NationStates Jolt Archive

All religious/biased sources. And, seriously, a geocities link?? double-you tee eff...

Right so just ignore the evidence they provide. Remind me which one of us is being dismissive?

Right so just ignore the evidence they provide. Remind me which one of us is being dismissive?

Your source has to be unbiased. In this case, a medical or biology journal would work, not religious sites. If your sources are valid, so is this (http://www.geocities.com/maidden_ksc/abortion.html).

Yes, yes, very logical. Like, "It is going to be a person so it is a person." and "A living person has both unique DNA and is individual, therefore someone who does not have unique DNA but is individual is a living person."

I haven't ridiculed you or your argument. I have pointed out holes in your argument. A logical person would realize that this means they need to modify their argument. You, on the other hand, just keep repeating it..

(emphasis added)

The fact "it is going to be a person so it is a person" IS NOT MY ARGUEMENT. My argument is that development/growth is indicative of a human life. IE

Developing and growth are indcative of life
Embryos develop and grow
Therefoe Embryos are alive

I then go on into why they are a human life, and why they are seperate from the mother (making the a life as opposed to alive) and other life forms (IE the twins point, twin embryos are not part of one another. If they were they wouldnt develop as seperate entitys).

I have pointed out this on many occations


And you are right, disagreement does not mean that your arguments are based on logical fallacies. However, basing your arguments on logical fallacies (as you do) does mean that I can say that they are.

See above



Again, has not been disputed. It is also, however, a subset of the above. They seem to be arguing that distinct genetic code = indivuality as a person. Again, the problems of twins, chimeras, and even cancer comes into play.

No, I did not argue that distinct genetic code = individuality. It equals individaulity from the mother, in the sense that the code proves it is not part of her, but that is also disproven by the way it develops (IE Seperate to the mother) and two twins also develop sepreately from the mother.


As for the rest of your links, non-biased links are generally expected in a debate. Thus, you can't use dinstinctly anti-abortion links in order to make your point. You will generally need some sort of peer-reviewed scientific article.

Despite the fact that the biased sources may still provide evidence that supports my side. If there is evidence there on a biased web page that does not make it automaticaly wrong. If it is wrong then you should be able to prove it, rather than just say "its from XXX so it can be disguarded"

Your source has to be unbiased. In this case, a medical or biology journal would work, not religious sites. If your sources are valid, so is this (http://www.geocities.com/maidden_ksc/abortion.html).

That site provides no evidence, just opinion. On the other hand my sites provided opinion. Dont mock.

That site provides no evidence, just opinion. On the other hand my sites provided opinion. Dont mock.

Opinion vs. opinion. I'm not mocking, I'm showing you very evidently why you can't use biased sources.

I apologise if I have not been clear. I have been trying as best I can to explain my viewpoints. I dont see how I am not finding common ground. I explain that I know what your viewpoints are, but I also explain about why they can be considered wrong. So far all people on here have been doing is attacking my views and I have shown where those views attacking mine are false.
Your intentions are fine, but highlighting differences is not the same as finding common ground. I hold my beliefs just as strongly as you do yours, and I often find I am talking to people who hold completely opposite views. We start out very tense with each other. But if we each make an effort and are patient and open with each other, we often find that, even if we still disagree on topic A, there will be many other topics, or even parts of the same topic, that we can agree on. Those points of agreement are common ground.

If your goal is simply to be understood and accepted with respect, then common ground is a good place to start, because it shows that you give the same understanding and respect to others that you are asking from them. Sometimes, even just to say, okay, let's agree to disagree and maybe revisit it later, is enough to get people ready to look for common ground with you.

If your goal is to persuade others, then common ground is also a good place to start because your audience will not see you as an outsider or an attacker.

But one thing that this requires is that you allow that opposing views may have some validity. For someone who believes very strongly, that might seem like you'd be compromising your beliefs. I don't think that, but that's something you have to decide for yourself.

EDIT: PS: Some people will always be dismissive and hostile to those they don't agree with. After a while, you just have to shrug off their attacks and keep in mind that disagreement and criticism are not always the same thing as an attack. Look for the ones who seem like they're willing to do some give and take, and if they're asking something from you, see if it's something you can give them (such as an alternate source of evidence).

What's my excuse/defense? Let's see here, my post three posts above your personal attack on Avalon post, that's a decent enough defense post for here, for arguing and providing evidence that validates many of Avalon's statements anyway, and additionally for showing that one side is being more 'correct/honest' in this discussion than the other side is when it comes to describing the condition of the pre-born during the predominate abortion age/phase as performed in elective abortions...




Yes you did. Only now you're trying to pretend you were 'only trying to help' so other people don't think you are big meanie... :p :rolleyes:
More praise.

It's called constructive criticism. It is meant to be helpful, but it is still criticism, so maybe it's not an entirely happy message. There's no rule that says Avalon has to listen to me.

And considering that you began your participation here with a barrage of inflammatory, unanswerable quotes from biased sources and then called pro-choicers "baby killers," I think you've set a standard for personal attacks I could never hope to match. I have no intention of getting sucked into a tit-for-tat fight with you to see who is the bigger bitch. (I'd win, anyway; there is no bigger bitch than me. :p )

(emphasis added)

The fact "it is going to be a person so it is a person" IS NOT MY ARGUEMENT. My argument is that development/growth is indicative of a human life. IE

Developing and growth are indcative of life
Embryos develop and grow
Therefoe Embryos are alive

Yes, and then I point out that all development and growth does not equate to a human life, as my cells are currently developing and growing. My organs are currently developing and growing.

Then, you say, "But they won't grow into a whole person!" In other words, it still comes down to a an argument from potential.

Despite the fact that the biased sources may still provide evidence that supports my side.

Any source with a bias will present evidence in a biased manner. Thus, one cannot determine whether or not the evidence truly "supports your side" from the evidence given.

If there is evidence there on a biased web page that does not make it automaticaly wrong.

No, but it makes it unreliable, and therefore not useful in a debate.

If it is wrong then you should be able to prove it, rather than just say "its from XXX so it can be disguarded"

Why should I waste my time? If you have good points, you can find unbiased sources for them.

Example: Instead of simply going on and on about personal experience, Ph33rdom provided, from what I can tell, unbiased sources to back him up. From his sources, it would appear that the nervous system is developed to the point of providing an ability to sense and respond to stimuli at week 8. Thus, you could argue that the embryo is an organism at week 8. Most of the information I had seen previous was closer to week 12.

Of course, a very large percentage (I don't remember it at the moment) of elective abortions do occur before week 8, but they are open until week 12.

More praise.

It's called constructive criticism. It is meant to be helpful, but it is still criticism, so maybe it's not an entirely happy message. There's no rule that says Avalon has to listen to me.

And considering that you began your participation here with a barrage of inflammatory, unanswerable quotes from biased sources and then called pro-choicers "baby killers," I think you've set a standard for personal attacks I could never hope to match. I have no intention of getting sucked into a tit-for-tat fight with you to see who is the bigger bitch. (I'd win, anyway; there is no bigger bitch than me. :p )


:D People had been arguing about what to call each other, pro-life, pro-choice, anti-choice, anti-abortion and pro-choice, etc., etc., etc.

So I called them, defenders of the baby killers or some such thing, it seems they didn't like that one :p *chuckle*

Anyway, back on topic. I didn't address a person, but a position (not that I wouldn't say something to an individual directly as well but only pointing out here the differences in examples you've cited).

Quotes from 'biased' sources? LOL, they must be biased, they don't say what I want them to say! ....:rolleyes:

... I have no intention of getting sucked into a tit-for-tat fight with you to see who is the bigger bitch. (I'd win, anyway; there is no bigger bitch than me. :p )

:D I'm stuck. If I agree, it's an insult, if I don't agree, it's advocating more tit-for-tat:confused: ;)

Yes, and then I point out that all development and growth does not equate to a human life, as my cells are currently developing and growing. My organs are currently developing and growing.

Then, you say, "But they won't grow into a whole person!" In other words, it still comes down to a an argument from potential.

No, it goes on for me to say that the embryo, unlike your cells, is developing in a diffrent way and on a diffrent path to the way that your individual cells. Furthermore, the embryo is a distinct life form from your cells. Your cells are replicating copies of themselves. That is not what embryo cells are doing.

Some people have claimed that I havent provided enough evidence for my claims here. So I am now going to do so

1. The embryo has its own unique DNA

See full link: HERE (http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/cheshire_2002-11-14.htm)

Do all embryos have their own unique DNA? Do only the ones that are unique count? Do you realize that almost everything you quoted isn't true. Biological sex is not binary. There isn't only male and female. You're entirely unbiased source of experts ought to know that.

2. The Embryo is a seperate entity

See full link: http://www.epm.org/articles/unbornpart.html

Um, no, it's not. It is connected to the mother and CANNOT be connected to anyone or anything else. Separating it will kill it as surely as cutting off my hand will kill my hand. Is my office separate form the building?

3. The Embryo is alive

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/662/1/

http://www.geocities.com/sonyaelflady/nrhhatad.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when4.htm

Full site: http://www.all.org/abac/dni006.htm

a-duh? So were my tonsils till I cut them out. Murderous fiend I am.

Your links start with the assumption that it is a separate life to prove that it is a separate life. Circular argument. How about supplying a generic biological definition?

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0027.html

Is that enough evidence for you for now?
Nope. It's not even evidence. Not one of your sources is a scientific site (hmmmm... wonder why that is). Your sources don't even know some of the most basic parts of biology. Seriously, how can anyone educated think that sex is binary?

Do all embryos have their own unique DNA? Do only the ones that are unique count? Do you realize that almost everything you quoted isn't true. Biological sex is not binary. There isn't only male and female. You're entirely unbiased source of experts ought to know that.

If it has its own unique DNA and is its own entity then it is a human and is alive. Your cells are part of you, not their own entity


Um, no, it's not. It is connected to the mother and CANNOT be connected to anyone or anything else. Separating it will kill it as surely as cutting off my hand will kill my hand. Is my office separate form the building?

So are you therefore suggedting that the mother and the embryo are the same organism? The DNA point clears that up. Also by your logic, a man on a life support machine is part of that life support machine and the two are indistinguishable. And dont go complaining about womens rights when I say that. Its a metaphor. The link clearly deals with this.

A body part, such as the arm or leg, is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body. Every cell of the mother's tonsils, appendix, heart, and lungs shares the same genetic code. The unborn child also has a genetic code, but it is distinctly different from his mother's. Every cell of his body is uniquely his, each different than every cell of his mother's body. Often his blood-type is also different, and half the time even his gender is different.

Half of the child's forty-six chromosomes come from his biological father, half from his mother. He is genetically just as much like his father as he is his mother-but would we argue on that basis that the father has the right to decide whether he lives or dies? Except in the rare cases of identical twins, the combination of those chromosomes is unique, distinct even from that of a brother or sister coming from the same parents.

And in the case of identical twins they are developing indepnedently of one another, so they can be seen to be seperate



a-duh? So were my tonsils till I cut them out. Murderous fiend I am.

Stop doing this. You use the tonsils arguement despite the fact that it is dealth with (as I have said) by the fact that it has to be a seprarte entity and have its own human DNA as well as being alive. Do not take these cosiderations in isolation.


Nope. It's not even evidence. Not one of your sources is a scientific site (hmmmm... wonder why that is). Your sources don't even know some of the most basic parts of biology. Seriously, how can anyone educated think that sex is binary?

I would have thought the American Bioethics advisory commision was scientific. Read the links again

Not the same. For one thing it is a parasite at that time. For another it has a potential for life and we current have a life. Regardless, you've avoided the point to avoid addressing the analogy.


You dropped all of the other arguments. No shock there. Can't reason your way out, drop the argument, right?

Care to address why you think comparing a woman to life support is apt? Care to address the fact that you have admitted it is not yet a person? Care to give a single example of a law that is based on potential? Has anyone ever been arrested for thier potential to commit a theft? By your own admission, the mother isn't committing murder she has the potential to commit murder. Unless the definition a murder extends to potential people. Care to cite where that is in the code?

Most importantly, you are being disingenuous, so is Ph33r. You didn't come into this debate willing to be convinced. There is no data that will appear that will convince you that abortion is acceptable. I'll admit that I am against abortions. I would prefer that not another abortion was performed. I also would like there to be no teen pregnancy and for liver to taste like cherries. It's simply not going to happen. Now, unless I have objective evidence (just as you required for the case of murder against you) then I will not support forcing my opinion on others. At the point when a fetus can be succesfully removed from the womb and survive (as early as six months), I support making abortion illegal because at that point it is no longer potential. I suspect as the science progresses that will become earlier and earlier. And I will continually support earlier bans on abortion. Thus I'm willing to change my position. What would it take for you two to change yours?

Did you actually ever get an answer to your question in the last sentence?

No, it goes on for me to say that the embryo, unlike your cells, is developing in a diffrent way and on a diffrent path to the way that your individual cells.

Of course it is! Of course, my individual cells are developing in a different way and on very different paths from each other.

What makes the path of the embryo significant?

Furthermore, the embryo is a distinct life form from your cells.

So a "life form" doesn't have to be an organism?

Your cells are replicating copies of themselves. That is not what embryo cells are doing.

Actually, the cells of the embryo are doing *exactly* what my cells are doing. Some of them replicate themselves exactly. Some of them are not replicating, but are, in fact, differentiating into other cell types. Some of them are dying. Some of them are dividing into two different cell types - one a copy of the original cell and one very different. Some of them are fusing.

You have a very, very, very limited view of biology. Again, I suggest you learn biology before you try to make absolute statements about it. Otherwise, you make yourself look ignorant, as in the quote above.

Quotes from 'biased' sources? LOL, they must be biased, they don't say what I want them to say! ....:rolleyes:

They must be biased because they're all religious. Did you see the links?

If it has its own unique DNA and is its own entity then it is a human and is alive. Your cells are part of you, not their own entity

Again, a silly thing to say. A cell is both an entity unto itself and a part of a larger entity.

Stop doing this. You use the tonsils arguement despite the fact that it is dealth with (as I have said) by the fact that it has to be a seprarte entity and have its own human DNA as well as being alive. Do not take these cosiderations in isolation.

Ok, so the things that you have decided to be the requirements for life are the following:

-Must be an entity
-Must have its *own* DNA (by which I will assume you mean unique DNA)
-Must be alive (by which I will assume you mean, must meet all the requirements of life).

Every one of these requirements must be met in order to define a human life.

Ok, but an embryo doesn't count under this definition, as it does not meet all the requirements of life. Now, a fetus apparently does, but not an embryo.

And again, we end up with the problems of twins. They are their own entities, but do not have their *own* DNA. And then there are chimeras - entities, but with no single set of DNA.

Of course it is! Of course, my individual cells are developing in a different way and on very different paths from each other.

What makes the path of the embryo significant?

Because it is on (not will get to) the path of development of humanity. It is a seperate human life. And unlike your cells it is not just replicating. It is making cells of diffrent types and forms to build itself up with


So a "life form" doesn't have to be an organism?

Fine, it is a seperate organism from the rest of the body


Actually, the cells of the embryo are doing *exactly* what my cells are doing. Some of them replicate themselves exactly. Some of them are not replicating, but are, in fact, differentiating into other cell types. Some of them are dying. Some of them are dividing into two different cell types - one a copy of the original cell and one very different. Some of them are fusing.

You have a very, very, very limited view of biology. Again, I suggest you learn biology before you try to make absolute statements about it. Otherwise, you make yourself look ignorant, as in the quote above.

Fine, but they are not your cells. They are doing it diffrently. In fact this goes to prove my point even more. Those cells in the embryo are doing the same thing as the cells in your body. To which you now say "so destroying my cells is equivlent to destroying the embryo" to which the answer is no because in destroying your cells you are only destroying part of you. In destroying the embryo you are destroying the whole. It would not be wrong to destroy individual cells of the embryo unless that leads to its death, in the same way it would be wrong for me to remove enough of your brain cells to kill you. Theres your distinction between cells and embryos

Again, a silly thing to say. A cell is both an entity unto itself and a part of a larger entity.

A cell is not though when it is part of an entity of itself an entire human life. Where as an embryo is.


Ok, so the things that you have decided to be the requirements for life are the following:

-Must be an entity
-Must have its *own* DNA (by which I will assume you mean unique DNA)
-Must be alive (by which I will assume you mean, must meet all the requirements of life).

Every one of these requirements must be met in order to define a human life.

Ok, but an embryo doesn't count under this definition, as it does not meet all the requirements of life. Now, a fetus apparently does, but not an embryo.

If you can demonstrate that an embryo is dead then I may listen. But it certainly isnt not alive.


And again, we end up with the problems of twins. They are their own entities, but do not have their *own* DNA. And then there are chimeras - entities, but with no single set of DNA.

