you and cite sources, though I really shouldn't have to since uterine attachment is common knowledge....
Scientists Discover What Makes Human Embryo Attach to Uterus

And in case you don't believe that site, here's a couple of more:

Researchers Discover How Embryo Attaches to the Uterus
Fertility Library - Blastocyst Transfer

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

There are a number of problems with this. The first is that most women don't use abortion as birth control. Why would they when it is - in almost all cases - so much more expensive and inconvenient than regular birth control? Secondly, so what if they do? Why would it be different to have an abortion solely because you want to have sex but don't want a child, rather than being able to give a sob story? The end result is the same.

It can? I was under the impression that feticide refers to someone else causing a woman to miscarry, usually by physically assaulting her. Not to a spontaneous miscarriage. In fact, such laws are always written to exclude natural/accidental abortions. As well as legal medically-induced abortions, of course.

I don't think you're correct about this at all. You must know that a majority of pregnancies end in a natural abortion, and the cause-effect relationship between the mother's drinking and the miscarriage, while assumed in my hypothetical, is dubious and impossible to prove.

Interestingly, here in California that man would have been charged with murder. We have among the most liberal abortion laws in the country -- more liberal that I personally agree with, since it places no restrictions on the practice at all, right up until the baby is born. Yet when someone kills a fetus against the mother's wishes, either deliberately or as a consequence of an assault, it's taken very, very seriously.

You're entitled to this opinion, but it doesn't change the facts involving the status of an embryo at conception. It still doesn't have a brain, it still doesn't have any feelings, it still doesn't suffer its destruction in any way, and the only reason to grieve at its death is for the loss of a potential human being, who could be a potential Pol Pot as easily as a potential Gandhi. Whatever personal disgust such women may arouse in you, that's not sufficient reason to punish them or their doctors with prison terms for aborting a pregnancy in the early stages.

I honestly don't know anyone that has ever had an abortion for medical reasons or rape but know plenty that have had abortions because they had unprotected sex. I feel that if a person is mature enough to have sex, they should realize the unwanted consequences that can occur and then weigh those consequences against an hour of sexual gratification. If they're not willing to carry the baby they may create, then they need to make damn sure they're protected. It's way to easy to get birth control today instead of risking pregnancy. For women that get pregnant while on the pill, more often than not, it wasn't taken properly, or they ignored the warning to use extra protection when on antibiotics, diet pills, etc. Again, it's all about personal responsibility.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Though rare, a woman can be charged with feticide, say in the cases of a miscarriage due to drugs or alcohol.
The medical term for a miscarriage can either be 'missed abortion' or 'spontaneous abortion', depending on the reason that the miscarriage occurs. Seldom are those terms used outside of the medical field because they're generally not understood by the layman and too easily associated with a medical abortion.



We've been trying, since the death of my little niece, to tighten the "feticide" laws. I'll never forget when the priest looked down at the perfectly formed baby laying in a casket and asking, "Does she look like a 'fetus'?


And you're entitled to your opinion.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

First, I never claimed that unborns at any stage of development were viable. I said, and confirmed with credible science that they are living human beings. Viability does not speak at all to what they are, but only to their ability to survive in a given environment.

That is an easy one. If I put you in a situation, either on purpose or accidentally, in which your very life depends upon my continued support, I may not withdraw that support and let you die or I have, in effect, and by law killed you and as a result, am a criminal.

No. Again, you are creating a strawman upon which to launch your attack. You are distorting my statements. I have said that unborns at any stage of development are living, individual human beings. Do feel free to provide some credible science that states otherwise.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

At nine months, I imagine she wouldn't. I doubt the priest would have made the same comment over an embryo aborted a week after conception, if he could even see it.

Well, my opinion, if acted on, won't result in anyone going to jail. Yours will, which means it needs a bit more justification than your own feelings of disgust.