Abortion is a big topic of debate.  Part of me is surprised, but when I think about how humans behave, I lose that sense of suprise.  It is the tendancy of humans to try to rationalize things, because it is the tendancy of humans to be selfish.  It can be difficult to accept hard facts when they contradict one's own desires.

  I want to start off by saying that I have no interest in religious or philisophical points of view on this matter, at the moment.  There is debate on when life begins, but simple biological fact provides that answer.  Selfishness is the reason why the debate exists at all.

  I had my own ideas on this, but before I started writing this, I looked up some scientific information just to see if maybe I was wrong somewhere.  I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong.  It turned out that science agreed with me.  I bring this up because I am going to provide some sources, and I don't want anyone to think that my perspective comes from those sources.  Those sources supported me, not the other way around.

  I'm going to start by giving my point of view in my own words.

  Once the DNA from a sperm cell combines with the DNA from an egg cell, what is created is an organism with a complete set of human DNA.  This is a unique organism that is a human.  It does not eventually turn into a human: it is a human.

  The organism grows and developes according to that human DNA's instructions.  It utilizes nutrients provided by the mother in which it is located.  Most of the beginning matter for this organism is provided by the mother, but it is not part of the mother's body.  At a point it does attach to the mother's body to form a conduit through which nutrients can flow, but the organism is its own being.

  I heard some "pro-choice" people call it a parasite, which is something that I agree with completely, but that only supports it being its own entity and not part of the mother's body.

  I've had some discussions on the topic, and no "pro-choice" argument that I have ever been in has ever provided contradictory scientific fact.  Not "pro-choice" point of view I've ever read or heard has ever provided any either.

  What I do hear, time after time, are arguements that are about asthetics.  Arguements based on personal preferences, what's convenient, desires, individual judgement calls.

  The most interesting to me is the idea that the organism is not a person and/or has no personality, as if that has any bearing whatsoever on it being a living human being.

  I've been thinking about writing about this for some time, but have been putting it off, but I decided to today because I watched an episode of Grey's Anatomy, in which a woman was shot in the head and pregnant.  She was brain dead, but the baby was still alive.  The parents of the woman wanted the baby to be saved, but the doctor was advising against it.

  Here's the thing, though.  The doctor's argument was based on the fact that the daughter was brain dead.  Saving the baby was not going to bring the daughter back.

  I'm just sitting there thinking, what the hell?! It's not the baby that's brain dead.  If it's not medically possible to save the baby, then okay, but that wasn't the situation.  It's a living human that can be saved, you're a doctor, so save it.

  It just reminded me of every "pro-choice" arguement that completely ignored the fact that it wants to kill an innocent human being.  Understand that the issue does get a little more complex when the mother's or babie's life is in danger, but that aside, it's against the law to kill innocent human beings... but it seems it's okay if they have no face, no obvious personality, and are located inside another human being.  And why is that exactly?

  Convenience.  If such a human poses an inconvenience, then it's okay to kill them.

  The arguement that aggrevates me the most is the one that says a woman has a right to chose what happens to her body.  What seems to be ignored is that the living human being inside her is not her body.  It's not her body being killed and disposed of.  Somehow, the woman's right to choose what happens to her body should give her the the legal right to kill an innocent human being, or more accurately have it killed for her.

  So the woman should have the right to have someone else kill an innocent human being for her.  It's pretty much always something that is paid for.  This what is called an assassination.  Putting out a hit on someone.  Contract killing.  But it's okay (legal) as long as it keeps the woman from being inconvenienced.

  Since when do women's rights trump human rights, anyway?

  Now, I do want to get a little philosophical.  Just how selfish and heartless do you have to be to condone the killing of innocent life?  How little a value does a person place on life when they say that's okay?

  I've heard a lot of quality-of-life based arguements in favor of abortion.  Exactly how arrogant do you have to be; how much of a god-complex do you have to have to decide what quality someone else's life has?  Someone living in abject poverty can still be happy to be alive.  Someone abused on a daily basis can still prefer that to their own death.

  My perspective is that females have the emmense honor and privelege of being able to carry and nurture a new human being inside them.  The creation of new members of the species for the continuance of the species.  This thing done by hundreds of thousands of species for who knows how many thousands of years, and I am intentionally understating the numbers.  This amazing feat of nature and life, and it's dismissed and looked down upon and devalued by so many.  Because it can be inconvenient.

  The real kicker is when these same people protest war or the death penalty.  You shouldn't be killing someone who wants to kill you, but it's okay to kill someone who has no concept of killing.  You shouldn't kill someone who has raped and murdered and would do it again, given the chance, but an brand new human being that has done nothing to anything and has no concept of "evil" is entirely despensable.

  Anyway, here are two sources to consider.  The first one does include some religion, but as far as I'm concerned, it's unnecessary.  Personally, I'd rather see the non-scientific views left out, because they will cause some people to dismiss the facts.

http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/choicarg.htm

  I looked through the Planned Parenthood site, and I found a page called "Five Ways to Prevent Abortion (And One Way That Won't)".  I searched the page for the words "abstain", "abstaining" and "abstinence", and didn't find any.  I guess they didn't think about that.  Same for their FAQ page.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org