Same DNA but are clearly seperate entities on the grounds that they are developing on their own. There dependence is not linked to each other. They are clearly not the same life form.

Because it is on (not will get to) the path of development of humanity. It is a seperate human life.

Ok, now you can't say that you won't make an argument and then make it. This exactly says, "It is on the path that will take it to humanity, thus it is a human life." Thus, it is an argument from potential.

And unlike your cells it is not just replicating. It is making cells of diffrent types and forms to build itself up with

My cells are not just replicating. They are making cells of different types and forms to build up my body.

Fine, it is a seperate organism from the rest of the body

We have already shown you how it is not an organism, as it has not yet developed the necessary systems to sense and respond to stimuli as an entity.

Fine, but they are not your cells. They are doing it diffrently.

No, they really aren't. The processes are the same.

In fact this goes to prove my point even more. Those cells in the embryo are doing the same thing as the cells in your body. To which you now say "so destroying my cells is equivlent to destroying the embryo" to which the answer is no because in destroying your cells you are only destroying part of you. In destroying the embryo you are destroying the whole. It would not be wrong to destroy individual cells of the embryo unless that leads to its death, in the same way it would be wrong for me to remove enough of your brain cells to kill you. Theres your distinction between cells and embryos

If I destroy a cell, it is destroying a whole cell. If I destroy an embryo, it is destroying a whole embryo. But you have to provide an objective definition of humanity that includes an embryo, but not a cell. I never said there were no differences between an embryo and a cell - I asked for a difference that objectively makes an embryo a human person.

If you can demonstrate that an embryo is dead then I may listen.

I never said it was dead.

But it certainly isnt not alive.

It doesn't meet the requirements for life. Thus, it is not alive. It's individual cells are alive, but it, as an entity, is not.

Same DNA but are clearly seperate entities on the grounds that they are developing on their own. There dependence is not linked to each other. They are clearly not the same life form.

Irrelevant. If your criteria for a human life includes the term "unique DNA", then that requirement must be met as well as all the others.

Now, if you remove that requirement, you have:

-Must be an entity
-Must be alive (by which I will assume you mean, must meet all the requirements of life).

So these are apparently your criteria for human life. Of course, an embryo still does not meet all the requirements....

Ok, now you can't say that you won't make an argument and then make it. This exactly says, "It is on the path that will take it to humanity, thus it is a human life." Thus, it is an argument from potential.

No. You say that I said "It is on the path TO humanity" where as I say "It is on the path OF humanity". It is not an arguement from potential. It is an arguement on the basis of what it is.


We have already shown you how it is not an organism, as it has not yet developed the necessary systems to sense and respond to stimuli as an entity.

It senses and responds to the diffrent chemical conditions of the diffrent part of the womans body, as far as I understand.


If I destroy a cell, it is destroying a whole cell. If I destroy an embryo, it is destroying a whole embryo. But you have to provide an objective definition of humanity that includes an embryo, but not a cell. I never said there were no differences between an embryo and a cell - I asked for a difference that objectively makes an embryo a human person.

A cell is not on the path of humanity. It is part of something that is

An embryo is on the path of humanity.

And being on the path OF humanity is diffrent from being on the path TO humanity. The former is not an arguement from potential. The latter is.

:D People had been arguing about what to call each other, pro-life, pro-choice, anti-choice, anti-abortion and pro-choice, etc., etc., etc.

So I called them, defenders of the baby killers or some such thing, it seems they didn't like that one :p *chuckle*

Anyway, back on topic. I didn't address a person, but a position (not that I wouldn't say something to an individual directly as well but only pointing out here the differences in examples you've cited).

Quotes from 'biased' sources? LOL, they must be biased, they don't say what I want them to say! ....:rolleyes:



:D I'm stuck. If I agree, it's an insult, if I don't agree, it's advocating more tit-for-tat:confused: ;)
Checkmate. (See what I mean?) ;) :D

I never said it was dead


You said it wasnt alive. Wasnt alive is dead.


Irrelevant. If your criteria for a human life includes the term "unique DNA", then that requirement must be met as well as all the others.

Now, if you remove that requirement, you have:

-Must be an entity
-Must be alive (by which I will assume you mean, must meet all the requirements of life).

So these are apparently your criteria for human life. Of course, an embryo still does not meet all the requirements....

Unique DNA from the mother then, is perhaps more accurately a better arguement.

As I have shown it does meet the requirements for life. If a man looses his ablity to reproduce in a car accident does that mean that he is dead as he no longer meets all the requirements for life?

No. You say that I said "It is on the path TO humanity" where as I say "It is on the path OF humanity". It is not an arguement from potential. It is an arguement on the basis of what it is.

Then you must provide an objective definition of humanity that an embryo can meet, but a single cell cannot.

Ready, set, GO!

It senses and responds to the diffrent chemical conditions of the diffrent part of the womans body, as far as I understand.

No, "it" does not. It's individual cells do. There is no system-wide method for sensing and responding to stimuli.

And being on the path OF humanity is diffrent from being on the path TO humanity. The former is not an arguement from potential. The latter is.

And yet you have provided no reason to say that the embryo is on the path of humanity (whatever that means) that does not then put the sperm and egg on the path of humanity.

You said it wasnt alive. Wasnt alive is dead.


Incorrect. To be dead, something must first be alive, and then die. Otherwise, it is simply not alive. My desk is not alive. However, it is not dead, because it was never alive.

As I have shown it does meet the requirements for life. If a man looses his ablity to reproduce in a car accident does that mean that he is dead as he no longer meets all the requirements for life?

I have already pointed out that the ability to reproduce is a species-wide requirement, not an individual requirement.

However, if the man loses all ability to sense and respond to stimuli, he is dead. If he loses all ability to obtain and use nutrients, he is dead. If he loses all ability to excrete wastes, he is dead. If he loses all ability to grow and develop, he is dead. Why? Because the only way his body will stop doing all of these things is if he has died.

Incorrect. To be dead, something must first be alive, and then die. Otherwise, it is simply not alive. My desk is not alive. However, it is not dead, because it was never alive.

Um Dem, you are being non truthful here. The desk was alive at one time: it is a organic material. We know this becuse plants are alive.

Wood comes from plants: thus wood was once alive.
You desk was once alive for this reason (parts of it anyway).

You need a beter example... um cement, television, or a computer? These are not alive. However, they are not dead, because they were never alive.


You said it wasnt alive. Wasnt alive is dead.

Nope, we discussed this 10 pages ago. This makes it un-dead. It isn't alive, but it isn't dead. Thus Un-dead.
It isn't a inanimate object like rock because we know it can move.

Um Dem, you are being non truthful here. The desk was alive at one time: it is a organic material. We know this becuse plants are alive.

(a) The material != the desk. The desk itself was never alive.
(b) My desk is actually made of plastic of some sort, so it is pretty much completely synthetic.

Nope, we discussed this 10 pages ago. This makes it un-dead. It isn't alive, but it isn't dead. Thus Un-dead.
It isn't a inanimate object like rock because we know it can move.

Actually, at the point that it can move on its own, it is no longer an embryo. Thus, when talking about an embryo, it is no more animate than my kidney (in fact, less so).

Edit: And of course, the term "undead" is generally used to refer to something which was once alive, has now died, but is still animate.

(a) The material != the desk. The desk itself was never alive.
(b) My desk is actually made of plastic of some sort, so it is pretty much completely synthetic.



Actually, at the point that it can move on its own, it is no longer an embryo. Thus, when talking about an embryo, it is no more animate than my kidney (in fact, less so).

Edit: And of course, the term "undead" is generally used to refer to something which was once alive, has now died, but is still animate.

Hmm, I guesses it was wooden, but okay point for you.

Your kidney is a parasite? (joking of course)

Not really, I see undead as just the term for something animate, not alive or dead.

Yes, a animated suit of armor to me in un-dead. Unless possessed by a Poltergiest (because than it is just being moved by the spirit not itself).

If it has its own unique DNA and is its own entity then it is a human and is alive. Your cells are part of you, not their own entity

Ok, I know this has been said to you a dozen times before but look up Chimera. Also, you've shown it's developing into a unique person, not that it is a person. If I'm going to add another room to my house and all the equipment for my new room is sitting in the living room, it may not be just more living room, but it certainly isn't the addition room yet.

So are you therefore suggedting that the mother and the embryo are the same organism? The DNA point clears that up. Also by your logic, a man on a life support machine is part of that life support machine and the two are indistinguishable. And dont go complaining about womens rights when I say that. Its a metaphor. The link clearly deals with this.

Uh, know the DNA does not clear that up. Again, ever heard of a chimera? I know you have, you just want to ignore it's existence. By the way, can you tell me what one of the primary characteristics of most mammals are? Live births. They give birth to offspring that have a life. As opposed to embryos that are encased in an egg and not yet a life. An egg is not an organism, but keep repeating it and one day our brains will fall out and we'll believe you.

And in the case of identical twins they are developing indepnedently of one another, so they can be seen to be seperate

Oh, but I thought it was the unique DNA. So we admit DNA is not a factor. Good. We won't hear that argument again.

Stop doing this. You use the tonsils arguement despite the fact that it is dealth with (as I have said) by the fact that it has to be a seprarte entity and have its own human DNA as well as being alive. Do not take these cosiderations in isolation.
We're not. You are.

You haven't demonstrated either of those things to anyone's satisfaction so we might as well be talking about tonsils. Your argument that it is separate is unique DNA and then you act like that is two separate arguments. You are using each bit to prove the other bit so we are showing that each on its own does not stand so it can't be used as a proof for the other bits.

I don't think you even know you're using a circular argument. (Is it a life? Yes. Why? Because it is separate from the mother. Why is it separate? Because it has it's own DNA. Chimeras can have body parts with unique DNA from the rest of their body? Are they a life? No, because they aren't separate? But fetuses are connected. Yes, but they have unique DNA. And round and round we go.)

Define separate without using the unique DNA argument, since you claim that they are two arguments.

I would have thought the American Bioethics advisory commision was scientific. Read the links again
Hmmm... I know lots of 'scientific' papers that use sacred in the titles. I know that when I was in school I made sure to say that my research was sacred.

http://www.all.org/abac/impdeath.htm

There is a link on that page. Where does it go?

http://www.catholicculture.org/

Yep. That's scientific for you.

Doesn't Bible encourage honesty? Did you just not notice this is a religious site?

No, I showed that it does meat those qualifications

# Living things are made of cells.

An embryo is made up of cells, human ones too. With their own unique DNA

# Living things obtain and use energy.

Indeed the embryo does.

# Living things grow and develop.

Indeed the embryo does

# Living things reproduce.

Granted it is unable to at presnet but then again new borns do not have that ability either, so the point is moot.

# Living things respond to their environment.
# Living things adapt to their environment.

Comatose people are alive but can do neither of these things
Biologically, they are technically no longer living and, in fact, left to nature would die a natural death. I thought you were arguing against medical procedures being included in what something is. You can't have it both ways. If comatose people kept alive by equipment are alive then fetuses removed from the womb never developed into humans and your potential argument is gone. I mean, comatose people are potentially dead if we didn't interfere.

The fact that you don't understand what it means to "sense and respond to stimuli" does not negate the requirement. No one said you had to consciously do so.
As evidenced by Terri Schiavo.

Um Dem, you are being non truthful here. The desk was alive at one time: it is a organic material. We know this becuse plants are alive.

Wood comes from plants: thus wood was once alive.
You desk was once alive for this reason (parts of it anyway).

You assume her desk is not made of metal and plastic as mine is. Mine is 100% recycled material, i.e. a piece of crap. And non-truthful isn't a word.

Thanks for you time. We will not return to your regularly scheduled program.

I want to start just declaring myself the winner of threads like Avalon II.

I say I'm right, and you haven't convinced me that I'm wrong, so then I must be right even though I have no interest in listening to or understanding your arguments. I win. Now I'm taking my toys and going home, you argument losers, you.

Then you must provide an objective definition of humanity that an embryo can meet, but a single cell cannot.

Ready, set, GO!


I just gave you one. The path of development the embryo is on is diffrent to the path of development the cell is on.


No, "it" does not. It's individual cells do. There is no system-wide method for sensing and responding to stimuli.

Its indivdual cells are what makes it up. Your individual cells are what make you up. To say that its individual cells respond to something and it does not is innacurate. If you get shot your cells react by reciving pain.

Also, we are uncertian to what level the embryo may be able to sense/respond to stimulus. It may be that it can respond to low level stimulus but said stimulus cannot reach it there.


And yet you have provided no reason to say that the embryo is on the path of humanity (whatever that means) that does not then put the sperm and egg on the path of humanity.

If left to itself in its nautral conditions, the sperm will not develop along the path of humanity. If left to itself in its natural conditions (the womans womb) the embryo will.


Incorrect. To be dead, something must first be alive, and then die. Otherwise, it is simply not alive. My desk is not alive. However, it is not dead, because it was never alive.

The cells are alive. It is living. To say that it is not living would imply it is dead.


I have already pointed out that the ability to reproduce is a species-wide requirement, not an individual requirement.

However, if the man loses all ability to sense and respond to stimuli, he is dead.

The embryo does respond to stimulation. Its entire growth changes when diffrent chemicals enter the womb and alter it.

However my research on the subject concludes that you are correct. It does not have the ability to respond to stimulus from conception. But that does not mean that we should not protect it. The fact is that it is on the path of humanity. It is a human. At a very early stage of development perhaps but none the less human. Midway between week 2 and 3 it begins to develop its nervous systeml. Thus abortion in my opinion should be cut off at aproximately 18 days. I still dont think its right at all. But beyond that it is demonstratably alive.

http://www.40weekspregnancy.com/week-by-week-pregnancy-calendar.htm

The cells are alive. It is living. To say that it is not living would imply it is dead.

The Cells are alive.
The embryo is not.
To imply that the cells=the embryo is wrong.
The cells fulfill all the criteria of life, but the embryo does not.

The Embryo has yet to be alive thus not dead. It is Un-dead at most, but inanimate as a rock at least.

I just gave you one. The path of development the embryo is on is diffrent to the path of development the cell is on.

Every cell is on its own path of development. Does that mean that every cell or organ on a different path of development from another is a human life? Of course not!

Its indivdual cells are what makes it up. Your individual cells are what make you up. To say that its individual cells respond to something and it does not is innacurate. If you get shot your cells react by reciving pain.

When I get my shots, the cells which are hit by the needle release factors which react with other cells, which send the message to my nervous system, which interprets the signals as pain and then sends back an appropriate response. This is a system-wide response, not a single cell response.

If your criteria for an entity responding are single cells responding separately, then a ball of bacteria (all single cells reacting on their own) will make up a single organism. This is not, of course, true. A ball of bacteria is a ball of lots of organisms.

Also, we are uncertian to what level the embryo may be able to sense/respond to stimulus. It may be that it can respond to low level stimulus but said stimulus cannot reach it there.

We know that it cannot respond until it has the systems necessary to respond.

If left to itself in its nautral conditions, the sperm will not develop along the path of humanity. If left to itself in its natural conditions (the womans womb) the embryo will.

Wait? So ejaculation of sperm into the vagina is unnatural? The vagina is not a natural condition for sperm? *wonders what all this procreation nonsense is about, being unnatural and all*

Define: "path of humanity."

The cells are alive. It is living. To say that it is not living would imply it is dead.

Not really. The cells in my heart are alive. That does not mean that my heart is, in and of itself, a living organism.

However my research on the subject concludes that you are correct. It does not have the ability to respond to stimulus from conception. But that does not mean that we should not protect it.

No, it doesn't. But it does mean that it isn't an organism. And most people would say that a human person does at least have to be an organism. So we cannot automagically say that it gets human rights, as these are applied to human persons.

The fact is that it is on the path of humanity.

This *path of humanity* is not a technical term, could you please define it for us?

Midway between week 2 and 3 it begins to develop its nervous systeml. Thus abortion in my opinion should be cut off at aproximately 18 days. I still dont think its right at all. But beyond that it is demonstratably alive.

Actually, no, but you are close. In order to be demonstrably alive, it needs a functioning nervous system, not a nervous system in the beginnings of development. From what we have seen in the thread, that would mean that it would be "demonstrably alive" around about 8 weeks (or 12 weeks, depending on where you look).

Every cell is on its own path of development. Does that mean that every cell or organ on a different path of development from another is a human life? Of course not!

It is not on the path of development OF human life. Which begins when you are convieved and ends when you die. Cells do not grow up, get born, have childhoods etc.


When I get my shots, the cells which are hit by the needle release factors which react with other cells, which send the message to my nervous system, which interprets the signals as pain and then sends back an appropriate response. This is a system-wide response, not a single cell response.

If your criteria for an entity responding are single cells responding separately, then a ball of bacteria (all single cells reacting on their own) will make up a single organism. This is not, of course, true. A ball of bacteria is a ball of lots of organisms.

