Theories of how we develop say we can't really understand jack squat for the first few months after we are born. If we can't understand we can't appreciate it for sure and may not even be fully aware of what we are expiriencing. Based on this, should we extend a six month return policy that lets people smother their kids if they find they don't want them? Why not, it makes sense by this crappy logic!

Despite the coldness of this statement, it's basically correct. Take a fetus out of a woman at three weeks it bet it won't manage as it is still part of that womans body. A woman who has the right to do what she wants with her body (good or bad) and the right to live her life without a bunch of know nothing know-it-alls telling her what she can and can't do in a free country.

Experince our external world? And what does that experince include: drug use, theft, rape and murder. On second thought, thanks to NOW that last one can be experinced internally too.

It's well known that unborn children can be affected by being exposed to things like music, etc.

(5=bad argument). Out of all the things on this list, this is the absolute worst argument, and I'm thankful that I haven't heard something so ignorant actually uttered from someone's mouth. What makes for a meaningful life is different from person to person. Many people who have lost the ability to experience things that others can (those who are blind, deaf, unable to walk, etc.) still manage to lead fulfilling lives, while others may find that life is pointless without being able to see, hear, or walk. Who is to say what is Life and what isn't (yeah, I think 40-something year old nerds who live in their parents' basement eating Cheetos and Ho-Ho's and watch reruns of Star Trek all day don't experience much of the external world, but that doesn't make them prime targets for termination . . . okay, well, maybe that's arguable, but you get the point)? Beyond that, unborn fetuses HAVE been found to react to external stimuli, such as sound, temperature, etc.; there have been accounts of fetuses grabbing onto probing instruments while they are in the womb. If you're going to debate a position on abortion, you'd be better off avoiding this argument. As a rebuttal to CanadaSucks' argument: the argument of where life begins, specifically a HUMAN life, is essential to the controversy surrounding abortion. No matter where you stand on the spectrum, when it boils down to it, the question is does a human fetus have the same rights to life as a full-grown human being?. The definition of life varies from source to source, which makes the argument about abortion a difficult one. However, regarding the masturbation equals murder argument, it is not something that you can equate to aborting a human. There are several characteristics which define a living individual; one characteristic is the ability to reproduce with its own kind. This is something that a sperm cell CANNOT do (sperm cells do not mate with other sperm cells to make more sperm cells), and even if they could, the abortion debate is specifically about human life. (And before you call me a snake-handling zealot from the sexually-frigid anti-choice nuts, I'm agnostic, I don't consider myself pro-life nor pro-choice considering the current evidence, and I'm far from sexually-frigid (you'll just have to take my word on that).)

Alive? There are people walking the streets who aren't alive. Please. . .the tired old argument of the definition of 'life'. . .I kill millions of live sperm cells due to masturbation, am I a killer? They were alive. .. I mean they were INNOCENT and wanted to MAKE A REAL BABY! I must be put in jail immediately. . .more snake-handling zealotry from the sexually-frigid anti-choice nuts. You people would make great Communists. . .if you ever actually travelled anywhere. . .

Kamylienne's post on this item is, as usual, well reasoned and articulate. I almost suspect that this item is designed to elicit knee-jerk emotional responses, as it borders on (if it doesn't actually vault over) the ridiculous. Just for the sake of argument let's say that unborn fetuses do lack the ability to absorb the external universe. Certainly, it also follows logically that they will be able, upon being born, to absorb the external universe, ergo, the argument that they can be terminated because of what in essence is a temporary condition really has no validity. Just because an infant cannot speak intelligently doen't mean that you have right to cut its tongue out - sooner or later the innate ability will develop. This is a sort of whacky item in what otherwise is a fairly interesting list.