A very interesting point and I hadn't thought about that from that standpoint. That said there are a few problems as I don't believe there is a test that could determine when conception would occur internally or that a woman could somehow freeze embryonic development to allow time to extract the embryo so it could be transferred. Also an embryo outside of the human body cannot survive as a separate organism. It still needs some other agent to provide nutrients and remove waste. Unless it is frozen and stored. My understanding of a treatment of using someone elses liver is that it wouldn't be a longterm solution but something that might keep someone alive in an emergency until a transplant or something else could be used. I remember reading about this awhile ago but will have to look it up again. Yes and no on whether pregancy is easier than being hooked to a liver sharing system. There are certainly many pregnancies that have many difficulties that incapacitate a woman. It wasn't that long ago that pregnancy and childbirth was one of the leading causes of death for women. As for it being tantamount to murder to take someone off of your liver leading to their death well its not murder if you don't give someone a blood transfusion, kidney donation, or if you suspend CPR on someone (although if your medical personel you might be in line for a major malpractice lawsuit). US laws recognize that you have a right to determine the use of your body and in regard to how much you must act to save someone else. I don't think any of use would agree to a law that states that we must give blood transfusions, donate organs or learn CPR (although I would encourage everyone to give blood and learn CPR. Donating organs is a different matter because of the health risk to you.) I agree that is a crucial point and as I said earlier I will with conviction state that I don't believe an undifferentiated embryo is a human. I don't know when neural development goes far enough to say consciousness has started. For practical purposes I would accept a partial ban on 2nd trimester abortions and a total ban (provided there is a health exception) on third trimester abortions. I will agree that the argument of when life begins is a matter of faith. I don't agree with the argument that life begins at conception but I can understand why someone would think so. This is one where I don't think there could ever be agreement on. An interesting point also but there is universal agreement that bank robbery is wrong whereas there is far from universal agreement regarding abortion. In an era where there isn't universal agreement instead of legislation why not work towards sociatal change that reduces the need for abortion? Not saying that you can't do both but when the primary tool of change is legislation it hardens positions.
What I believe- 1. Children are a gift and a blessing from God. Psalms 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 2. God forms us and knows us in the womb.Job 31:14-15 What then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? 15Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb? Psalms 139:13For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. 14I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. Isaiah 44: 2Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. Isaiah 49:5 5And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, Jeremiah 1: 5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. 3. God sees us as a baby/child in the womb.Like 1: 41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: Luke 2: 21And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. John 16:21 21A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. There are more scriptures. But it is enough for me to believe that God knew me and loved me in my mother's womb. God bless you all, because God loves you all, you were not born by accident. There are no unwanted babies because God loves them all.
On the other hand if it is shown with absolute certainty the above fetus at 2, 3,5,6 weeks has no brain activity, no consciousness, no human form, why on earth should this collection of cells take precedence over a living person, regardless of the risks it may create for the already living person? Now I can appreciate some logic here. At it is a major (but not all) reason I am against the death penalty. Because the state is killing a person who could be innocent, and human systems are fallible either through manipulation or human error. The difference for me in the abortion issue is I can say with conviction a 2 week old embryo is not a person. No consciousness, no human like features. In medical and health decisions I also believe just having or prolonging life isn't the end all, be all, outcome. If someone has a .1% chance of recovering from some condition and 99.9% chance of only being cognizant of the extreme pain he experiences--I think he and his family as executing his wishes should be respected if they want to end to it or not use measures to prolong life. If in the womb a test is done showing the mothers life is in more danger that the potential for the unborn baby to survive, I think you have to consider it. Like I said earlier in the thread if my unborn baby had little hope to live past birth but threatened whether our 3 year old son would have the mother he has grown up with I would want our family to be able to decide the best course of action as brutal as any decision would be. Now maybe you believe that all suffering is OK to prolong life in whatever state it is in, that after physical life ends the decision to bear with all the suffering pays off, but do you want to impose such a view on everyone else regardless of what they believe. Likewise, if there is overwhelming evidence a fetus has not become a human person, I don't think you can impose on the living person (and whatever suffering and risks they determine for themsleves), to make them carrying a fetus into personhood. Until the fetus becomes a person, the potential mother's rights have to be respected because they are most affected. To me this isn't much of a grey area at all, it gets grey when the fetus is a person but when it is also a threat to his or her carrying mother. I think I see it from similar lines. Once there is any evidence the embryo is a person (conciousness or other brain activity) the whole equation changes and I see things getting complicated based on circumstance as above (risks to the parties), but until then it is the living person most affected by the decision that makes it like any other medical decision.