A ball of bactiaria is not on the human development path. They are not human


We know that it cannot respond until it has the systems necessary to respond.

If you see my edit, I have agreed with you


Wait? So ejaculation of sperm into the vagina is unnatural? The vagina is not a natural condition for sperm? *wonders what all this procreation nonsense is about, being unnatural and all*

It is still a sperm when it is ejaculated into the vagina. It will remain a sperm unless it fertialises an egg. It will not grow, will not become something more.


Define: "path of humanity."

The life cycle of a human that is moved along by a human via growth


Not really. The cells in my heart are alive. That does not mean that my heart is, in and of itself, a living organism.

The cells in your heart are part of a living organism. You

Actually, no, but you are close. In order to be demonstrably alive, it needs a functioning nervous system, not a nervous system in the beginnings of development. From what we have seen in the thread, that would mean that it would be "demonstrably alive" around about 8 weeks (or 12 weeks, depending on where you look).

The nerve system may be functioning in a rudimentary fashion before then. And while it is not "demonstratably alive" the fact that it is an individual, human life should mean it has protection. I am sure you can see that even without the biological distinction, had you been aborted when you were at that stage you would not be here discussing this with me. The embryo is developing in the fashion that will lead it to be "demosntratably" alive. It should still be allowed a degree of protection. Abortion should be only allowed by the government in exceptionally dire circumstances for the woman and should be given out on a case by case basis. The government should provide the woman with the resorces she needs to care for it if she does not have them, or give her all the things she needs to give it up for adoption. Basicly the government should do all it can to make sure she doesnt have to have it aborted.

The cells in your heart are part of a living organism. You
Yes, and the cells of a embryo are living, but the embryo is not proven itself living.

As parts, it is alive, but as a whole the embryo is un-dead.

It is not on the path of development OF human life. Which begins when you are convieved and ends when you die. Cells do not grow up, get born, have childhoods etc.

Circular argument. You are basically saying, "The sperm is not on the path of development of human life because I personally define that path to begin at conception and end at death."

Some people would argue that humanity doesn't begin until consciousness. Some would say at the point that it is an organism. Some would argue that life does not end at death, as they believe there is an afterlife that humans will go to....

A ball of bactiaria is not on the human development path. They are not human

Irrelevant. Please do try to read what I say instead of picking out a few random words and posting a completely unrelated sentence.

It is still a sperm when it is ejaculated into the vagina. It will remain a sperm unless it fertialises an egg. It will not grow, will not become something more.

So? It will do nothing more until it receives the proper signals to do so. Without the proper signals, a fertilized egg will not divide, will not become something more. Without the proper signals, the blastocyst will not begin to have specialized cells, will not become something more.

They all require input from outside to happen.

The life cycle of a human that is moved along by a human via growth

Can you have a "life cycle" before it is alive?

The cells in your heart are part of a living organism. You

Again, irrelevant to what I was saying.

The nerve system may be functioning in a rudimentary fashion before then.

Irrelevant. You cannot legislate something based on "may be".

And while it is not "demonstratably alive" the fact that it is an individual, human life should mean it has protection.

If it is not demonstrably alive, then you cannot objectively say it is a human life. Being alive is a part of being a human life, is it not?

I am sure you can see that even without the biological distinction, had you been aborted when you were at that stage you would not be here discussing this with me.

Irrelevant.

The embryo is developing in the fashion that will lead it to be "demosntratably" alive.

Clearly an argument from potential.

It should still be allowed a degree of protection.

Opinion. One could just as well say, "It should have no protection until X."

Abortion should be only allowed by the government in exceptionally dire circumstances for the woman and should be given out on a case by case basis.

That's cute, but it would absolutely ensure that every abortion killed a demonstrably living thing, since the government doesn't do anything fast enough (especially not with all the requests they would receive) that the decision and the abortion could occur before 8 weeks.

The government should provide the woman with the resorces she needs to care for it if she does not have them, or give her all the things she needs to give it up for adoption. Basicly the government should do all it can to make sure she doesnt have to have it aborted.

Not everyone beleives that socialism is the best way for a government to go.

Irrelevant. You cannot legislate something based on "may be".

Yes we can. If I am not certian that a bomb blast that is safely being denotated has had the buliding completley evacuated yet, then I will not detonate it. Untill we can be sure that it is safe, we must make sure we protect.


If it is not demonstrably alive, then you cannot objectively say it is a human life. Being alive is a part of being a human life, is it not?

Since you were one once, as was I, I think we can. At the very least we can say its human. It is not alive, but as you have pointed out it is not dead either. Hence as far as I can see we should give it all possible protections. The mother may not choose to abort it on her own. If she requests an abortion it should be assessed whether or not she is allowed one on a case by case basis and the government should provide all resorces it can to ensure that the woman does not need an abortion.


Irrelevant.


Not at all. It proves that it is part of the human life cycle. Scientificly it may not be a human, but morally it may be said to be so, seeing as it is the earliest part of the human life cycle and all humans enter it. Ergo it should be protected


Clearly an argument from potential.

Not at all. Again the fact that it is developing proves that it is a human. Not demostratably alive but not demonstratably dead. It should have government protection. The woman may be allowed an abortion but only if the government decides. That decision should be case by case, and should make the point that no abortion will be permited after 8 weeks.


Opinion. One could just as well say, "It should have no protection until X."


It is human, not alive but not dead either. Something should be done to protect it.


That's cute, but it would absolutely ensure that every abortion killed a demonstrably living thing, since the government doesn't do anything fast enough (especially not with all the requests they would receive) that the decision and the abortion could occur before 8 weeks.

Just because we cant stop everything, doesnt mean we should sit back and do nothing


Not everyone beleives that socialism is the best way for a government to go.

In this case it is. The only reason women have abortions in many cases is that they cant support the child. The government must step in to see that isnt the case. Not just economic support, but every kind of support possible to make sure the mother doesnt have an abortion. Ulitmately she may have one (only before 8 weeks) but it must be discouraged in every way possible.

The only reason women have abortions in many cases is that they cant support the child. The government must step in to see that isnt the case. Not just economic support, but every kind of support possible to make sure the mother doesnt have an abortion. Ulitmately she may have one (only before 8 weeks) but it must be discouraged in every way possible.
What about women (and their male partners, for that matter) who just don't want children, regardless of whether they can afford it? It has been discussed, fuck knows how many pages back and how many times, about the absurdity of suggesting that abstinence is practised in all cases on the basis of the small possibility (assuming the use of protection) that pregnancy may result, and it has also been pointed out that it is not always easy to get steralised.

What about women (and their male partners, for that matter) who just don't want children, regardless of whether they can afford it? It has been discussed, fuck knows how many pages back and how many times, about the absurdity of suggesting that abstinence is practised in all cases on the basis of the small possibility (assuming the use of protection) that pregnancy may result, and it has also been pointed out that it is not always easy to get steralised.

Not a good enough reason. The government in my opinion shouldnt allow it. They should only allow it before 8 weeks if there is a reason beyond personal prefernace. Just not wanting a child is not a good enough reason to end its existance. The government should examine each person who wants an abortion case by case and only let those have an abortion if they have a genuine need.

Irrelevant. You cannot legislate something based on "may be".



If it is not demonstrably alive, then you cannot objectively say it is a human life. Being alive is a part of being a human life, is it not?



Irrelevant.



Clearly an argument from potential.



Opinion. One could just as well say, "It should have no protection until X."



That's cute, but it would absolutely ensure that every abortion killed a demonstrably living thing, since the government doesn't do anything fast enough (especially not with all the requests they would receive) that the decision and the abortion could occur before 8 weeks.



Not everyone beleives that socialism is the best way for a government to go.

Actually, it is demonstrably alive insofar as it has its own, distinct DNA and is composed of living cells.

Most of your other statements I agree with however.

Except for:

"Opinion. One could just as well say, "It should have no protection until X."

That's cute, but it would absolutely ensure that every abortion killed a demonstrably living thing, since the government doesn't do anything fast enough (especially not with all the requests they would receive) that the decision and the abortion could occur before 8 weeks.

Not everyone beleives that socialism is the best way for a government to go."

The first, I disagree with simply on opinion.

The second, the idea that the government is slow and unresponsive is a common misconception. For one example, look at the fire department, which (at least where I come from) is technically part of the government.

Lastly, taking one statement and twisting it so you can say it advocates socialism (or any other policy) is flawed logic, to say the least. From any one statement A, the only thing that can be logically proven is that statement A. Example: "All ducks are dogs." There is no logical method to proove any other statements from this, other than "All ducks are dogs."

Sincerely,

Number III

Not a good enough reason. The government in my opinion shouldnt allow it. They should only allow it before 8 weeks if there is a reason beyond personal prefernace. Just not wanting a child is not a good enough reason to end its existance. The government should examine each person who wants an abortion case by case and only let those have an abortion if they have a genuine need.

What? Now it's not "in the path of humanity" before 8 weeks anymore?

What? Now it's not "in the path of humanity" before 8 weeks anymore?

It is in the path of humanity, but as Demipublicans has shown, it cannot be said to be alive in those 8 weeks. However because it is on the path of humanity, I believe it warants special protection, and thus abortion should be the very last option at all ever. The government should interviene in situations to make it so that any economic reasons or other problems she has with having a baby are delt with, as well as other areas by providing a counslor or whatever services are needed by the mother. It is human, but not alive nor dead.

It is in the path of humanity, but as Demipublicans has shown, it cannot be said to be alive in those 8 weeks. However because it is on the path of humanity, I believe it warants special protection, and thus abortion should be the very last option at all ever. The government should interviene in situations to make it so that any economic reasons or other problems she has with having a baby are delt with, as well as other areas by providing a counslor or whatever services are needed by the mother. It is human, but not alive nor dead.

You should be happy to learn that 59% of all abortions in the US occur within 8 weeks gestation. And abortions are increasingly earlier in gestation.

Not a good enough reason. The government in my opinion shouldnt allow it. They should only allow it before 8 weeks if there is a reason beyond personal prefernace. Just not wanting a child is not a good enough reason to end its existance. The government should examine each person who wants an abortion case by case and only let those have an abortion if they have a genuine need.

Do you have any idea how long it would take to have the government examine each pregnant woman on a case by case basis? That's a HUGE amount of red tape...and any government office I've ever made an appointment with is weeks in advance. I could have the baby before the government ever hears my case.

You should be happy to learn that 59% of all abortions in the US occur within 8 weeks gestation. And abortions are increasingly earlier in gestation.


Dem., had been saying 12 weeks for ‘signs of life etc., , then she was shown evidence and data that displayed her argument was in error, and she conceded the error, but then she did not change her argument one wit. When she found out that the fetus does move and does respond to stimuli at 7 and 8 weeks, it has no affect on her posting methodology argument at all, because the argument used doesn’t need to be ‘right’ it only wants to ‘win. It is an attempt at trying to prove that the fetus is still nothing but plant-like cells at the time of most abortions, a cyst or cancer like parasite... The argument is used even when it is shown to be wrong because there is NO other argument for them to take.

It turns out though that the nervous system and brain functions ARE measurable before and during the primary elective abortion range (9 weeks and before) ... I do NOT concede that the fetus is just ‘potential life’ alone at that stage, it IS fully human by then. It exists on it's own merits and meets and exceeds all the animate life tests demanded of it and it has been shown to be above and beyond inanimate plantlike-life/growth status since the stages even before modern day pregnancy tests can confirm a woman is pregnant at all.

But the argument of it being life or not was never really the point with the pro-choice crowd, it's a diversionary debating tactic, simply to dispute the minute details of every aspect of human fetus growth pattern, the aim of the argument is to obfuscate and misdirect the attention of the debate to a non-issue really. Even when the facts are that their evidence is wrong, their conclusions are worse than misguided because they are based on lies and deception, it is irrelevant to them if their arguments are scientifically right or not, so long as they ‘sound’ valid they work. The words 'sound' convincing to the less well informed among us whom then 'concede' to them even a sliver of ground, even if nonsensical ground, but it is to them a chance to justify the killing of ‘any’ progeny whatsoever and thus, justify all elective abortions.


P.s., to those that say the government is too slow to verify early age fetus for approved abortions, that's nonsense. The abortionists already performs an ultrasound to confirm the age/size of the fetus minutes before performing each abortion now, nothing new whatsoever... Not that they care, they just need to confirm that the method they are about to try, to cut it up or whatnot, will work...

I can't argue very well against the RU486 morning after pill form of abortion because it stops the anticipated cystoblast from implanting successfully in the first place, but other than that, all the other forms of elective abortions kill a human life, plain and simple...

Dem., had been saying 12 weeks for ‘signs of life etc., , then she was shown evidence and data that displayed her argument was in error, and she conceded the error, but then she did not change her argument one wit. When she found out that the fetus does move and does respond to stimuli at 7 and 8 weeks, it has no affect on her posting methodology argument at all, because the argument used doesn’t need to be ‘right’ it only wants to ‘win. It is an attempt at trying to prove that the fetus is still nothing but plant-like cells at the time of most abortions, a cyst or cancer like parasite... The argument is used even when it is shown to be wrong because there is NO other argument for them to take.

It turns out though that the nervous system and brain functions ARE measurable before and during the primary elective abortion range (9 weeks and before) ... I do NOT concede that the fetus is just ‘potential life’ alone at that stage, it IS fully human by then. It exists on it's own merits and meets and exceeds all the animate life tests demanded of it and it has been shown to be above and beyond inanimate plantlike-life/growth status since the stages even before modern day pregnancy tests can confirm a woman is pregnant at all.

But the argument of it being life or not was never really the point with the pro-choice crowd, it's a diversionary debating tactic, simply to dispute the minute details of every aspect of human fetus growth pattern, the aim of the argument is to obfuscate and misdirect the attention of the debate to a non-issue really. Even when the facts are that their evidence is wrong, their conclusions are worse than misguided because they are based on lies and deception, it is irrelevant to them if their arguments are scientifically right or not, so long as they ‘sound’ valid they work. The words 'sound' convincing to the less well informed among us whom then 'concede' to them even a sliver of ground, even if nonsensical ground, but it is to them a chance to justify the killing of ‘any’ progeny whatsoever and thus, justify all elective abortions.


P.s., to those that say the government is too slow to verify early age fetus for approved abortions, that's nonsense. The abortionists already performs an ultrasound to confirm the age/size of the fetus minutes before performing each abortion now, nothing new whatsoever... Not that they care, they just need to confirm that the method they are about to try, to cut it up or whatnot, will work...

I can't argue very well against the RU486 morning after pill form of abortion because it stops the anticipated cystoblast from implanting successfully in the first place, but other than that, all the other forms of elective abortions kill a human life, plain and simple...

Here here!!

Not a good enough reason. The government in my opinion shouldnt allow it. They should only allow it before 8 weeks if there is a reason beyond personal prefernace. Just not wanting a child is not a good enough reason to end its existance. The government should examine each person who wants an abortion case by case and only let those have an abortion if they have a genuine need.But as you admit right here, that's your opinion. It would be irresponsible for governments to legislate solely on the opinions of people, especially if those opinions are not those of the majority. Certainly, morality does form a back-drop to many laws, but these tend to be the morals that permeate the culture and society at the time.

As far as I am aware, the majority of people in the UK still favour the legality of abortion, whether or not they actually like it. In the Republic of Ireland, a traditionally highly Catholic country, the most recent abortion amendment referendum was lost by something very small - I can't remember the exact figure, but it was something like 5%, which is a dramatic reduction from pro-life support in the prior abortion referendum. However, a slight majority are still against it and it has therefore not been legalised, which is fair enough. If and when the majority favour its legality, it will then be legalised, which is also fair enough - since that was the democratic decision.

That is not to say that minority opinions are irrelevant, but it's only fair in societal terms that important issues such as these are the result of democracy. Those with minority opinions have every right to express them in the majority of Western countries (and others, for that matter), and if their arguments are convincing enough, they can bring others round to their way of thinking and ultimately ensure that, if relevant, the manifestations of their opinions are legislated.

But as you admit right here, that's your opinion. It would be irresponsible for governments to legislate solely on the opinions of people, especially if those opinions are not those of the majority. Certainly, morality does form a back-drop to many laws, but these tend to be the morals that permeate the culture and society at the time.

As far as I am aware, the majority of people in the UK still favour the legality of abortion, whether or not they actually like it. In the Republic of Ireland, a traditionally highly Catholic country, the most recent abortion amendment referendum was lost by something very small - I can't remember the exact figure, but it was something like 5%, which is a dramatic reduction from pro-life support in the prior abortion referendum. However, a slight majority are still against it and it has therefore not been legalised, which is fair enough. If and when the majority favour its legality, it will then be legalised, which is also fair enough - since that was the democratic decision.

