What a fascinating debate this is. As a mod, obnoxious as this may sound, thanks to all for contributing to a well discussed and civilised debate. It is much appreciated.
My own thoughts on this are fairly scattered. Where to start...lol. To me, where life begins is interesting. I dont believe there is an actual start time. We begin as a seperate egg and seperate sperm, once they meet, it is all a process of development. It takes a few weeks for the individual cells to take any form and resemble a fetus. But the fact that it becomes such a form at a specific point in time is moot to me. We are right from the start, a collection of cells and remain that until the day we die. I guess science has already argued that it becomes a human when it has a human form. I dont agree or disagree. I just see the whole thing as a process. An abortion (to me) at 6 weeks is no more or less morally right as it is at 20 weeks. That collection of cells just has more form and recognisable human characteristics. The law due to many variants, needs a boundary. Here, at the most extreme, no medical abortion is allowed past week 24 of the pregnancy. That is to allow for factors that may show chromosomal defects in the nuchal translucency scan. 22 weeks if anyone is interested, is the general cut off date, but if further tests show such severe abnormalities to warrant it, it can be extended to 24 weeks. Mostly to give a larger window of time for the parent/s to make such a choice. It is the 22-24 week mark where a fetus is also legally recognised as a human and needs due birth and death certificates registered if applicable. But like I said, I see that as more a legal aspect than anything else. As for a soul, if we do indeed have one, which I prefer to think we do, the age of the developing fetus is moot, again just my opinion. Once those cells start their process of development, we are on our journey to becoming full developed human beings - ie we have that thing called 'soul'.
I am a bit puzzled by the reactions of some that fertility drugs are not a good thing too. Granted, under any IVF or fertility treatment the chance of a multiple birth is increased, but it is not common for more than twins, or in rarer cases, triplets or quads/quins etc. I can understand that the outcome of these treatments may be deemed a problem where a multiple birth is the result, but the aim behind them is a result of brilliant medical advancements. Where a multiple conception does occur from them, and by some freak of luck more than 1 child is conceived, a medical abortion has to be carried out if the numbers of fertilised eggs is particularly high. The human body is not designed for multiple births at all. Even twins under natural circumstances are rare and any more, whether it be from fertility or intercourse, puts a massive strain on the body and chances are, some will be naturally aborted if we are talking large numbers of eggs. The resulting abortions from these are simply a case of doing what nature will do itself before complications arise. Doctors will always put the health of the mother first, as she is the one with the best chance of survival in most of these cases. The medical world in regard to conception is all about statistics. The odds of extreme numbers of eggs from these treatments is not so common that it is advised against.
As for rights, there are the rights of up to 3 individuals to consider. If we want to argue those of the unborn infant, I dont think we can write off those of the mother or even the father. As for which is the most important factor in deciding whether an abortion is morally acceptable, I dont know myself which is the 'most right' to base a decision on.
)
like you said, this'd be good for another thread. 
