Padme. Does that mean you aren't going to listen to my arguments against abortion because I'm a man? As for men not having experienced it, that's irrelevant. If a person I know has a man who has a 5 year old child who is mentally handicapped and doesn't want the burden of taking care of it, I can tell that person he doesn't have a right to kill the child. Even though I don't know what it's like to care for a handicapped child, I won't just say "I don't know what it's like, so I have no right to make a ruling if I'm a judge presiding over this case." The real issue is whether or not they are a human being, and Anakin began to raise points on this issue. I put forth that it is whether or not a fetus or embryo has intrinsic value due to our nature that determines whether they have a right to live. In nature, a human starts as an ebryo, then a fetus, then a child then an adolescent and then teen and adult and grows to become an old man or woman. I look nothing like I did as a day old baby, and yet there is a sense that in nature, I am the same person. It's not like that was one person and I am another. It is just that I (that one person) have undergone changes. Should consciousness really be the issue that decides? What about when we are asleep? "Well" the pro-choicer would say, "That is different because even when you aren't dreaming, you could immediately awaken." Alright, so what about a person who is comatose? Is it necessary that a person's consciousness be immediately exercisable? If it is, then it would be alright to kill Uncle Jed if he slips into a coma. Perhaps there's people here who want to argue that if consciousness is not immediately exercisable, then it is alright to kill the being. But then they would have to be alright with it even if after one month, Uncle Jed were to reawaken and regain his abilities to think. Most people I know would not want to kill a patient who would eventually recover from the coma.