That is not to say that minority opinions are irrelevant, but it's only fair in societal terms that important issues such as these are the result of democracy. Those with minority opinions have every right to express them in the majority of Western countries (and others, for that matter), and if their arguments are convincing enough, they can bring others round to their way of thinking and ultimately ensure that, if relevant, the manifestations of their opinions are legislated.

Its not a good enough reason to deny someone existance because you "Dont want it to". Thats a fact. Abortion perhaps should be allowed before 8 weeks, but it should be restricted as much as possible on the grounds that it is a very serious decision as it ends the life of the embryo, which means effectively ending a human life. Not a demonstratably human life, but it is the earliest stage in human development. To say it is not so is not true. It is not up to us to legislate to allow a group of people who can decide about there own existance to have a mandate over a group of people who do not. That is not right

Its not a good enough reason to deny someone existance because you "Dont want it to". Thats a fact. Why is it a fact? Who, ultimately, decides what is right or wrong?

God? If so, do we legislate on the basis of the scripture, and forget the supposed separation of church and state?

Man? If so, which man?

All people? If so, our only choice is to make sure all people get their say.

Ultimately, no one can really prove their opinion is right or wrong, in this debate or any other. We can only prove what is scientifically testable, and that simply cannot include human subjectivity. Therefore, in forming the laws of our lands, the best we can hope to do is please a majority of people at any given time. There will always be people unhappy with law or convention x, but as the old saying goes "you can't please all of the people all of the time".

For one reason or another this thread has been stuck in my mind. I guess the thing that was eating at me was, "Why am I pro-choice?"

When I was pregnant with my son my entire family wanted me to get an abortion (except my grandpa who said I should give the baby up for adoption) because I was only 19 and the bio-donor was not going to be in the pic. I couldn't see carrying a pregnancy to full term when I wanted the child so much only to turn around and give the baby up for adoption... it would've driven me crazy. I fought them tooth and nail until one day, after serious badgering from my Dad, I almost gave in. I said, "Fine! I will!" and cried for two hours straight. After I dried my tears I announced, "I will have this baby with or without you guys.

Once they realized it was a losing battle, they rallied behind me and helped.

I only bring this up to demonstrate why I questioned myself. So, it got me thinking. No one can deny that a fetus is part of a pregnant woman's body. For anything done to a fetus, it must be done to the woman first. If somehow pregnancy was made compulsory, we are in every way saying that a woman has no right to her body.

I strongly believe that, once this happened, it would only be a matter of time before abortion is made compulsory. After all, consider the effect on population growth. When resources are scant, future minds are likely to consider compulsory abortions. After all, we already took the woman's right to her body away by making pregnancy compulsory. What's to stop it? Look at what has happened in China.

I'm going to throw the science out the window for a moment; I'm not well read in the subject so I'm not really in a position to give a valid opinion.

Law is my field of expertise. I'm also somewhat of a legal positivist. It is on that that I shall argue for abortion.

1) Law and morality are two separate things. Law is often based on morality but it would be foolish to say that all law is moral. Law may be manifestly immoral.

2) The common law system works on the principle that a person may do whatever they want so long as he is not told otherwise by law.

3) A government is free to legislate whatever it wants.

4) Killing a human (and I will assume that a zygote/fetus etc can be considered human) may be considered immoral but is not in itself illegal. A person who accidentally kills through no fault of their own is not committing an illegal act. Soldiers who kill are not committing illegal acts. Killing is only illegal in certain circumstances (which is not to say that most killing in peace time is not illegal).

5) Abortion is a legal killing and a person is free to do it in those circumstances that the law does not restrict them. It may be considered immoral by some but unless it is made illegal (as it has been in the past) people are entitled to do it.

The United States Government, point blank, does not have the right to tell american citizens what they can or cannot do with their bodies. This has been established time and again by court cases dating back to the 1870's. If the government does not have this right, then abortion legislation is unconstitutional.

"But what about the FDA and regulations of drugs?!" I hear people saying. The FDA regulates what a citizen can purchase, and possess. Likewise the government is not infringing your rights if they tell you that you cannot Drink/Have Sex/ Do drugs/Masterbate in public. They're not preventing you from doing what you want, they're just making it impossible for you to do it in public.

Any intoxication act that has nothing to do with public endangerment can be struck down by a higher court.

Thus, abortion cannot and will not be made illegal in the U.S.

My personal view is that abortion is murder, but it would be a greater evil to infringe on the rights of american citizens to do what they will with their bodies. In this decision we're caught between a rock and a hard place.

The argument for both sides is based on morals, and not everyone has the same opinion as everyone else. In fact no one has the same opinion as anyone else because opinions are based on experience and everyone has had different experience. The argument against abortion is often based on religion even though not everyone shares the same religion.

I understand that not everyone shares my morals. Because I am Buddhist, (I apologise if anyone is offended by upfront statements of religion, but I sort of need it for my argument) I am therefore not supposed to create suffering in any living being. For example, I am a vegetarian and will refuse to kill a spider on a wall because killing a spider is obviously going to create suffering in the spider. This does not mean that I am going to destroy anyone's right to eat meat or kill a spider.

I, myself, would not have an abortion for this reason. However, I acknowledge that not everyone has the same beliefs that I do. I am therefore pro-choice because not everyone shares my beliefs and may wish to have an abortion because by their own morals and situation it is not wrong.

The argument for both sides is based on morals, and not everyone has the same opinion as everyone else. In fact no one has the same opinion as anyone else because opinions are based on experience and everyone has had different experience. The argument against abortion is often based on religion even though not everyone shares the same religion.

I understand that not everyone shares my morals. Because I am Buddhist, (I apologise if anyone is offended by upfront statements of religion, but I sort of need it for my argument) I am therefore not supposed to create suffering in any living being. For example, I am a vegetarian and will refuse to kill a spider on a wall because killing a spider is obviously going to create suffering in the spider. This does not mean that I am going to destroy anyone's right to eat meat or kill a spider.

I, myself, would not have an abortion for this reason. However, I acknowledge that not everyone has the same beliefs that I do. I am therefore pro-choice because not everyone shares my beliefs and may wish to have an abortion because by their own morals and situation it is not wrong.

The United States Government, point blank, does not have the right to tell american citizens what they can or cannot do with their bodies. This has been established time and again by court cases dating back to the 1870's. If the government does not have this right, then abortion legislation is unconstitutional.

"But what about the FDA and regulations of drugs?!" I hear people saying. The FDA regulates what a citizen can purchase, and possess. Likewise the government is not infringing your rights if they tell you that you cannot Drink/Have Sex/ Do drugs/Masterbate in public. They're not preventing you from doing what you want, they're just making it impossible for you to do it in public.

Any intoxication act that has nothing to do with public endangerment can be struck down by a higher court.

Thus, abortion cannot and will not be made illegal in the U.S.

My personal view is that abortion is murder, but it would be a greater evil to infringe on the rights of american citizens to do what they will with their bodies. In this decision we're caught between a rock and a hard place.

Is it better to infringe on the rights of your body to save lives? I think so. Even if you dont, it is not for you to give people the right to kill those who may/may not think so. Have you asked the fetus if it would like to live or not. Obviously not because it cant answer. So does that mean then that we should not protect it? Of course not. Because it cannot protect itself, we must protect it.

Is it better to infringe on the rights of your body to save lives? I think so. Even if you dont, it is not for you to give people the right to kill those who may/may not think so. Have you asked the fetus if it would like to live or not. Obviously not because it cant answer. So does that mean then that we should not protect it? Of course not. Because it cannot protect itself, we must protect it.

Really? Why?
Do you go out offering protection to homeless, prostitutes, vicitms of abuse, drug addicts, etc? No? Well, why not? They obviously can't protect themselves...

Really? Why?
Do you go out offering protection to homeless, prostitutes, vicitms of abuse, drug addicts, etc? No? Well, why not? They obviously can't protect themselves...

You dont know me or what I do or who I help/support/offer aid to. Dont ever presume to.

You dont know me or what I do or who I help/support/offer aid to. Dont ever presume to.

Oops... sorry, I had no idea I was talking to the alter ego of Batman...

You dont know me or what I do or who I help/support/offer aid to. Dont ever presume to.
Well... to clarify so we can avoid further offence... do you do any of the things he asked?

The only way that you're going to get things like DOMA or abortion legislation passed is to ammend the constitution.

Congress does not have the power to legislate marriage, because it violates the seperation of church and state. If a church will marry two men or two women, then those persons should have the right to be married legally, and congress has no right to interfere.

Furthermore, the court has spoken about abortion. Roe V. Wade and the decisions on which that case was based say rather clearly that the government cannot interfere to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their body.

To make such things illegal, one will have to ammend the constitution, and because america is divided on this issue, that will never happen.

If you want to stop abortion, stop passing the buck to the government! If the church feels it's wrong, the church should do all that is legal to prevent it. Furthermore, legal abortion allows regulated abortion. We can say how, when, and where it happens. If it's illegal, the problems will be worse.

I hold my civil rights and civil liberties sacred. Your argument "Lives are better than rights," actually spits in the face of the soldiers who were sacrificed for our freedoms.

Yeah, they died for our rights, but wouldn't it be better if we'd not gone to war and saved lives and were all conquered by communists because we surrenderred like the French?

We sacrifice human lives constantly in the struggle for global freedom and democracy, and for one to say we should hold lives above rights, is to deny America's actions and foreign policy for the past century.

Hmm... interesting debate. I'd just like to point out that as I'm sitting looking at my med school lecture on embryology it states that "movements and sensory(touch) responses begin in the 8th week." Soo... for what that's worth. But one thing that I'd like to point out is that many of the arguments that allow for abortion would also justify the killing of an infant that has been born. Especially the convenience argument. What about a premature baby that can't live on it's own? Would it be morally permissable to let one die of exposure? I just really wonder what the real difference is between a 27 week baby that is inside the womb and one that is outside of it. In one case is a womans "choice" over her body to kill the fetus and in the other case it would be considered murder if the mother stabbed the baby in the brain. Most people can see this argument but why don't pro-choicers want to draw a line at some point in pregnancy? They pay lip service to the idea that abortion shouldn't occur and that it shouldn't occur late in pregnancy but oppose any legislation to stop late term abortions.
One other thing I'd like to weigh in on is the idea that an embryo is just a blob of tissue. This blob is one of the most highly organized and amazing structures in nature. (This would have to be said for all species of embryos) It is definately not part the mother's body but instead resides inside of it. I could go on but this is getting rather long so I'll just let it go at that. I don't know if this thread is still really alive anyway.

Perhaps you should read the opinions of most of the people in the thread. Pro-choicers often believe that a mother has a right to remove a fetus from her body, and if they fetus is capable of surviving once removed it should permitted to. Late-term abortions are usually to save the mother from death or severe suffering or the future child from the same. I am pro-choice and I do not support choice in abortion after brain activity begins except in the cases outlined above. This disproves your statement. NEXT!

I don't really understand how you can be pro-choice and not think that abortion is acceptable. You must think that it's a viable option so I think that honestly you are pro-abortion.

I mean, what would you say if I said that I thought that people molesting their children was wrong and I'm not for that but you know if they keep it in their family that is just fine with me. I mean they're big enough not only to have sex but to actually give birth and keep the child alive while they abuse it. I think in most camps that people would think that I'm for pedophilia and incest. But people want to say that people should have the choice to do something but that they're not for it... in fact they're against it but what right do they have to interfere? Well I'm against pedophilia and the north american man boy lovers association, and I think that I have a right to interfere in what they morally believe to be right.

I think tattooing your face is idiotic. Only complete losses to society do it, but I am pro-individual rights and not a hypocrite so I would advocate a law to stop face tattoos. Your argument is ridiculous. I don't believe we can tell people what to do with their bodies regardless of what it is. We cannot enslave women. At the same time, I would be very happy if not another abortion was ever gotten. If you see that as pro-abortion, then you really need to look the prefix pro-.

Can I gloat just a little bit that people are using the expression I made up? It makes me all giddy to see it on the screen, and makes me feel so cool at the same time. :D

Teehee :D

I've actually heard the term in RL. I'm not suggesting you pulled it from somewhere but it's not exactly difficult to come up with the term. I would bet that if you searched for it on this forum you'd find it used in other threads (though I didn't check). I'll give you this though, I had forgotten the term until you used it in this thread.

Another assumption? How do you know?

Sorry, I gotta call you on this one and he was responding to me. You're right in terms of connotation, but on denotation, he's right.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/suffer
intransitive senses
1 : to endure death, pain, or distress
2 : to sustain loss or damage
3 : to be subject to disability or handicap

However, one can definitely assume the dictionary intends this for an objective life. I doubt it would say my dying skin cells are suffering.

Yes we can. If I am not certian that a bomb blast that is safely being denotated has had the buliding completley evacuated yet, then I will not detonate it. Untill we can be sure that it is safe, we must make sure we protect.

That isn't legislating on "may be". That is legislating on "is". An explosion is objectively a danger to any human being in the blast-radius. Thus, not checking to make sure everyone is gone is endangering human lives.

Since you were one once, as was I, I think we can.

You were once a separate sperm and egg, as was I.

Not at all. It proves that it is part of the human life cycle. Scientificly it may not be a human, but morally it may be said to be so,

Morals are subjective.

The woman may be allowed an abortion but only if the government decides. That decision should be case by case, and should make the point that no abortion will be permited after 8 weeks.

And if a woman puts in her request at 6 weeks, but doesn't get an answer that it is ok until 12 weeks?

Just because we cant stop everything, doesnt mean we should sit back and do nothing

The problem is that the "fix" you are proposing would make more abortions happen after 8 weeks.

In this case it is. The only reason women have abortions in many cases is that they cant support the child.

Not really true, although that is sometimes the case.

Interesting. What is its purpose in life? If it's a boy baby, I mean. Obviously, following the trend of your argument in this thread, the purpose of girls is to be life-support machines for fetuses. But what are boys for?

I was extending his argument. I think that was patently obvious. He was arguing potential so I extended it back to the sperm and his claim that since a sperm can be prevented from reaching its potential with a condom that we could perform a similar procedure to prevent a baby from reaching potential and it would end his argument. The point is his argument could just as easily be applied to sperm and his line is arbitrary.

Actually, it is demonstrably alive insofar as it has its own, distinct DNA and is composed of living cells.

Sorry, my dear, but as we have discussed over and over and over and over again, those requirements are not enough to label something life. By the definition you have just given, cancer is its own life, chimeras are two lives, and twins are one life.

Most of your other statements I agree with however.

The first, I disagree with simply on opinion.

Thank you for proving my point, that the idea is merely opinion.

The second, the idea that the government is slow and unresponsive is a common misconception. For one example, look at the fire department, which (at least where I come from) is technically part of the government.

You don't have to put in paperwork to ask the fire department to come save your house, wait for a committee to decide whether or not your claim is warranted, and then have them come out and put out the fire. If you did, every house that ever caught on fire would burn down before they ever got there.

Avalon is proposing a system in which every woman (*all of them*) who wants an abortion must appeal to the government to decide her case. Something like that will take a very long time, especially as they build up back-logs.

It will be something like applying for a homestead exemption, something I recently did. You have to put in your request, it goes to one person, then to another, then someone checks you out to see if you meet the requirements, then it goes back to the first person who files it, then they finally let you know (if you're lucky). All in all, that process took about 6 months.

Lastly, taking one statement and twisting it so you can say it advocates socialism (or any other policy) is flawed logic, to say the least.

I didn't twist anything. The idea that the governemnt should step in and support individual citizens and provide all of their needs *is* socialism. Avalon suggested that the government should pay for all pre-natal care and all the needs of taking care of the child. That is, by definition, socialism.

I would not call a foetus a child. Mainly because it just doesn't feel like one. A baby is a baby, they cry, they're pink, they can exist on their own without being attached to their mother. You know, babies. Totally different things to foetuses.

I have provided several logical reasons to argue my point. You just refuse to accept them. And ridiculing someones arguement is sort of stupid. It is a valid series of points, like it or not. You disagree with them, thats fine. But that disagreement does not give you the right to say I am stupid or that my arguement is based on logical falacies.
They are circular arguments that require one to accept your position BEFORE considering your arguments valid. Anyone with any knowledge of a logical argument knows that you have to make arguments that are equally valid whether you already take your position or not. You haven't.

Now, let's examine some arguments you've rejecting in your, oh-so-objective manner.

Here's one:
Argument: Dem shows you the biological definition of a living organism that was created for scientific purposes with no consideration for abortion whatsoever, but instead for being able to identify separate living organisms from a single living organism (and various other types of identification).

Response: You claim it was argument made up specifically for falsifying your arguments (the hubris of this is unpalatable) and claim that your definition (which only serves the purpose in calling abortion baby-killing) and involves several circular arguments is objective.

Frankly, I'm surprised that we haven't as a group given up on you.

