The only difference between the above article and your reasoning is the method of enforcement. So how exactly do you propose to make your 17 year old daughter obey your command to get an abortion if she desires to deliver the baby? It sounds as if you rule out physical threats to bring a child in line, but what means do you propose to impose your will on that child?

How would I force my daughters to have an abortion? I'd try to persuade them and if that failed, as hard as it would be, I'd cut them off financially completely.

As I see it, you are likely to get the exact opposite effect that you desire. You, on the one hand, say that your daughter is not old enuf to be an adult, but on the other hand you completely cut off that same daughter because shee will not bend to your will. Instead of having to contend just with the ominous task of becoming a mother, she also has to fend completely for herself when it comes to food, sheltering, transportation, etc. You have restricted the choice to two extremes: have an abortion which she may forever regret, or have the child and cut almost all ties that she has with you.

But I do believe there are times that parents should tell their children that they (the parents) will not support certain decisions.

I agree that there are times, but to draw absolute lines in the sand just shows a lack of understanding about the dynamics of human relationships.

Let's take the matter from a different direction. Let's say said daughter is a Freshman in college, having attained the ripe old age of 18. Let's also say that daughter is financially dependent on parents. Let's say Dad has agreed that 18 years is old enuf for daughter to decide on her own - by the standards that he has set. Will Dad continue to financially support this daughter if she decides of her own volition to have the child? Does dad have one set of rules that apply to under 18 and another that apply to over 18? Would he be willing to assist an 18 year old mother but unwilling to assist a 17 year old mother?

If you say that a zygote is not a human, then I suppose you must operate on the assumption that at some point in time that this zygote is somehow transformed into human life. The scientific evidence would rule out that a zygote has much, if any, potential to develop into anything other than what is coded in the DNA. The process of combining DNA results in a growth process that, if allowed to go to completion, will result in some old fart some 75 odd years down the road.

Genetically speaking, everything that you are now, was coded into that zygote. From the moment of conception, you receive almost no new genetic information. Which would seem to indicate that you were once in a state such that you were a zygote. Your senses and general ability to perceive were not fully formed, but all the information was there in that zygote.

Now the assumption in any debate would have to be that human life has innate value. The taking of life, for whatever reason, is something that goes against our sense of right and wrong, whether that be grounded in religious or personal conviction, theological dogma or Darwinian systems. It's a point that must be stressed by both sides in order to make a connection at any level.

The only question left to resolve at that point is what constitutes human life. Can we measure when human life begins? Is it the moment of conception, the moment of sensation? The moment of awareness? the moment of mechanical freedom? Any side you choose in this debate, you are inherently choosing the moment that you suspect represents that magical, mysterious moment where the inertia of the process that began with a sexual act (or in some test tube) results in a human life.

The consequence of holding human life to be the most valuable component for this species, means that you better consider the matter with a certain weight of seriousness. Normally, one would want to err on the side of caution in case one's judgement was somehow flawed, given the fact that we still understand precious little about the universe in which we find ourself.

Anyhow, the real problem with the debate has nothing to do with the proposition of when life begins. Instead, it devolves down to a power confrontation as both sides try to legislate a solution to this vexing problem. I think legislation is fine, one way or the other, as laws do not measure the morality of an issue so much as they measure the popularity and/or power of the parties involved.

I personally don't find legislating this particular brand of morality to be feasible or desirable. But then, I also think that this does not relieve the individual from truly examining the consequences of their actions, no matter whether it's legal or not.