Jill, no matter how the argument goes, we are still talking here about an unborn child. Let's not lose perspective here. I understand there are some circumstances that create a moral dilemma and a horrible decision for any Mother to make.

If a baby and a Mother are on a boat (just an analogy here) and one of them has to be sacrificed in order to keep the boat afloat.....which one should be thrown from the boat?

But you are talking here about the exception rather than the rule (life and death). The majority of abortions, far from being done to save the Mother from dying, are done rather to rid of her of a "burden".

Take a look at the statstics and you will find that the main excuse for abortion has been inconvenience, whether financially or the person simply did not want a baby or "another baby" or the timing they felt was just not "right". So this then means the doctor and Mother both have the apparent right to kill the child (or let's give it the term they prefer to use "terminate"). And if it comes out still half alive? They drown it/smother it.

You seem here to be emphasising the exception rather than the rule in an attempt to justify it as a whole. But you are dealing with a life who has as many rights as you and I. We have already had that right given to us and been born...so now we can turn around and take away the rights of those that havent?.....

The evolutionary depiction of a developing baby - starting as embreyo in a fish stage (with gill slits) was proven false many years ago, but was yet another attempt at degrading the human being, and reducing the unborn child to not much more than a developing fish, going through the processes from fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and finally "human". All very much with an agenda behind it. The developing human baby starts of fully human and does not suddenly "become" human after 8 weeks....people abort the babies long after this point anyway. so either way they must know what they're doing.

Though this depiction was proven false and the man in question Ernst Haeckel was found out, his false "findings" were still left in many science textbooks long after.

You'd be surprised at how many hang onto long since disproven missing links irrespective of them being proven false. There was a museum that had the horse evolution up LONG after this theory had been rubbished (even by evolutionsts, it was the same one I got taught in primary school).. The Museum were informed that this had been proven false many years ago and they were pressured from many people in the town to remove it from their display...finally they took it down because it got into the local paper. NOt long after, when things died down? it was put back up again...why? because students were coming in to view the museum and why lose an opportunity like that? And there, as far as I know, it remains ot this day. I guess those people who complained gave up trying for a second time.

So believe me, if you think evolution is clear cut, with no bias and no agendas, you are much mistaken. It does not particuarly bother me if people wish to believe in this, that is their choice, but it does bother me when they leave long since disproven theories in the textbooks or up on displays. That is pretty deceptive and unfair and certainly does an injustice to the student/viewer and to science itself.