Dem., had been saying 12 weeks for ‘signs of life etc., , then she was shown evidence and data that displayed her argument was in error, and she conceded the error, but then she did not change her argument one wit.

Could that, just possibly, have something to do with the fact that my entire argument with Avalon has been about the embryo? Thus, we are still takling about things that occur before 8 weeks?

It is an attempt at trying to prove that the fetus is still nothing but plant-like cells at the time of most abortions, a cyst or cancer like parasite...

You haven't really been following the conversation, have you? I haven't said anything about a fetus. I have been talking about an embryo. Please read before you try and psychoanalyze me.

It turns out though that the nervous system and brain functions ARE measurable before and during the primary elective abortion range (9 weeks and before) ... I do NOT concede that the fetus is just ‘potential life’ alone at that stage, it IS fully human by then.

There is no fetus until 8 weeks.

But the argument of it being life or not was never really the point with the pro-choice crowd, it's a diversionary debating tactic, simply to dispute the minute details of every aspect of human fetus growth pattern, the aim of the argument is to obfuscate and misdirect the attention of the debate to a non-issue really. Even when the facts are that their evidence is wrong, their conclusions are worse than misguided because they are based on lies and deception, it is irrelevant to them if their arguments are scientifically right or not, so long as they ‘sound’ valid they work. The words 'sound' convincing to the less well informed among us whom then 'concede' to them even a sliver of ground, even if nonsensical ground, but it is to them a chance to justify the killing of ‘any’ progeny whatsoever and thus, justify all elective abortions.


MMMMMMMM, I love stereotyping!! Isn't it fun!!???

Let me try:

The pro-life crowd never cared about women or embryos or children. They all just want to punish the "dirty whores" for having sex. Therefore, they don't need any argument at all, they just argue that the woman should "keep her legs closed" and it is good that her health and life may be in danger since she "chose to have sex."

You know, it really isn't as enjoyable as you make it look. After all, I know that this isn't the case. Ah well.

P.s., to those that say the government is too slow to verify early age fetus for approved abortions, that's nonsense.

P.S. Once again you demonstrate that you don't actually read what is being said. No one said that the government is too slow to verify an age. If that were being touted as the only requirement, no paperwork would be necessary at all until after the procedure.

I can't argue very well against the RU486 morning after pill form of abortion because it stops the anticipated cystoblast from implanting successfully in the first place, but other than that, all the other forms of elective abortions kill a human life, plain and simple...

Wow, and you are calling us uninformed? RU486 is not the morning after pill. It is an abortion pill. It causes a miscarriage of an already implanted embryo. The morning after pill does block implantation.

Of course, you are being incredibly inconsistent. Why does life begin at conception and not fertilization?

I didn't twist anything. The idea that the governemnt should step in and support individual citizens and provide all of their needs *is* socialism. Avalon suggested that the government should pay for all pre-natal care and all the needs of taking care of the child. That is, by definition, socialism.

Avalon II is in support of greatly increasing the power of government, including the goverment forcing people to undergo living organ donation to save the lives of others. Scary stuff.

Dem., had been saying 12 weeks for ‘signs of life etc., , then she was shown evidence and data that displayed her argument was in error, and she conceded the error, but then she did not change her argument one wit. When she found out that the fetus does move and does respond to stimuli at 7 and 8 weeks, it has no affect on her posting methodology argument at all, because the argument used doesn’t need to be ‘right’ it only wants to ‘win. It is an attempt at trying to prove that the fetus is still nothing but plant-like cells at the time of most abortions, a cyst or cancer like parasite... The argument is used even when it is shown to be wrong because there is NO other argument for them to take.

It turns out though that the nervous system and brain functions ARE measurable before and during the primary elective abortion range (9 weeks and before) ... I do NOT concede that the fetus is just ‘potential life’ alone at that stage, it IS fully human by then. It exists on it's own merits and meets and exceeds all the animate life tests demanded of it and it has been shown to be above and beyond inanimate plantlike-life/growth status since the stages even before modern day pregnancy tests can confirm a woman is pregnant at all.

But the argument of it being life or not was never really the point with the pro-choice crowd, it's a diversionary debating tactic, simply to dispute the minute details of every aspect of human fetus growth pattern, the aim of the argument is to obfuscate and misdirect the attention of the debate to a non-issue really. Even when the facts are that their evidence is wrong, their conclusions are worse than misguided because they are based on lies and deception, it is irrelevant to them if their arguments are scientifically right or not, so long as they ‘sound’ valid they work. The words 'sound' convincing to the less well informed among us whom then 'concede' to them even a sliver of ground, even if nonsensical ground, but it is to them a chance to justify the killing of ‘any’ progeny whatsoever and thus, justify all elective abortions.


P.s., to those that say the government is too slow to verify early age fetus for approved abortions, that's nonsense. The abortionists already performs an ultrasound to confirm the age/size of the fetus minutes before performing each abortion now, nothing new whatsoever... Not that they care, they just need to confirm that the method they are about to try, to cut it up or whatnot, will work...

I can't argue very well against the RU486 morning after pill form of abortion because it stops the anticipated cystoblast from implanting successfully in the first place, but other than that, all the other forms of elective abortions kill a human life, plain and simple...

And pro-lifers have no argument against the fact that, person or not, the woman has the right to have it removed from inside her body.

Here here!!

I believe you mean "hear, hear", as in, telling others to listen, not to come closer.

What's my excuse/defense? Let's see here, my post three posts above your personal attack on Avalon post, that's a decent enough defense post for here, for arguing and providing evidence that validates many of Avalon's statements anyway, and additionally for showing that one side is being more 'correct/honest' in this discussion than the other side is when it comes to describing the condition of the pre-born during the predominate abortion age/phase as performed in elective abortions...




Yes you did. Only now you're trying to pretend you were 'only trying to help' so other people don't think you are big meanie... :p :rolleyes:

You responded to one poster. Is Dem 'the other side'? I thought there was a group of us. Or would you like us to hold you responsible for Avalon's post?

Also, as Dem pointed out, we are arguing with Avalon about embryos, so it doesn't really change the argument. I will admit, though, that after reading your post, you proved your point about the 8-week stage.

Now, since many of us have stated repeatedly that we don't support, in other than dire circumstances, choice after brain activity begins, your argument about us being dishonest isn't very accurate, now is it? One might even consider it dishonest. Kind of kicks your point right in the butt, huh? Nice job. Particularly when the only poster you corrected conceded the point. Now would you care to concede the point that prior to 8 weeks the embryo cannot be determined objectively to be separate living human being?

I'm going to throw the science out the window for a moment; I'm not well read in the subject so I'm not really in a position to give a valid opinion.

Law is my field of expertise. I'm also somewhat of a legal positivist. It is on that that I shall argue for abortion.

1) Law and morality are two separate things. Law is often based on morality but it would be foolish to say that all law is moral. Law may be manifestly immoral.

2) The common law system works on the principle that a person may do whatever they want so long as he is not told otherwise by law.

3) A government is free to legislate whatever it wants.

4) Killing a human (and I will assume that a zygote/fetus etc can be considered human) may be considered immoral but is not in itself illegal. A person who accidentally kills through no fault of their own is not committing an illegal act. Soldiers who kill are not committing illegal acts. Killing is only illegal in certain circumstances (which is not to say that most killing in peace time is not illegal).

5) Abortion is a legal killing and a person is free to do it in those circumstances that the law does not restrict them. It may be considered immoral by some but unless it is made illegal (as it has been in the past) people are entitled to do it.

Oh cool, you're a lawyer? We've had experts in biology and experts in, uh... religion arguing, but nobody said to have a deep understanding of the law yet. :D

Avalon II is in support of greatly increasing the power of government, including the goverment forcing people to undergo living organ donation to save the lives of others. Scary stuff.

Yeah, very scary. And the funny thing is that I don't find it scary in principle - I would gladly give a kidney to someone or a piece of my liver to a child or some of my bone marrow to a leukemia patient, and I regularly give blood.

The scary thing is the idea that Avalon wants to force people to do these things.

The argument for both sides is based on morals
-snip-

How is the pro-choice argument based on morals? I'm basing mine on civil rights.

Is it better to infringe on the rights of your body to save lives? I think so. Even if you dont, it is not for you to give people the right to kill those who may/may not think so. Have you asked the fetus if it would like to live or not. Obviously not because it cant answer. So does that mean then that we should not protect it? Of course not. Because it cannot protect itself, we must protect it.

Your thinking so doesn't make it right (or legal) to infringe on other people's rights.

I hold my civil rights and civil liberties sacred. Your argument "Lives are better than rights," actually spits in the face of the soldiers who were sacrificed for our freedoms.

I just think this needs to be repeated for emphasis. :D

You should be happy to learn that 59% of all abortions in the US occur within 8 weeks gestation. And abortions are increasingly earlier in gestation.
It turns out though that the nervous system and brain functions ARE measurable before and during the primary elective abortion range (9 weeks and before)

False. You just agreed with TCT that 59% of abortions are performed before brain functions are measurable. So the primary elective abortion range is not what you said it was. Unless, you're arguing that most abortions are also 9 weeks and before, because then we could just say that nearly 100% of abortions happen at 40 weeks and before and since a fetus is usually viable before 40 weeks, we are killing fully grown babies. But that would be an attemt to "obfuscate and misdirect the attention" with a conclusion that is "worse than misguided because [it is] based on lies and deception. It is irrevelant to [you] if your arguments are scientifically right or not, so long as they 'sound' valid, they work. The words 'sound' convincing to the less well informed among us whom then 'concede' to them even a sliver of ground, even if nonsensical ground, but it is to them a chance to justify" denying rights to control one's bodies to women. Amazing how easy it is to apply your statement and prove you did it by quoting you.

The aim of the argument is to obfuscate and misdirect the attention of the debate to a non-issue really. Even when the facts are that their evidence is wrong, their conclusions are worse than misguided because they are based on lies and deception, it is irrelevant to them if their arguments are scientifically right or not, so long as they ‘sound’ valid they work. The words 'sound' convincing to the less well informed among us whom then 'concede' to them even a sliver of ground, even if nonsensical ground, but it is to them a chance to justify [confusing children about what science actually is by teaching non-science in a science classroom]

There. I corrected your statement to make it true.

I've actually heard the term in RL. I'm not suggesting you pulled it from somewhere but it's not exactly difficult to come up with the term. I would bet that if you searched for it on this forum you'd find it used in other threads (though I didn't check). I'll give you this though, I had forgotten the term until you used it in this thread.

Yeah, but it still makes me giddy. (And, no, I hadn't seen it anywhere before)

I was extending his argument. I think that was patently obvious. He was arguing potential so I extended it back to the sperm and his claim that since a sperm can be prevented from reaching its potential with a condom that we could perform a similar procedure to prevent a baby from reaching potential and it would end his argument. The point is his argument could just as easily be applied to sperm and his line is arbitrary.
Sorry about that -- I got so caught up in the giddy pace that I thought I was responding to a statement of Avalon's. My bad.

Sorry about that -- I got so caught up in the giddy pace that I thought I was responding to a statement of Avalon's. My bad.

Then I did it right, because it was supposed to emulate him to show him that the point that Dem makes fairly eloquently, that if you define something a particular way you have to show that this new definition conincides with the restrictions you claim it has.

If unique DNA defines life then chimeras are two human lives in one body.

If potential is an argument for protection then birth control should be equally illegal.

I'm going to throw the science out the window for a moment; I'm not well read in the subject so I'm not really in a position to give a valid opinion.

Law is my field of expertise. I'm also somewhat of a legal positivist. It is on that that I shall argue for abortion.

1) Law and morality are two separate things. Law is often based on morality but it would be foolish to say that all law is moral. Law may be manifestly immoral.

2) The common law system works on the principle that a person may do whatever they want so long as he is not told otherwise by law.

3) A government is free to legislate whatever it wants.

4) Killing a human (and I will assume that a zygote/fetus etc can be considered human) may be considered immoral but is not in itself illegal. A person who accidentally kills through no fault of their own is not committing an illegal act. Soldiers who kill are not committing illegal acts. Killing is only illegal in certain circumstances (which is not to say that most killing in peace time is not illegal).

5) Abortion is a legal killing and a person is free to do it in those circumstances that the law does not restrict them. It may be considered immoral by some but unless it is made illegal (as it has been in the past) people are entitled to do it.
Oh thank god, a lawyer!! :D Welcome.

Finally, another person, with more authority than me, to argue the legal killing angle. I've been saying all along that, even if we accept that abortion means the killing of a human, it occurs under circumstances that give a person (the woman) the right to do that, and that it is one of several circumstances in which society considers the killing of a human justified.

You will find that this argument will be countered (unsuccessfully, imo, but often) with a blanket denial that such justification exists, and with the "potentiality" argument which says that, because the fetus may become a person, its rights trump the already existing woman's rights, even though the fetus itself cannot exercise any rights. I actually don't see how "potentiality" counters the legal killing argument, but it's been the coin of the realm in this thread.

Then I did it right, because it was supposed to emulate him to show him that the point that Dem makes fairly eloquently, that if you define something a particular way you have to show that this new definition conincides with the restrictions you claim it has.

If unique DNA defines life then chimeras are two human lives in one body.

If potential is an argument for protection then birth control should be equally illegal.
Your point is excellent (now that I understand it ;) ), and in fact, I had brought the contraception angle up to him earlier. He denies that he is, or should be, opposed to contraception on the grounds that it's okay to prevent an embryo from developing but it's not okay to interrupt its development. As you say, this is clearly undermined by his own potentiality argument.

I'm going to tell a story. I get the impression that many people who come to debate these things have never known anyone who had an abortion. They like to think that every woman that does so is some sort of callous, uncaring, evil slut. I think it makes them feel better. So I am going to tell the story of a friend of mine.

She was 17 and already engaged. We could talk all day about what a bad idea that was, but it seemed right at the time. Her parents thought it was great. They loved the guy (and so did she. Even a couple of years later, when I first met her, she still had feelings for him). He was 23 or 24, finishing up his junior year in college as she was finishiing up her senior year in high school. She was admitted to the same college he was going to and they had plans to move in together and get married once he graduated and got a job. They were sexually active, careful, but not as careful as they could have been - they were engaged after all.

Then, she found out she was pregnant. Even before talking to him, she agonized over it. Her first instinct was, "I'm 17 and just about to start college! I can't have a baby now!" She talked it over with close friends. As she did so, she realized that everything would be fine. They would get married a little earlier. He was going to graduate and get a job soon so they would have money. She could study at a slower pace to have more time to take care of a child. They were going to have a family one day anyways - they would just start a little early.

Decision in hand, she went to talk to him. She thought he would be shocked, but overall happy about the news - about their new family member on the way. Well, apparently he was shocked, so shocked, in fact, that the truth fell out of his mouth. His answer to her information that she was pregnant was: "I don't think we should tell people we're together anymore. I have been sleeping with someone else for a while now."

Needless to say, the engagement was off. She through the ring at his head (hitting him squarely between the eyes, apparently) and stormed out of his apartment.

Well, now she was in a very different situation. She wasn't going to marry this guy, and she didn't want him near her. He made his choice when he cheated. She started examining the possibilities. Adoption entered her mind, but she believes it to be immoral to bring a child into the world with the purpose of putting it up for adoption. She thought about dropping out of school altogether and dealing with her job waiting tables - but her wages there weren't enough to support even herself, much less two people. She thought about moving in with a lesbian friend of hers who fears she will never have children, and raising the child together, but that didn't seem feasible, especially since she would eventually move away from her friend. She thought about what it would be like to try and raise a child that belonged to the man who had betrayed her. Would she be able to love that child as much as she would the child of another man? Would she resent it? She truly agonized over the decision, and finally came to the conclusion that the most responsible thing for her to do was to have an abortion.

But her troubles weren't over yet. She was 17, not yet old enough to get an abortion on her own. Her parents had to sign for it. When she informed her parents of her decision, one of them freaked out, essentially kicking her out of the house. The other sent her to another doctor, although she had already been seen by one, in order to get a second opinion (as if pregnancy tests from a doctor are often incorrect. The parent then told her that her decision was wrong, but it was her decision. The paperwork got signed, she had an abortion.

Her troubles still weren't over. She couldn't live at home with one parent refusing to even be in the same house with her, so she had to find another place to live (luckily with some financial support from her parents). Her ex sent a letter full of lies to her mother, calling her a slut and whore (although she had slept with no one but him), and suggesting that maybe he hadn't even gotten her pregnant.

Between the breakup of her engagement, the problems with her parents, the stress of starting at college, and the mental strain of the abortion, she became severely medically depressed. She had to be medicated, go into therapy, and drop out of all of her classes in her first semester of college. It was too late to simply drop them, so she had to take the C's and F's that she received. It took her a good year to really get back on her feet and stable, unmedicated.

