If the mother dies in childbirth but the child manages to survive, the child would be guilty of murder in causing the death of his or her mother (via the process of being born...)

Hey, if the kid gets 25 to life, then the dad doesn't have to pay child support or college tuition. That ought to make a portion of the male Broadsheet readers happy.

Again and again, pro-deathers beat to death situational and consequential theories to justify murdering unborn babies. Common sense dictates that if a mother's life is in danger then the child must die, not the mother. I can't imagine anyone disputing this. So then the writer again goes in left field as most pro-death advocates do but in a rather creative direction than the standard, what if rape or incest, what is down syndrome, what if we can't afford it, what if there is no hope for a better life, what if, what if, what if --

"Or how about birth control or in vitro fertilization (which can waste fertilized eggs)? Stem cell research? Could a fetus have property rights?"

Isn't it possible one can have high moral standards without necessarily being religious? Even if one does not believe in

G-d there is a justice of accountability out there and our nation not escape the repercussions of this bloodbath of the unborn.

Even if you went with conception, you could have the same problems you mentioned in another post concerning birth. When does "conception" take place?

I believe that conception is "complete" when the gametes have fully fused and the new DNA of the future child has been formed. That is a pretty simple point to designate. So if something fails and the DNA is not formed, than conception has not taken place. The DNA is what determines everything about that person/fetus/zygote/embryo.

Compare this to the problem of coming of age. Do people become scientifically mature when they turn 18 or 21? No, but we can't give all rights to children, and we needed to pick a moment when people would supposedly be, in average, mature enough to handle full citizenship rights, so 18 or 21.

So are you saying a fetus is not "scientifically mature" enough for their right to life? Why is it "okay" to abort an 8 month 29 day old fetus, but NOT "okay" to kill a 1 second old baby? Don't you see the problem with that? It's just as sick, whether the body is in the mother or outside of the mother.

Why should the "rights" of a fertilized egg supercede those of a grown woman? Does this zygote, whether a "person" or not, have a right to any woman's body? In some states, men are permitted to defend not only their lives, but their property with guns. This is not labelled "murder." So, why should women not be allowed to defend their own bodies from forced possession, usurpation and exploitation?

Some might argue that these zygotes are "innocent" in possessing a woman's body against her will, even in cases of rape or incest; but if the zygote is a "person," in what way is this possession "innocent?" I believe that so-called "pro-life" or "right to life" advocates are actually theft of life advocates. They advocate stealing life from women against their will. Anyone who treated a man's money or property the way these theft of life advocates treat women's bodies, as objects to be stolen or appropriated at will, would be put in his place immediately.

Also, it can be validly argued that "life" begins before conception. The eggs in a woman's body are certainly alive. Does this mean that all fertile women must have sex and attempt to get pregnant every month or that they have committed "murder"? Certainly the "impregnable" warrior virgins of the middle ages--or of classical times--did not believe this. Such false arguments could even be used to "justify" seduction and rape.

It would seem to me that life is a continuum, and there is a great deal of difference between a fertilized egg and a grown woman, who is a rational human being capable of making rational choices. Grown women do not owe their bodies or their lives to fertilized eggs, to men, or to the state. As has often been said, if men could get pregnant abortion would have been legalized long ago.

Laws that allow men or the government to steal women's bodies at will actually belittle life. They do this by denying the immense value of the contributions and sacrifices that women make in giving birth. So, pregnancy should always be the choice of the women who give birth and should never be forced upon them by others.

On the contrary, these supposedly "pro-life" advocates need to recognize that actually being pro-life and being pro-choice are not mutually exclusive, but mutually reinforcing. As I see it, life is a gift of women and God/dess. Those who receive it from the women who choose to give it should be grateful and gracious, not mean and demanding. That is the real meaning of being both pro-life, or respectful of life, and pro-choice, or respectful of the women who give life.

How about Quality of Life? Shall I bring Peter Singer into this?

You're being ridiculous and you know it. A newborn baby is capable of being cared for by society (meaning foster parents, a neonatal ICU, depending on the circumstances). To stick it in the dumpster is killing a baby who has a chance for life.

But, when you start saying a fertilized egg has rights equal to the woman in whose body it is, you get other absurdities. For instance, miscarriage is the way nature ends the lives of zygotes which are not healthy. There are drugs that prevent miscarriages. My miscarriage was a slow process, starting with minor bleeding -- in short, my doctor could have prescribed drugs that might have prevented it. However, since the majority of miscarriages signal something gone wrong, he didn't do that. Nature is extremely wasteful.

But when you elevate the zygote to equal status as a born human, don't you have an obligation to try to preserve that life, whatever the chances of the "person" being severely handicapped? To do otherwise would be the same as letting someone bleed to death and not trying to stop the bleeding.

Further, since the only methods of birth control that don't require planning before sex can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, which would lead to an increase in unwanted pregnancies and an increase in abortions.

Whatever philosophical reasoning you use to find an absolute line between nothingness and personhood, the practical considerations make it ridiculous.