Mr. Cooper.

Thank you for the encouragement. Old habits die hard.

Your open mindedness is admirable. I, perhaps, had that stance at one time in regards to aborion and it lead me to my convictions now. You know as well as I, due to the nature of an issue such as aborion we all seem to be a little too willing to close our minds and not have to think through this tough decision. The importance of the consequences does create a sense of urgency for this decision. Whether the consequence be from my stand of abortion being immoral or from your potential/current(Respectively-I am not sure) stance of abortion.

My convictions were formed because, I believe that I have found truth when I came to the conclusion that an unborn baby at any stage is indeed a human life. This has what has not closed my mind but what has made me delcare my belief with conviction. There might not be a whole lot difference there I admit. In order to reciprocate(sp?) your open-mindedness, I will be willing, as you are, to test my belief with any evidence you can supply that is contrary to human life beginning at conception.

What I appreciated so much about the Clash of Orthodoxies is that Robert P. George defined the pro-abortion argument at all levels. He was not only able to counter-argue for life on all levels he also was able to show how pro-life in general is consistent with society. I was going to pick out a couple of pages that define the scientific arguement of when life begins, which the book will lead you to believe that it is at conception(no surprise), but I would then be afraid you will miss the rest that the book has to offer.

In the book "Clash of Orhtodoxies" Robert George references a debate held by the American Political Science Association. The debate is between John Finnis and Jeffrey Reiman and it is on abortion. My understanding is that during this debate the issue of when life begins is covered. I have tried to find the debate in written form and I have been unsuccesful so far. However, Robert George has another book available by the title "Public Reason..". In this book are the essays that both John Finnis and Jefrey Reiman used for the basis of their debates. I plan to get a hold of this book but most likely will not have a chance to read it until early next year.

Mr Cooper, I hope you have a good holiday and I look forward to our exchanges.

I read this post and wanted to tell you that you can find the evidence you seek by going to any medical library and looking in either a genetics textbook or a obstetrics/gynecology text. Also,ask yourself the basic question: Does each species reproduce after itself? For instance do mating cats produce cats? Do mating dogs produce dogs? Do mating horses produce horses? Do mating humans produce humans? I think your debate with yourself is making it too difficult. Even a very young child understands that when a pregnant woman's belly is swollen like a watermelon that there is a child within. Ask one sometime when you see a small child with a pregnant woman. As to the medical answer, of course a human female egg when penetrated by human male sperm is human, what else could it be? A person does not become a cat in the womb. And a cat does not become a person in the womb! And the single cell has millions of genes and chromosones that have complex instructions about how to create a new being. That one cell starts immediately dividing and keeps on doing that constantly until in just 28 days the human appearance is there and the human heart is beating and the human brain is working and the human kidneys are developing. By the third month after the fertilization of the egg, the human baby has all organs formed. After that time, the baby will continue to enlarge and develop and flesh out. A human embryo is human, a human fetus is human, a human neonate is human, a human child is human, a human teenager is human, a human adult is human, a human elder is human! It is the sequence of life. Gloria Poole Pappas,RN