Looking back on it now, she still feels that she made the right decision - that her decision was the most responsible thing she could do. Since then, she has been on the birth control pill and has used several methods of contraception in her relationships. Even so, she does think about the "what ifs", the "what might have been". She wonders whether her child would have been a boy or a girl, and what he/she might look like now. I have comforted her on Mother's Day, when she cried like a baby.

The decision to abort is not a snap-decision. It is not an easy decision. It is not "Oh look, I'm pregnant. No big deal, I'll just go get an abortion!" It is a struggle - and it is something that affects you for the rest of your life. You may not agree with her decision, I don't. But it wasn't an easy one for her to make. And while I don't agree that she did the most responsible thing, I can respect her for trying to do the most responsible thing, and for having the strength to do it when she thought she had figured it out.

If unique DNA defines life then chimeras are two human lives in one body.

As I have said. Unique DNA from the parent


If potential is an argument for protection then birth control should be equally illegal.

No, because sperm and eggs are not on the human life cycle. They only start on the human life cycle once they have fertialised one another. If you have a sperm, it will remain a sperm if you leave it in its natural enviroment. If you have an embryo, it will develop and grow if left in its natural enviroment.

As I have said. Unique DNA from the parent

So a cloned embryo is not a person?

No, because sperm and eggs are not on the human life cycle. They only start on the human life cycle once they have fertialised one another.

That's rather arbitrary. Why?

If you have a sperm, it will remain a sperm if you leave it in its natural enviroment.

Again with this "natural environment" crap. It is perfectly natural for a sperm to be ejaculated into the vagina and to swim up towards an egg. Thus, being in position to fertilize an egg is a sperm's "natural environment".

I'm going to tell a story. I get the impression that many people who come to debate these things have never known anyone who had an abortion. They like to think that every woman that does so is some sort of callous, uncaring, evil slut. I think it makes them feel better. So I am going to tell the story of a friend of mine.

She was 17 and already engaged. We could talk all day about what a bad idea that was, but it seemed right at the time. Her parents thought it was great. They loved the guy (and so did she. Even a couple of years later, when I first met her, she still had feelings for him). He was 23 or 24, finishing up his junior year in college as she was finishiing up her senior year in high school. She was admitted to the same college he was going to and they had plans to move in together and get married once he graduated and got a job. They were sexually active, careful, but not as careful as they could have been - they were engaged after all.

Then, she found out she was pregnant. Even before talking to him, she agonized over it. Her first instinct was, "I'm 17 and just about to start college! I can't have a baby now!" She talked it over with close friends. As she did so, she realized that everything would be fine. They would get married a little earlier. He was going to graduate and get a job soon so they would have money. She could study at a slower pace to have more time to take care of a child. They were going to have a family one day anyways - they would just start a little early.

Decision in hand, she went to talk to him. She thought he would be shocked, but overall happy about the news - about their new family member on the way. Well, apparently he was shocked, so shocked, in fact, that the truth fell out of his mouth. His answer to her information that she was pregnant was: "I don't think we should tell people we're together anymore. I have been sleeping with someone else for a while now."

Needless to say, the engagement was off. She through the ring at his head (hitting him squarely between the eyes, apparently) and stormed out of his apartment.

Well, now she was in a very different situation. She wasn't going to marry this guy, and she didn't want him near her. He made his choice when he cheated. She started examining the possibilities. Adoption entered her mind, but she believes it to be immoral to bring a child into the world with the purpose of putting it up for adoption. She thought about dropping out of school altogether and dealing with her job waiting tables - but her wages there weren't enough to support even herself, much less two people. She thought about moving in with a lesbian friend of hers who fears she will never have children, and raising the child together, but that didn't seem feasible, especially since she would eventually move away from her friend. She thought about what it would be like to try and raise a child that belonged to the man who had betrayed her. Would she be able to love that child as much as she would the child of another man? Would she resent it? She truly agonized over the decision, and finally came to the conclusion that the most responsible thing for her to do was to have an abortion.

But her troubles weren't over yet. She was 17, not yet old enough to get an abortion on her own. Her parents had to sign for it. When she informed her parents of her decision, one of them freaked out, essentially kicking her out of the house. The other sent her to another doctor, although she had already been seen by one, in order to get a second opinion (as if pregnancy tests from a doctor are often incorrect. The parent then told her that her decision was wrong, but it was her decision. The paperwork got signed, she had an abortion.

Her troubles still weren't over. She couldn't live at home with one parent refusing to even be in the same house with her, so she had to find another place to live (luckily with some financial support from her parents). Her ex sent a letter full of lies to her mother, calling her a slut and whore (although she had slept with no one but him), and suggesting that maybe he hadn't even gotten her pregnant.

Between the breakup of her engagement, the problems with her parents, the stress of starting at college, and the mental strain of the abortion, she became severely medically depressed. She had to be medicated, go into therapy, and drop out of all of her classes in her first semester of college. It was too late to simply drop them, so she had to take the C's and F's that she received. It took her a good year to really get back on her feet and stable, unmedicated.

Looking back on it now, she still feels that she made the right decision - that her decision was the most responsible thing she could do. Since then, she has been on the birth control pill and has used several methods of contraception in her relationships. Even so, she does think about the "what ifs", the "what might have been". She wonders whether her child would have been a boy or a girl, and what he/she might look like now. I have comforted her on Mother's Day, when she cried like a baby.

The decision to abort is not a snap-decision. It is not an easy decision. It is not "Oh look, I'm pregnant. No big deal, I'll just go get an abortion!" It is a struggle - and it is something that affects you for the rest of your life. You may not agree with her decision, I don't. But it wasn't an easy one for her to make. And while I don't agree that she did the most responsible thing, I can respect her for trying to do the most responsible thing, and for having the strength to do it when she thought she had figured it out.

Stop trying to use emotion to win people over to your side. The fact is she punished the embryo for something the man did to her. That is not right. How on earth is it the embryo's fault for the position she is in. It may be a hard and difficult thing to have a child, but its worse to kill the child. Much worse. You dont murder someone becuase you cannot support yourself. As for her belief that it is morally wrong to bring a child into the world for the sole purpose of giving it up for adoption surely it is more wrong to kill said child. I am sorry for what your friend had to go through but I still refuse to agree that what she did was right or responable.

So a cloned embryo is not a person?

Stop taking this out of context. A cloned embryo has no mother. It is not created in the same way. And it is an indvidual entity


That's rather arbitrary. Why?

Again with this "natural environment" crap. It is perfectly natural for a sperm to be ejaculated into the vagina and to swim up towards an egg. Thus, being in position to fertilize an egg is a sperm's "natural environment".

It is natural yes, but whilst it is in that natural enviroment of swiming up the tube it is still a sperm. It is not developing or changing as an embryo does while it is getting there. That is rather like saying that when you are taking a car to the crushers, while you are towing it there it is slowly getting crushed.

Stop trying to use emotion to win people over to your side.
....
.......
.........
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! WOOOoooo...
Please. You're one to talk. All anti-abortionists have to oppose us is emotional arguments. You can even see it in your paragraph.


The fact is she punished the embryo for something the man did to her.
That is not right. How on earth is it the embryo's fault for the position she is in. It may be a hard and difficult thing to have a child, but its worse to kill the child. Much worse. You dont murder someone becuase you cannot support yourself. As for her belief that it is morally wrong to bring a child into the world for the sole purpose of giving it up for adoption surely it is more wrong to kill said child. I am sorry for what your friend had to go through but I still refuse to agree that what she did was right or responable.

C'mon man, stop with the bull. You stop using emotionally charged terms, then you can tell us to stop.

As for the content of your paragraph, please. You can't kill what isn't yet life. And it IS the embryo's fault, in a way: She wouldn't be in such a bind if the embryo didn't exsist.

Stop trying to use emotion to win people over to your side. The fact is she punished the embryo for something the man did to her. That is not right. How on earth is it the embryo's fault for the position she is in. It may be a hard and difficult thing to have a child, but its worse to kill the child. Much worse. You dont murder someone becuase you cannot support yourself. As for her belief that it is morally wrong to bring a child into the world for the sole purpose of giving it up for adoption surely it is more wrong to kill said child. I am sorry for what your friend had to go through but I still refuse to agree that what she did was right or responable.

Fine, you'll never agree that it's right or responsible. Then don't ever do it. Do your best to convince the women you know not to do it. But don't presume to legislate on what you think is right.

As an evangelical christian, you probably also find pre-marital sex to be wrong and irresponsible, but that doesn't mean the government should make it illegal.

....
.......
.........
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! WOOOoooo...
Please. You're one to talk. All anti-abortionists have to oppose us is emotional arguments. You can even see it in your paragraph.

C'mon man, stop with the bull. You stop using emotionally charged terms, then you can tell us to stop.

Excuse me, but kill and murder are not emotionally charged words.


As for the content of your paragraph, please. You can't kill what isn't yet life.

Were you not one once? And are you not a life form. It is only "not alive" in so far as one of the strands of the definition goes. And that definiton is the same one which is being debated about virus's. If your now going to say "Do you consider embryo's no more alive than virus's thus abortion is equivlent to using anti-viral drugs" I would say no because it is a human, not a virus. A human life is far more important than a virus life. It may be no more alive than a virus but not being a virus makes it diffrent.

Fine, you'll never agree that it's right or responsible. Then don't ever do it. Do your best to convince the women you know not to do it. But don't presume to legislate on what you think is right.

We dont have the right to play God with the life of the Child. Which do you think is worse. The woman being pregnant, or the embryo being dead. You may think the former, and I believe that thought is disgusting but you are entitled to. However you do not have the right to make that decision for the embryo as to whether it lives or dies. We do not have that right to play God. You seem to be saying "let people decide there own morals" as if there own morals in this case exist in a vaccum. Its not just the woman the decision affects. The embryo is affected too. Allowing her to make that decision as if she is in a vaccum is wrong. To say it is fair to allow people to have abortions because "its their own morallity and values/dont force your values on others" is like saying that Islamic fundimentalists have the right to kill all non-muslims in America, Europe and indeed the world because their morals tell them it is ok.


As an evangelical christian, you probably also find pre-marital sex to be wrong and irresponsible, but that doesn't mean the government should make it illegal.

Pre-marital sex does exist in a vaccum. The only ones affected are the people having sex. As long as it is consentual obviously.

Excuse me, but kill and murder are not emotionally charged words.
HAH!
Yes, they are. Go to someone and say the following two sentences:
"I killed/murdered my baby."
"I aborted my fetus."
Which one would make someone cringe worse? Kill and murder have a connotation of purposeful, illegal, violence.



Were you not one once?
Course. And I wasn't alive yet.
And are you not a life form.
Yes, because my neural system is developed and I can respond to stimuli.
It is only "not alive" in so far as one of the strands of the definition goes.
The only scientifically acceptable one.
And that definiton is the same one which is being debated about virus's. If your now going to say "Do you consider embryo's no more alive than virus's thus abortion is equivlent to using anti-viral drugs" I would say no because it is a human, not a virus.
I would equate an embryo more to a colony of bacteria, actually, with the POTENTIAL of life, nothing more. Virii are a totally different case due to some rather odd traits.

A human life is far more important than a virus life. It may be no more alive than a virus but not being a virus makes it diffrent.
It's less alive than a virus: Virii can respond to stimuli. A human embryo cannot. Response to stimuli is an essential part of being alive.

Excuse me, but kill and murder are not emotionally charged words.

Depending on the context, yes, they are. As is calling "child" and "baby" something that is neither.

Stop trying to use emotion to win people over to your side.

I'm not doing any such thing. I am simply demonstrating that their attempts to portray women who have abortions are all super-sluts with no regard to the consequences of her actions are false.

*snip a bunch of hypocritical emotional vitriol*

Way to make it obvious that you missed the point. Not to mention how hypocritical it is since you just tried to bash me for what you say as "using emotion to try to win people over to my side."

Of course, if you had read anything I said, you would realize that I don't agree with her decision. Thus, my "side" has nothing to do with it.

I am sorry for what your friend had to go through but I still refuse to agree that what she did was right or responable.

And what you fail to see is that I didn't ask you to agree with that. In fact, I specifically said that *I* don't agree with it. Again, your lack of reading comprehension is truly scary.

Stop taking this out of context. A cloned embryo has no mother. It is not created in the same way. And it is an indvidual entity

If it gets implanted in a woman with the purpose of creating another person, it absolutely has a mother. That it is not created in the same way is irrelevant. It is on the same "path".

It is natural yes, but whilst it is in that natural enviroment of swiming up the tube it is still a sperm. It is not developing or changing as an embryo does while it is getting there. That is rather like saying that when you are taking a car to the crushers, while you are towing it there it is slowly getting crushed.

The development path of a sperm:

A sperm starts out as a diploid cell. This cell then replicates its DNA and then splits twice, creating four haploid cells. Two of these (IIRC) become sperm. This haploid cell develops in the testes, gaining a flagellum and the proteins it will need to sense the signals given off by an egg in a female body. Once it is fully developed, it is ejaculated into a female vagina, where it begins to swim. It is helped along by "helper cells" and evnentually responds to the chemical signals put out by the egg. It swims towards the egg, penetrates its protective outer layer, and fuses with it. The fused cells are then a zygote, a totipotent cell which then begins to divide..........

This is a continuous process, my dear.

Excuse me, but kill and murder are not emotionally charged words.

You have got to be kidding, right? This is a joke?

We dont have the right to play God with the life of the Child. Which do you think is worse. The woman being pregnant, or the embryo being dead. You may think the former, and I believe that thought is disgusting but you are entitled to.

As I think it's disgusting that you think women deserve no more rights that a machine, but it's your right to think whatever you want.

However you do not have the right to make that decision for the embryo as to whether it lives or dies.

Neither do you. Neither does the government. The only people that have that right are God (if such creature exists) and the woman carrying the embryo. Might I remind you that even according to your mythology, God gave the woman Mary the choice to bear His son or not, and she accepted it. It was never forced on her. You should take His lead.

We do not have that right to play God. You seem to be saying "let people decide there own morals" as if there own morals in this case exist in a vaccum. Its not just the woman the decision affects. The embryo is affected too.

No one is saying the embryo isn't affected. I believe I've stated time and again that it's unfortunate that we don't have yet the technology to keep embryos alive outside the womb, but the woman's rights to her own body come first.

Allowing her to make that decision as if she is in a vaccum is wrong.

I don't believe she would. She would consider the possibilities. But what you're saying is not that "she can't make decisions in a vacuum", but that she can't make a decision at all!

To say it is fair to allow people to have abortions because "its their own morallity and values/dont force your values on others" is like saying that Islamic fundimentalists have the right to kill all non-muslims in America, Europe and indeed the world because their morals tell them it is ok.

If those non-muslims are inside the muslims' bodies, yes, they can kill them.

I'm not doing any such thing. I am simply demonstrating that their attempts to portray women who have abortions are all super-sluts with no regard to the consequences of her actions are false..

Since I nor anyone else debaing here has said that women who have aboritons are super sluts, your point is moot.


Way to make it obvious that you missed the point. Not to mention how hypocritical it is since you just tried to bash me for what you say as "using emotion to try to win people over to my side."

Of course, if you had read anything I said, you would realize that I don't agree with her decision. Thus, my "side" has nothing to do with it.

And what you fail to see is that I didn't ask you to agree with that. In fact, I specifically said that *I* don't agree with it. Again, your lack of reading comprehension is truly scary.

You believe she was right in being able to do it though, and your asking me to believe its right that she was able to.


If it gets implanted in a woman with the purpose of creating another person, it absolutely has a mother. That it is not created in the same way is irrelevant. It is on the same "path".

Fine. Had individual DNA at one time, seing as how cloning works by removing the nuclus of the earliest forming of the embryo and then replacing it with another one.


The development path of a sperm:

A sperm starts out as a diploid cell. This cell then replicates its DNA and then splits twice, creating four haploid cells. Two of these (IIRC) become sperm. This haploid cell develops in the testes, gaining a flagellum and the proteins it will need to sense the signals given off by an egg in a female body. Once it is fully developed, it is ejaculated into a female vagina, where it begins to swim. It is helped along by "helper cells" and evnentually responds to the chemical signals put out by the egg. It swims towards the egg, penetrates its protective outer layer, and fuses with it. The fused cells are then a zygote, a totipotent cell which then begins to divide..........

This is a continuous process, my dear.

Firstly, do not patronise me. I have seen you do that to several other people in the past and it does not help your case. I am not your dear. If you continue on that route I will report you for flaming. Secondly that development path is not the developnment path of a human so your point is moot. It is not ever anything other than a sperm. The only time it is not a sperm is when it reaches the egg and fertialsises it, where it becomes a human. An embryo on the other hand will become a fetus, will become a child, will become an adult. Hence the development path it is on is clearly human. The fact that it is on this path is hence enough reason for it to be legally protected.

this thread sucks qite arguing such useless babble and go back to what ever you believe and quit forcing people one way or another. If abortons bother you just ignore them It will not effect you When someone who you do not realy know has an abortion so quit worring about what other people are doing and work on your self

Fine. Had individual DNA at one time, seing as how cloning works by removing the nuclus of the earliest forming of the embryo and then replacing it with another one.

