[thecavemaster]

Did you even read my post? I was arguing against the use of the "It's her baby" defense, as was used earlier. I wasn't arguing about when life begins.

Since you bring it up, though, I think the argument that life begins at conception makes perfectly logical sense. A fertilized egg is not an infant, but will develop into one. A newborn infant is also not an adult, but likewise will develop into one.

Why should the health condition of the unborn even be a factor? No matter if the baby has a fully functioning brain or not, it is still a human life. It's not our place to try and play God.

Again, if you want to argue that a baby doesn't have rights until it is born, at least that has a logical basis. If you say that only completely healthy unborn children have any rights, then that doesn't hold water.

I read your post, the "...only viable argument" part. DId I misunderstand that? Of course, an atom, when split, can make a bomb or power a light bulb. However, an atom is not a bomb simply because it can become one. god's record isn't that impressive: as I understand it, the number of miscarriages (already a fertilized egg) equals or surpasses the number of live births. So, apparently, god can abort as many fertilized eggs as he or she likes...