Bourgeois pigs kill suicidal 16 year old boy.

[Taem]

First, I should clarify my stance on this issue before I commence. I'm not arguing from an "anti-abortion" point of view, but strictly from a dissemination of your statement point of view. I'm actually completely pro-choice and don't feel there should be any restrictions on when a woman want's to abort. I'm also pro-stem cell research and even cloning. I'm also pro-doctor assisted suicide. I believe Einsteins theory of energy that energy cannot be destroyed, but is converted, thus we can never truly die, but are reborn, not that one life to live crap the bible teaches; because of my views, I'm not afraid of death and I don't think life's morality should be thrown around with such heavy weight, i.e. doctor-assisted suicides and abortions. Of course, I feel, like you Jester, that once born, the right to abort is gone, and while alive, I do feel we should all have our own freedoms once we reach independence from our parents. Having said all that, I should not that my argument is not against you Jester, but against what your statement represents and how it can be misappropriated:

We are not "alive" until we are "born"

I still feel in cases where a parent intentionally has another child to give their ailing child their newborns organs, giving that newborn a possibly crappier life or even chance of death, has not been adequately touched on by you, and hence this line of logic could be used against your statement.

As well as the theory of human cloning, although I think you and Kath are correct that organ growing will probably supplant any possible cloning efforts in the near future. Nonetheless, it's an argument on semantics that breeches your concept of being alive when your clone is grown in a tube. Abuse absconds morality (in theory). This is what I was arguing and why I feel your statement does not stand up to my points of criticism.