A biologist correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the nucleus removed from an egg? Not an embryo.

As I think it's disgusting that you think women deserve no more rights that a machine, but it's your right to think whatever you want.

Neither do you. Neither does the government. The only people that have that right are God (if such creature exists) and the woman carrying the embryo. Might I remind you that even according to your mythology, God gave the woman Mary the choice to bear His son or not, and she accepted it. It was never forced on her. You should take His lead.

Firstly, no she doesnt. No one has the right to play god with anyones live. What gives her that right. Why is her debillitation and life alteration worse than the embryo's life termination.


No one is saying the embryo isn't affected. I believe I've stated time and again that it's unfortunate that we don't have yet the technology to keep embryos alive outside the womb, but the woman's rights to her own body come first.

What your effectively saying here is "untill we have the technology so that we dont have to, it is right to kill people". So far you have cited no presecent for the reason why the womans right to body is so important. I however have presecent for the embryos rights being important since we already outlaw murder. You have no good reason like I do as to why she should be able to control her body that I have seen yet. Just that she should. It is no extention of another rule or right. You are making a special case here where there is no cause for one.


I don't believe she would. She would consider the possibilities. But what you're saying is not that "she can't make decisions in a vacuum", but that she can't make a decision at all!

No, she cant. Because it is not in a vaccum. It is not just her that that decision effects. It is the child. You say "the mother should have the right to choose because it affects her body" but it also affects the embryo, and to a far greater extent. Now since we have no way to know if it wants to be alive or not we must allow it to live.


If those non-muslims are inside the muslims' bodies, yes, they can kill them.

Ok so now your only reason why its right to kill humans is if those humans are in someone elses body. That seems rediculous.

Piekrom']this thread sucks qite arguing such useless babble and go back to what ever you believe and quit forcing people one way or another. If abortons bother you just ignore them It will not effect you When someone who you do not realy know has an abortion so quit worring about what other people are doing and work on your self

If you don't like a thread, don't post on it.

A biologist correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the nucleus removed from an egg? Not an embryo.

No its the embryo, becuase at that point it is only half the DNA needed. You cannot clone like that because you would have to have the person's mother you are cloning's egg cells and the fathers sperm cells. But these change all the time anyway and have diffrent combinations of the sets of genes in so no, it wouldnt work.

Since I nor anyone else debaing here has said that women who have aboritons are super sluts, your point is moot.

Every time someone says, "These women just want to murder their babies," or "The woman should just keep her legs shut," they are suggesting (a) that she is making the decision callously and (b) that she is a slut.

You believe she was right in being able to do it though, and your asking me to believe its right that she was able to.

No, I am not asking any such thing. I am asking you to realize that this debate involves real people, with real moral views of their own, and with situations and outlooks that differ greatly from your own. You can disagree with everything about it all day and all night - that is fine. But at least understand the position of those you are disagreeing with.

Fine. Had individual DNA at one time, seing as how cloning works by removing the nuclus of the earliest forming of the embryo and then replacing it with another one.

Actually, incorrect. Cloning involves removing the haploid DNA of the egg, and inserting diploid DNA from the individual to be cloned (generally, the same individual who donated the egg). The egg is then artificially coaxed to begin dividing.

Firstly, do not patronise me.

I am not patronizing you. I am explaining biology to you. If you do not want to learn biology, don't try to debate biology.

I have seen you do that to several other people in the past and it does not help your case.

Where?

I am not your dear. If you continue on that route I will report you for flaming.

Using a term of endearment is flaming now? That's news to me....

Secondly that development path is not the developnment path of a human so your point is moot.

Yes, it is. That path continues on to create a human. You have stated that a zygote is a human. The zygote is the result of the sperm's path of development.

It is not ever anything other than a sperm. The only time it is not a sperm is when it reaches the egg and fertialsises it, where it becomes a human.

Do make up your mind. Is it "never anything other than a sperm." Or is it "not a sperm when it reaches the egg and fertilizes it."?

Meanwhile, before it is a sperm, it is something else - it is a diploid cell. Before that, it is another cell, and so on and so on and so on until you get all the way back to the zygote and then the sperm and egg that created it.

The entire thing is a continuous process.

An embryo on the other hand will become a fetus, will become a child, will become an adult.

And a sperm will fuse with an egg, become a zygote, become an embryo, become a fetus, become a child, and become an adult.

Firstly, no she doesnt. No one has the right to play god with anyones live. What gives her that right. Why is her debillitation and life alteration worse than the embryo's life termination.

What gives her the right is that it's in her body. Now, can you explain why you think you have the right to impose on a woman when your own God doesn't?

What your effectively saying here is "untill we have the technology so that we dont have to, it is right to kill people".

We don't have the technology to cure AIDS, does that mean we're killing the people who die from it?

So far you have cited no presecent for the reason why the womans right to body is so important.

*boggles*

I however have presecent for the embryos rights being important since we already outlaw murder.

And we outlaw breaking and entering. Abortion is a lot closer to "self-defense" than to "murder".

You have no good reason like I do as to why she should be able to control her body that I have seen yet. Just that she should.

*boggles* You're not even trying to pretend you care about women anymore, are you?

It is no extention of another rule or right. You are making a special case here where there is no cause for one.

No, she cant. Because it is not in a vaccum. It is not just her that that decision effects. It is the child.

Emotional appeal.

You say "the mother should have the right to choose because it affects her body" but it also affects the embryo, and to a far greater extent.

Not because it affects her body, because it is living inside her body. She is not obligated to keep it inside herself. If it kills the embryo, that's sad, but it can't be helped yet.

Now since we have no way to know if it wants to be alive or not we must allow it to live.

Not knowing what it wants means someone else has to make that decision, and that person is not you.

Ok so now your only reason why its right to kill humans is if those humans are in someone elses body. That seems rediculous.

Not the only reason, but a suficient reason. There's plenty of other reasons that other posters are defending, but I'm sticking to mine, since it doesn't depend on biology, as I'm no expert on it.

No its the embryo, becuase at that point it is only half the DNA needed. You cannot clone like that because you would have to have the person's mother you are cloning's egg cells and the fathers sperm cells. But these change all the time anyway and have diffrent combinations of the sets of genes in so no, it wouldnt work.

I said "a biologist correct me if I'm wrong".

ETA: And I wasn't wrong.

No its the embryo, becuase at that point it is only half the DNA needed. You cannot clone like that because you would have to have the person's mother you are cloning's egg cells and the fathers sperm cells. But these change all the time anyway and have diffrent combinations of the sets of genes in so no, it wouldnt work.

Again, you demonstrate a near complete ignorance of biology. It is as if someone handed you a piece of paper with biology vocab words on it and you just made up your own definitions.

There is no embryo until the egg has begun dividing. Cloning works by removing DNA from an egg, then replacing it with a full set of DNA from the person to be cloned. The egg is then artificially (usually with an electric shock) induced to begin dividing, sending it into the development path of a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, child, etc.

I said "a biologist correct me if I'm wrong".

Of course you were absolutely correct....

Of course you were absolutely correct....

Thank you. My biology knowlege is just a basic highschool level, but it's still enough to recognize Avalon's blatant mistakes.

What gives her the right is that it's in her body. Now, can you explain why you think you have the right to impose on a woman when your own God doesn't??

Firstly, I would like to see your biblical proof that God offered a choice to Mary and that Mary could refuse.


Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible with God."

Note the points "You will be with child". There is no doubt.


We don't have the technology to cure AIDS, does that mean we're killing the people who die from it?

No, because it is the virus that kills them not us. However here you are proposing we kill the embryo. In your example (AIDS) people get infected by a disease that we cannot cure, and the disease kills them. That is completely diffrent to not being able to remove the embryo from the mother without harming either of them.


And we outlaw breaking and entering. Abortion is a lot closer to "self-defense" than to "murder"

Breaking and entering implies that something is being stolen. The embryo cannot be seen to be objectively stealing anything. Furthermore, the "self-defence" defence only comes in in split second decisions in practiallaly all cases. If you were being attacked by someone who was walking towards you as if they were moving through syryp with their gun and you shot them, the prosecution would rightly argue that you were much more able to run away and that it was not nessecary to kill them. Pregnancy is not a split second attack. Nor can it logically be argued that it is an attack.


*boggles* You're not even trying to pretend you care about women anymore, are you?

Her right to body is not upheld in law in the same way the right to life is with murder.


Emotional appeal.

No its not. The choice for having an abortion affects more than one person. It affects the embryo as well. Hence you cannot use the defence "She is allowed to make her own moral decision" because the decision affects someone elses life.


Not because it affects her body, because it is living inside her body. She is not obligated to keep it inside herself. If it kills the embryo, that's sad, but it can't be helped yet.

It can, she can not have the abortion. As I have already pointed out, your AIDS arguement falls down because it is the AIDS virus that kills the person, not us. What you are suggesting is comparable to the idea that someone gets infected with a non-leathal disease means we need to kill them.


Not knowing what it wants means someone else has to make that decision, and that person is not you

She does not have the right to play God with its life. No one has the right to decide that it dies. Not knowing what it wants means we have to let it live because thats what we would do to someone else in its postion (IE a comatose person who is on a life support machine and needs it for 9 months but will be ok after that could not tell us whether he/she wanted to live or not but that means we let him live)

Again, you demonstrate a near complete ignorance of biology. It is as if someone handed you a piece of paper with biology vocab words on it and you just made up your own definitions.

There is no embryo until the egg has begun dividing. Cloning works by removing DNA from an egg, then replacing it with a full set of DNA from the person to be cloned. The egg is then artificially (usually with an electric shock) induced to begin dividing, sending it into the development path of a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, child, etc.

Question then. Would an egg that had not yet been fertialised and still only had only half the DNA it needed to make a person, if an electric shock was passed through it begin dividing.

Anyway the clone point is moot. Seing as the clone would have the same biological mother as the person who is being cloned. Hence it would have unique DNA from its mother, hence it is a seperate entity.

Every time someone says, "These women just want to murder their babies," or "The woman should just keep her legs shut," they are suggesting (a) that she is making the decision callously and (b) that she is a slut.

No one on this thread has said that women just want to murder their babies or that they are making the decision callously. The decision itself is calloce, but that does not mean it was made with evil intent. Intent however makes little diffence. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


No, I am not asking any such thing. I am asking you to realize that this debate involves real people, with real moral views of their own, and with situations and outlooks that differ greatly from your own. You can disagree with everything about it all day and all night - that is fine. But at least understand the position of those you are disagreeing with.

I understand it perfectly.


Actually, incorrect. Cloning involves removing the haploid DNA of the egg, and inserting diploid DNA from the individual to be cloned (generally, the same individual who donated the egg). The egg is then artificially coaxed to begin dividing.

The cloning point is moot. Since the clone would still have unique DNA from its biological mother.


I am not patronizing you. I am explaining biology to you. If you do not want to learn biology, don't try to debate biology.

Where?

Using a term of endearment is flaming now? That's news to me....

I said if you continue down this path. You are calling me "your dear". I am not "your dear" in any of the standard uses of the expression, and you are patronising me by saying as such.


Yes, it is. That path continues on to create a human. You have stated that a zygote is a human. The zygote is the result of the sperm's path of development.

But it is not a human. It is one half of a human. It is a sperate entity. A human is one being. The sperm and the egg are two seperate beings. Your arguement is like saying that sodium and chlorine are salt before the chemicals are fused together as such.


Do make up your mind. Is it "never anything other than a sperm." Or is it "not a sperm when it reaches the egg and fertilizes it."?

It is not a sperm when it and the egg are fused.


Meanwhile, before it is a sperm, it is something else - it is a diploid cell. Before that, it is another cell, and so on and so on and so on until you get all the way back to the zygote and then the sperm and egg that created it.

The entire thing is a continuous process.

And a sperm will fuse with an egg, become a zygote, become an embryo, become a fetus, become a child, and become an adult.

But the human is one entity. The sperm and the egg are two. That is not growth and development, that is construction. When an egg and a sperm fuse they create something which is of itself completely diffrent to the comonents. Like above with the salt example. When sodium and chlorine fuse in the manner to form salt, they did not grow or develop to be that way.

Firstly, I would like to see your biblical proof that God offered a choice to Mary and that Mary could refuse.

Note the points "You will be with child". There is no doubt.

Luke 1:38- "And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

Now why would you leave out that verse, Avalon, when you quoted all the way to verse 37?

No, because it is the virus that kills them not us. However here you are proposing we kill the embryo. In your example (AIDS) people get infected by a disease that we cannot cure, and the disease kills them. That is completely diffrent to not being able to remove the embryo from the mother without harming either of them.

I am proposing we remove it, not kill it. If a premature baby dies even if all efforts are made to keep it artificially alive, it isn't murder.

Breaking and entering implies that something is being stolen.

Not necessarily. It could imply rape and murder. Or kidnapping.

The embryo cannot be seen to be objectively stealing anything.

It's feeding off of the woman. Taking nutrients out of her blood without authorization. It's stealing.

Furthermore, the "self-defence" defence only comes in in split second decisions in practiallaly all cases.

I didn't say it is self-defense, but that it's more like self-defense than murder. Abortion isn't either.

If you were being attacked by someone who was walking towards you as if they were moving through syryp with their gun and you shot them, the prosecution would rightly argue that you were much more able to run away and that it was not nessecary to kill them.

I agree. Unfortunately, there's no way to run from an embryo inside your body.

Pregnancy is not a split second attack. Nor can it logically be argued that it is an attack.

Her right to body is not upheld in law in the same way the right to life is with murder.

There is no other right if you don't have the right to your own body! If a woman doesn't have the right to her own body, why does an embryo have it??

No its not. The choice for having an abortion affects more than one person. It affects the embryo as well. Hence you cannot use the defence "She is allowed to make her own moral decision" because the decision affects someone elses life.

She's not "allowed" to make a decision, she has to make the decision, no one else can make it for her.

It can, she can not have the abortion. As I have already pointed out, your AIDS arguement falls down because it is the AIDS virus that kills the person, not us. What you are suggesting is comparable to the idea that someone gets infected with a non-leathal disease means we need to kill them.

Some non-lethal diseases were lethal ages ago because we didn't have the technology to cure them. So it is with abortion. One day it will be non-lethal, but now it is.

She does not have the right to play God with its life. No one has the right to decide that it dies. Not knowing what it wants means we have to let it live because thats what we would do to someone else in its postion (IE a comatose person who is on a life support machine and needs it for 9 months but will be ok after that could not tell us whether he/she wanted to live or not but that means we let him live)

Even if you were right, that's not what happens, and comatose patients are unplugged all the time. (By the way, I don't think doctors can tell exactly when a comatose person is going to be fine, if ever.)

Is this still going on? :eek:

Is this still going on? :eek:

Yes. Yes it is. It's like falling down a deep, dark hole with your pants down. It can't be helped.

I'm wondering at what point the pro-life camp will give up on this thread. We pro-choicers seem determined to wait as long as they, so I guess it's up to them. Should I point out that, for the past few days, this thread has been nothing but a growing library of good pro-choice arguments which future pro-choicers can quote to save themselves brain energy when arguing with pro-lifers? In fact, I think a number of very good pro-choice speeches and articles could be made out of this thread. For this, we should be grateful to them.

Yes. Yes it is. It's like falling down a deep, dark hole with your pants down. It can't be helped.

Talk about beating an old horse to death using dead human embryos... :rolleyes:

Yes. Yes it is. It's like falling down a deep, dark hole with your pants down. It can't be helped.

Yea, but at least the falling down the whole with your pants down is funny for others to watch.

I'm wondering at what point the pro-life camp will give up on this thread. We pro-choicers seem determined to wait as long as they, so I guess it's up to them. Should I point out that, for the past few days, this thread has been nothing but a growing library of good pro-choice arguments which future pro-choicers can quote to save themselves brain energy when arguing with pro-lifers? In fact, I think a number of very good pro-choice speeches and articles could be made out of this thread. For this, we should be grateful to them.

I agree with you, and I believe I've made one or two posts worth remembering during the course of the thread.

What saddends me is the seemingless impossibility to make pro-lifers actually think about the consequences of their position over other's lives, as opposed to pro-choice forcing no consequences upon a pro-lifer's life.

Let us hope someday they start being reasonable.

Is this still going on? :eek:

The mods must be brain-dead.

I agree with you, and I believe I've made one or two posts worth remembering during the course of the thread.

