Here is a website that you may find interesting no matter where in the abortion conundrum you might be:

<link>

It describes the human sexual reproduction process from production of eggs and sperm, through conception (creation of a zygote), through the definitive stages of development, ending with the 9-month fully developed normal gestation baby.

I found this passage particularly interesting:

"At conception: One very lucky spermatozoon out of hundreds of millions ejaculated by the man will penetrate the outside layer of the ovum and fertilize it. This happens typically in the outer third of one of the woman's Fallopian tubes. The surface of the ovum changes its electrical characteristics and normally prevents additional sperm from entering. A genetically unique entity is formed shortly thereafter, called a zygote. This is commonly referred to as a "fertilized ovum." However that term is not really valid because the ovum ceases to exist after conception. Half of the zygote's 46 chromosomes come from the egg's 23 chromosomes and the other half from the spermatozoon's 23. It has a unique DNA structure, different from that of the ovum and the spermatozoon. The zygote "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life:

1. metabolism,
2. growth,
3. reaction to stimuli, and
4. reproduction." 1 "

Other intriguing and interestingly described facts ensue..

WARNING: Don't clink on the link if you are afraid to enter....

(creepy background music)...."THE FACTUAL ZONE"

46 chromosomes is not a definition of a viable human being. That of course would leave all Down's syndrome kids (trisomy 21) automatic candidates for termination, among others.

The 4 criteria you listed are also open to interpretation.

1. metabolism- at the zygote state, only as a parasitic attachment.

2. growth- only with metabolism- see # 1

3. reaction to stimuli- beach rocks react to the stimulus of pounding surf by becoming polished; doesn't make them alive.

4. reproduction- cellular reproduction? Bacteria reproduce. Organism reproduction?- Unless you're referring to natural twinning, that's a little premature. (Where does that leave the infertile person?)

Ideally, every ovum that's fertilized is intended to ultimately become a viable, productive member of human society. The reality is that not every ovum is intentionally fertilized- accident, failure of BC, stupidity, immaturity, violence, etc. And some that are intentionally fertilized are destined to be non-viable beyond the short term- trisomy 18, Tay-Sachs, to name a couple. Termination of a pregnancy is a difficult - and very personal- decision for the woman who must weigh the risks/benefits of continuing the pregnancy for both herself and the potential product of conception.

Now the interesting thing about this whole abortion debate and the claim of "50 million babies dead since 1973" is that the medical evidence is pretty solid that for every implanted fetus/blastocyte there is roughly one blastocyte that spontaneously aborts. So in reality there are some 21 MILLION NATURAL ABORTIONS per year in just the USA alone.

And this doesn't count early first trimester miscarriages - which properly should be called "natural abortions" or in the words of anti-choicers "natural killing". After all if a fetus is "a live person" and an aborted fetus is "killed" then nature is killing a whole lot of "innocent living children".

Clearly "life" isn't nearly as precious in the natural scheme of things as some would make it out to be.

If a women is willing to snuff out this zygote I'm willing to give her that right. To me being pro-choice means I grant the women the right to decice if the baby is born or not. Period. The fact that some will call that murder doesn't change my view. I'm willing to grant women the right to murder what is growing inside their body. Period. I trust that women are able to gather the necessary info to make an informed choice.

pollyanna,

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your thoughts. I'm sorry if I don't go through your points one-by-one, though they warrant it. I'm willing to address them in another post if you wish. But I have a couple of other thoughts right now.

Maybe you would be surprised to know that I am adamantly pro-choice.

I wish more discussions on abortion focused on the woman, rather than on the zygote/fetus/etc. (ZFE). I think when we argue over every attribute of the ZFE, we are missing the main point. The preoccupation on the ZFE diminishes and disregards the woman. The woman becomes an afterthought, if not a complete.non-entity. And the arguments take on an impossible-to-resolve 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' quality.

To me, the more important question is:

Who has sovereignty over the woman's body, her life? Who has the right to control and make decisions regarding the processes of her body? Does she have the 'right to autonomy', to act in her own interests and on her own behalf? Does she 'own' herself, or does someone else?

Many apparently believe that 'everybody else' except the woman, owns her, and thus has the right to regulate her body and her life. The logical reduction is that she, in her entirety, is the property of 'everybody else', i. e. the state, which may, in effect, seize her body, and direct and regulate its use as the state deems proper.

The weird thing is, this notion that 'everybody else' has the right to regulate a woman's body and life, is the presumed 'default' that unconsciously underlies most discussions about abortion.

Considering all this, I am not afraid of discussions about whether the ZFE is living (or not) for example. It may well be. Even so, I hold that the woman indeed, without a doubt, IS a living human being, a person, with an inherent sovereignty over her body and life - and is NOT the property of 'everybody else'.

p.s. - I still think that this website

<link>

is very useful as as a description of the stages of development.. It at least might be a starting point for a lexicon of sorts. So many people use 'fetus' when 'zygote' would do, etc, etc. It sure would be nice to have a set of words/concepts that both pro-choice and pro-life adherents could agree on.

jazzguitarman,

I agree with you.

I put the link up because it thought it might help clarify the garbled discussions on this complex subject. At least some sort of starting point.

I've seen so many posts that dwell on a clinical approach to 'solving the problem.' Sometimes it gets so remote and cold that I fear perspective is lost. I don't think it helps much. This is not just a scientific problem, but pretty much envelops every discipline, including political, religious, philosophical, even metaphysical.

Actually, I like your approach very much. You boil it down to its essentials and establish the priority that makes sense to you (and, as it happens, me, so I suppose that's why I like it so much).

'Trusting women' --- what a concept.

I hope that you will read my post to pollyanna above.

And may I take this opportunity to thank you from the bottom of my heart for defending a woman's right to choose.

Indeed, degsme,

It appears that nature herself is much more flexible and tolerant than the right-to-lifers.

I'm OK with pro-life \ anti-choice groups spending private funds to educate women as long as it is done in a gentle way (e.g. 'hey you are a murderer' isn't gentle!).

But at the end of the day each women has to be responsible for gathering the info she needs to make her choice.

Thanks for the thanks. Trusting women is all about assuming they are equal to men.

Ever heard of green?

WTF???