that is the most unbiased point of view. we are all wrong, we are all right.
mainly because it presents many biased points of view. :3

abortion comes down to whether or not you can define life beginning or whether or not it is merely cells.

and your link although comprehensive, brushes on the issue, doesnt answer it, then continues in a manner in which the author assumes that life begins at contraception.
however, it does continue on the zygote problem
An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.”22 This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism.

this definition is not the definition of a zygote being alive.

Mere human cells, in contrast, are composed of human DNA and other human molecules, but they show no global organization beyond that intrinsic to cells in isolation. A human skin cell removed from a mature body and maintained in the laboratory will continue to live and will divide many times to produce a large mass of cells, but it will not re-establish the whole organism from which it was removed; it will not regenerate an entire human body in culture. Although embryogenesis begins with a single-cell zygote, the complex, integrated process of embryogenesis is the activity of an organism, not the activity of a cell.

this doesnt account for the fact that when the zygote splits into 512 stem cells or something. if you remove even one cell from that mass, it will self terminate.

therefore you cant use that logic.

ah, natural miscarriages, natures way of abortion. you know miscarriages cause depression way more then human intervention abortion.

so you cant prove that it IS a life, and i cant prove that it ISNT a life.

ill use burden of proof. burden of proof decrees you must proof something IS rather then rely on proof something IS NOT, this is especially the case with intangible concepts. ie. life.

A person who has a miscarriage is wanting to have the child born. The depression of an abortion is completely different. They didn't want it, then realize that they made a mistake (in most cases).

You have just admitted that I can't prove it is life, and you can't prove it isn't. Just because you use burden of proof, you still can't prove it.

I've done my homework, and the the burden of proof lies with both of us.
However, we have already come to the conclusion that neither of us can prove to the other our cases.

I won't stop, but I grow rather tired of an endless debate that will never see an end. So, whatever.

Put the link back on and I'll read it more thoroughly.
If I remember correctly from a social studies class, depression comes in a few ways; bullying (or something related to it), stress, or the realization of a wrong move. Now, not everyone gets depression form these things. Leaders deal with stress and wrong decisions all the time. But in the case of abortion, the coercion factor does not have to be in place for the depression to settle in.

This burden of proof thing: someone must prove an opinion. It does not specify what kind, just an opinion. I am telling you to prove your opinion.
And burden of proof is for court.

Burden of Proof:
The burden of proof is the need for one person on one or more side of the debate to prove their side before it should be analysed on the other side.
The burden of proof lies on the person making a positive claim. For example, both: "God exists" and "God does not exist" are positive claims, while "I do not believe in a God" is not a positive truth claim.

The burden of proof in the "Abortion depression" case lies on both sides.

Thanks a lot,
St.Even

EDIT: Sorry, I also missed talking about ECREE - but that hasn't really come up yet.

to the last part if you knew that the baby,cell,or whatever you wanta call it would be the next Hitler(i know this is a little over the top but its just the contour point to your extreme) would you still fight for the same rights?

and on a second note in know that in the us that a child doesn't have full rights until the age of 18 that being said it would be the parents control on this.

Mrducky; I'm pretty sure that this site is liable.
Dam. You win on the burden of proof.
The depression is still open.

I don't argue that your unbiased link is unbiased. However, one of the authors sources came from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. I looked, and the site is biased. It is pro-choice. As you have before, I recognize but exclude the link.

I said earlier that potential life is human life. Destroying that is murder. That potential life will grow to become a human. By destroying that, you destroy the human. So, perhaps the zygote isn't human now. But it will be. Ending that will be is murder.