Whether its by pill or the hand of an abortionist, the aborted child is just as dead. When I took my first formal course in high school Biology in about 1960, everyone seemed to know that human life begins at conception, the union of a man’s sperm with a woman’s egg. Without uniting in the womb, the egg and sperm have no human life at all and do not develop into anything; they remain just an egg and a sperm and soon die. The part of the human “life cycle” that we universally agree includes all of the developmental stages of human life from babies to teens to adults actually begins with conception in the mother’s womb. Those are the basic, biological facts of human reproduction. So, from a biological perspective, human life begins at conception and proceeds on an uninterrupted continuum of developmental stages, first in the womb, and then outside of the womb. There is no identifiable point in this continuum at which an unborn child becomes suddenly human; the unborn child is a human being all along. The idea that there is a moment when a developing child changes suddenly from non-human to human is a fantasy that has no basis whatsoever in the science of biology. Rather, it is purely a figment of the human imagination, designed to rationalize the termination of innocent human life in the womb and, thus, avoid the enormous emotional toll that routinely follows in the aftermath of an abortion. Ultrasound images or videos — especially the new 3-D versions – of a developing child in his/her mother’s womb will provide conclusive and convincing evidence that the unborn child is, indeed, a human being in the early stages of development.

In response to James Aist, "There is no identifiable point in this continuum at which an unborn child becomes suddenly human". Seems to me birth is a pretty "identifiable point". Conception is not an "identifiable point". Further, scriptures give ample clues to the fact that the spirit ('ruach' in Hebrew OT and 'pneuma' in Greek NT) is a live-giving force; its very much associated with breath (and wind - moving air) in both cases. This is what happens at birth. Note that I'm not arguing in favor of abortion - I'm against it. Its sin. But maybe a more reasonable view is that at 8 months a fetus is 8/9 of a human; at 7 months 7/9 of a human ... at 1 month 1/9 of a human. Why not look at the "continuum" that way? So at 8 months, very bad to abort; at 7 months a bit less bad. I don't know if IUDs are still used (intra-uterine devices which keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb), but I just can't see that their use is equivalent to murder of a breathing human being. There are degrees of sin.

In response to Dave Ibach, let's accept your "more reasonable view", but this time apply it to the end of life rather than its beginning. If a fetus can be 1/9 of a human, why can't an elderly person be 1/9 less of a human because, and you can fill in the blank, that persons can no longer walk on their own, feed themselves, have impaired vision or hearing etc?

In other words, if the unborn can be considered less than human because they are "breathing human beings", why accept born "Breathing human beings" as human if they are not yet mentally or physically well, or if they are regarded as "burdens" to society? Why spend money on time on the severely mentally ill when we can simply take the "reasonable view" of the "continuum" and see them as less human and therefore less worthy of life?

In the same way that a female cannot be a little pregnant, a living entity must either be human or not human. One certainly cannot be "less than human" in any biological sense.

If you use scripture as a test, I think you look to Mary's visit to Elizabeth when both were pregnant. The child in Elizabeth (John the Baptist) leapt for joy when the child in Mary entered the house. At that time, Elizabeth did not know Mary was newly pregnant, yet scripture speaks of both John and Jesus as children, not partial people.

From a biological standpoint, our DNA is our fingerprint - when egg and sperm unite, that unique fingerprint is formed and does not change, regardless of our age.

Well, Steve, by my "more reasonable" view, it is precisely because an older person is breathing that they are 100 percent human. The devaluation begins after that. I don't mean to be crass, but the respect for the person immediately begins to diminish after they stop breathing. As time goes on, and memory fades, their importance and esteem as a living human returns eventually to zero.

Also, a key scripture in this regard, Chris, is (NIV©) Gen. 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.