What saddends me is the seemingless impossibility to make pro-lifers actually think about the consequences of their position over other's lives, as opposed to pro-choice forcing no consequences upon a pro-lifer's life.

Let us hope someday they start being reasonable.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Best joke ever!

We dont have the right to play God with the life of the Child. Which do you think is worse. The woman being pregnant, or the embryo being dead. You may think the former, and I believe that thought is disgusting but you are entitled to. However you do not have the right to make that decision for the embryo as to whether it lives or dies. We do not have that right to play God. You seem to be saying "let people decide there own morals" as if there own morals in this case exist in a vaccum. Its not just the woman the decision affects. The embryo is affected too. Allowing her to make that decision as if she is in a vaccum is wrong. To say it is fair to allow people to have abortions because "its their own morallity and values/dont force your values on others" is like saying that Islamic fundimentalists have the right to kill all non-muslims in America, Europe and indeed the world because their morals tell them it is ok.



Pre-marital sex does exist in a vaccum. The only ones affected are the people having sex. As long as it is consentual obviously.
Here we go again. According to you, it's not okay to "play god" with the life of a child but it is perfectly okay to "play god" with the life of a grown woman. Of course, the woman was once a child. At what point do you quit caring about people?

Actually, I've been thinking about your arguments a lot, and it occurs to me that you have a very narrow window of concern for others. You argue vociferously about the value of a fetus's "potential." Potential to be what? A fetus? Because you show little or no concern for what may happen to them after they get born and become children and still less for them once they become adults. You have said, at least twice in this thread, that you feel no obligation to adopt a child or support charities, and the ideas you have outlined concerning the treatment of women are downright callous, even cruel.

You have also said that contraception is okay with you. That acceptance doesn't jibe well with your insistence that fetuses are so important, women should be forced to bear them even against their will.

It seems to me that you only care about people for the 9 months they spend gestating. You don't care if they never get created, and you don't care if they suffer after they're born.

A 9-month gestation period isn't much to build a life's philosophy on. So, when are you going to tell us your real agenda? Because the increasing hollowness of your arguments is suggesting that banning abortion is just a means to an end for you.

What saddends me is the seemingless impossibility to make pro-lifers actually think about the consequences of their position over other's lives, as opposed to pro-choice forcing no consequences upon a pro-lifer's life.

The problem is that they see themselves as defenders of the fetuses... As long as they don't lose the self-righteous attitude, they won't stop. And as long as they have their religion backing them up, they won't lose the attitude.

Question then. Would an egg that had not yet been fertialised and still only had only half the DNA it needed to make a person, if an electric shock was passed through it begin dividing.

Yes, actually, it would. However, it generally stops after a few divisions. I've done it myself with sea urchin eggs. It's kind of fun to watch them start dividing.

Anyway the clone point is moot. Seing as the clone would have the same biological mother as the person who is being cloned. Hence it would have unique DNA from its mother, hence it is a seperate entity.

Ok, you just said something completely illogical. The clone would not have "the same biological mother as the person who is being cloned." In the most likely case to work, the woman who provides the egg, the "biological mother", as it were, would be the person being cloned. Thus, they would have identical DNA....

No one on this thread has said that women just want to murder their babies or that they are making the decision callously.

Actually, you have said exactly that - that anyone wanting to have an abortion wants to murder their baby. You even blamed my friend, saying that she was "punishing" her embryo. Ph33rdom called everyone who is pro-choice "defenders of baby-killers". You have said, repeatedly, that abortion is murder.

Care to try again?

I understand it perfectly.

Just like you understand biology?

I said if you continue down this path. You are calling me "your dear". I am not "your dear" in any of the standard uses of the expression, and you are patronising me by saying as such.

I call lots of people "dear".

But it is not a human. It is one half of a human. It is a sperate entity. A human is one being. The sperm and the egg are two seperate beings. Your arguement is like saying that sodium and chlorine are salt before the chemicals are fused together as such.


No, but they are "on the path of salt."

It is not a sperm when it and the egg are fused.

Then it obviously, at some point in its development, becomes something other than sperm.

What saddends me is the seemingless impossibility to make pro-lifers actually think about the consequences of their position over other's lives, as opposed to pro-choice forcing no consequences upon a pro-lifer's life.

Indeed, one of the major consequences that they never want to acknowledge is that, should an embryo be deemed a human citizen under protection of the law, women who had miscarriages would likely be investigated for possible manslaughter. Anything the woman did that might have caused the miscarriage (from missed meals/missed sleep to drinking), even if she didn't know she was pregnant, could implicate her in manslaughter. Nothing like heaping insult onto injury if a woman really wanted the child, eh?

As I have said. Unique DNA from the parent

Chimeras have unique DNA from their parents, but being the scholar you are, you knew that. The DNA from two zygotes. One of the babies didn't die. The cells are alive and you have said that counts as a life. The cells are still developing. As you said, that counts as a life. So since there are two unique sets of DNA in living cells that are both developing in this way that is unique to an embryo (as you've stated your expertise on several times). Is it two human beings?

No, because sperm and eggs are not on the human life cycle. They only start on the human life cycle once they have fertialised one another. If you have a sperm, it will remain a sperm if you leave it in its natural enviroment. If you have an embryo, it will develop and grow if left in its natural enviroment.

Huh. They're not. Where does the embryo come from if an egg and sperm aren't the cycle?

I'm curious. Are you going to be intellectually honest and admit you don't really know the biological definition for a separate living organism?

No, but they are "on the path of salt."

I love this thread. :D

Stop trying to use emotion to win people over to your side. The fact is she punished the embryo for something the man did to her. That is not right.

The fact is, unlike you, she was willing to punish herself, torture herself, rather than allow the embryo to become a child and to be tormented by knowing where s/he came from and the resentment that came with it. My sister had a child at that age (not choosing an abortion is a decision I agreed with then and still agree with now). I see the difficulties every day that child (yes, my nephew is actually a child NOW) must face as a result of her decision. I love my nephew to death, but the truth is had she chosen differently she would have been burdening herself with the stigma alone that her son now shares. She would not have bridled him with all the difficulties that have plagued him. If not for my assistance, to be quite honest, she would be living in poverty and unable to provide my nephew with medical care he requires (long story). You simplify these issues because you don't understand them and that becomes more evident with every post. To pretend that an abortion is the easy way is to not understand ANYTHING about it.

How on earth is it the embryo's fault for the position she is in. It may be a hard and difficult thing to have a child, but its worse to kill the child. Much worse. You dont murder someone becuase you cannot support yourself. As for her belief that it is morally wrong to bring a child into the world for the sole purpose of giving it up for adoption surely it is more wrong to kill said child. I am sorry for what your friend had to go through but I still refuse to agree that what she did was right or responable.

See. Now, I thought you were going to stop lying and calling it murder. I showed you the definition of murder which requires it to be a person. You've admitted to that it's not a person. So were you lying then or are you lying now?

Stop taking this out of context. A cloned embryo has no mother. It is not created in the same way. And it is an indvidual entity



It is natural yes, but whilst it is in that natural enviroment of swiming up the tube it is still a sperm. It is not developing or changing as an embryo does while it is getting there. That is rather like saying that when you are taking a car to the crushers, while you are towing it there it is slowly getting crushed.

How did it become a mature sperm? Magic? Did the sperm fairy come by and bless the father's testicles? Or perhaps it developed. Could that possibly be what happened? I think it is.

I agree with you, and I believe I've made one or two posts worth remembering during the course of the thread.

What saddends me is the seemingless impossibility to make pro-lifers actually think about the consequences of their position over other's lives, as opposed to pro-choice forcing no consequences upon a pro-lifer's life.

Let us hope someday they start being reasonable.
Yes, you've definitely scored some points.

But the thing of it is, in my view, that they're not worried about the consequences of their actions. The consequences that horrify people like you and me are the goal for these radical pro-lifers, I believe. They don't care about children or human suffering at all. These radicals never lift a finger to help the poor. They demonstrate day and night against abortion but never come out in favor of legislation in support of families. All they care about is getting the authority to tell others what to do. There is something egotistical, cynical, sadistic, judgmental and hypocritical in their attitude.

There are people who oppose abortion but who are trying to get rid of it by eliminating the need for it. They work against poverty and for family planning programs. They adopt children. I would never support the outright banning of abortion, but I cannot argue with people who really do practice what they preach.

But these others, as far as I'm concerned, they're just ego-tripping bullies. In fact, I wonder what they would do with themselves if they ever succeeded in getting abortion banned? Who would they have to kick around then? (Well, gays, of course, but then who?)

Excuse me, but kill and murder are not emotionally charged words.

Come on. Are you actually serious? I understand that you believe in what you are saying. However, it doesn't say thou shalt not bear false witness unless thou really, really wantest to make a point. Lying is lying. Stop doing it.

Murder
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

However an embryo will develop into a person unless we stop it.

It [an embryo] doesnt need to be a person to have a right to life. It merely needs to be a living human. Life is a human right

Now, I hope we aren't going to see the emotionally charged and incorrect term of murder again, since you've declared that arguments should not be made from emotion. Glad to see it. That should aid the debate.

Oh and lest anyone miss it, you've admitted an embryo is not yet alive.

You are missing the point. The fact is that the potential for it being alive is certian bar accident and natural causes.

It has the POTENTIAL for being alive. You admitted this until we started accusing you of an argument from potential. Now, are you going to keep changing your definition in an effort to make your point or admit that you cannot show it be alive or a person and thus cannot call it killing or murder.

"What came first? The chicken or the egg?" is taking on a whole new light for me. Someobody mentioned "playing God" earlier. We've had doctors forever and a day now. Go to the home of a surgeon who has saved the lives of however many children by whatever life-saving medical procedure, throw eggs at his house and tell him to stop playing God. Isn't that what doctors do? Take over the people God could care less about?

They don't care about children or human suffering at all. These radicals never lift a finger to help the poor. They demonstrate day and night against abortion but never come out in favor of legislation in support of families. All they care about is getting the authority to tell others what to do. There is something egotistical, cynical, sadistic, judgmental and hypocritical in their attitude.

That is the essence of the problem.

"What came first? The chicken or the egg?" is taking on a whole new light for me. Someobody mentioned "playing God" earlier. We've had doctors forever and a day now. Go to the home of a surgeon who has saved the lives of however many children by whatever life-saving medical procedure, throw eggs at his house and tell him to stop playing God. Isn't that what doctors do? Take over the people God could care less about?

Yeah! God meant those kids to die, so who the hell does the doctor think he is to cure them??

Firstly, do not patronise me. I have seen you do that to several other people in the past and it does not help your case. I am not your dear. If you continue on that route I will report you for flaming.

First, you are not permitted to use mods as weapons (which is what you do by threatening). Second, last I checked, there are no rules against be patronizing or even sarcastic. Would you care to show me an evidence that patronizing you is against the rules?

In fact, I can list question after question that cannot be answered without being either insulting or patronizing. Perhaps you should work on your style of debate.

Secondly that development path is not the developnment path of a human so your point is moot. It is not ever anything other than a sperm.


Again, totally arbitrary. There is no biological basis for making this statement. You make this statement out of wishful thinking (logical fallacy). You want it to be true, but it is not. A sperm and egg are on the development path for a human being. There is no natural way to develop into a human without a sperm and egg and no one teaches the development of human beings without teaching about the initial stages that include a sperm and egg. Are you suggesting that our development path is the same as asexual creatures? I hope not, because it's simply not true. Asexual creatures are different from us in that they don't require a sperm and egg or some equivalent. Human Development 101.

The only time it is not a sperm is when it reaches the egg and fertialsises it, where it becomes a human. An embryo on the other hand will become a fetus, will become a child, will become an adult. Hence the development path it is on is clearly human. The fact that it is on this path is hence enough reason for it to be legally protected.
Unless through very natural process it does not become a fetus, a child, an adult. Similar to how barring natural processes, the sperm will merge with an egg and become an embryo, a fetus, a child, an adult.

Firstly, no she doesnt. No one has the right to play god with anyones live. What gives her that right. Why is her debillitation and life alteration worse than the embryo's life termination.

Life has to start before it can be terminated. You have admitted it is not yet a life. Be honest. Avoiding the fact that you cannot successfully make this argument is just aggravating.

"What came first? The chicken or the egg?" is taking on a whole new light for me. Someobody mentioned "playing God" earlier. We've had doctors forever and a day now. Go to the home of a surgeon who has saved the lives of however many children by whatever life-saving medical procedure, throw eggs at his house and tell him to stop playing God. Isn't that what doctors do? Take over the people God could care less about?
Don't give them ideas. You know, back in the day, a couple of centuries ago, these same types railed against doctors looking for a cure of smallpox because they said it was god's will that people should die of it.

Tell ya what, Avalon II. I am perfectly willing to listen to your arguments if they are argued from reason as you claim and not from emotion.

I've defined murder for you and you've admitted that an embryo is not a person so let's not use that word anymore.

Now, can you please give the biological definition of a separate organism?
Of course, you're aware that the definition given in Biology texts was created with the purpose of identifying organisms and not to support pro-choice or pro-life arguments. It is accepted in every other argument so it will do here.

Can you explain what the biological purpose of sperm is if it is not part of the human life cycle (also known as human reproduction)? Last I checked once it developes to a certain point, it either becomes an zygote or dies. Much like an embryo once it developes to a certain point either becomes a fetus or dies.

Can you explain how denying a person control of their body shows a respect for life? Now remember you haven't only dictated that you would like legislation to say pregnant women MUST carry through till birth, but you've also dictated that you would like legislation that would state that people MUST donate organs to people in need at the government's behest. You clearly think people should not have control of their bodies if other people need them, so can you explain to me how this is a respect for life since you don't seem to honor the most basic principles or rights of that life other than allowing it to exist.

Let Avalon II answer. He suggests that we are making up definitions so we can murder babies and such, so certainly he must have access to the proper definitions and answers to these questions.

Don't give them ideas. You know, back in the day, a couple of centuries ago, these same types railed against doctors looking for a cure of smallpox because they said it was god's will that people should die of it.

They're brewing vile potions with their magic to steal the souls of the sick! Witch!!! Burn the witch!!!

They're brewing vile potions with their magic to steal the souls of the sick! Witch!!! Burn the witch!!!

Witch Doctors! Haha! I get it!!!

Witch Doctors! Haha! I get it!!!

A cookie for you. :D

The fact is, unlike you, she was willing to punish herself, torture herself, rather than allow the embryo to become a child and to be tormented by knowing where s/he came from and the resentment that came with it. My sister had a child at that age (not choosing an abortion is a decision I agreed with then and still agree with now). I see the difficulties every day that child (yes, my nephew is actually a child NOW) must face as a result of her decision. I love my nephew to death, but the truth is had she chosen differently she would have been burdening herself with the stigma alone that her son now shares. She would not have bridled him with all the difficulties that have plagued him. If not for my assistance, to be quite honest, she would be living in poverty and unable to provide my nephew with medical care he requires (long story). You simplify these issues because you don't understand them and that becomes more evident with every post. To pretend that an abortion is the easy way is to not understand ANYTHING about it.

Preaching to the choir here, I understand it is not an easy option.



See. Now, I thought you were going to stop lying and calling it murder. I showed you the definition of murder which requires it to be a person. You've admitted to that it's not a person. So were you lying then or are you lying now?

It may not be living, but it is still human and deserves protection.

Chimeras have unique DNA from their parents, but being the scholar you are, you knew that. The DNA from two zygotes. One of the babies didn't die. The cells are alive and you have said that counts as a life. The cells are still developing. As you said, that counts as a life. So since there are two unique sets of DNA in living cells that are both developing in this way that is unique to an embryo (as you've stated your expertise on several times). Is it two human beings?

No because it have to have its own DNA AND be a seperate entity. This is one entity, not two.


Huh. They're not. Where does the embryo come from if an egg and sperm aren't the cycle?

No, they have there own distinct existances. To say that they are part of the cycle is like saying that sodium and chlorine are salt. They aren't. They stop being what they were before when they fuse. The same is true here.

Now, since many of us have stated repeatedly that we don't support, in other than dire circumstances, choice after brain activity begins, your argument about us being dishonest isn't very accurate, now is it? One might even consider it dishonest. Kind of kicks your point right in the butt, huh? Nice job. Particularly when the only poster you corrected conceded the point. Now would you care to concede the point that prior to 8 weeks the embryo cannot be determined objectively to be separate living human being?

Not dishonest at all on my side... One of those websites I linked to earlier that you already accepted as proof, said that brain waves were detectable at 40 days, that's less than 6 weeks. So now what are you going to do?

I'll tell you, you're going to change the parameters yet again and say that you didn't really mean brain waves at all, but something else, anything else, so that you can still endorse elective abortions...

No because it have to have its own DNA AND be a seperate entity. This is one entity, not two.

At first, it is two. There are two separate eggs fertilized by two separate sperm. They form to separate zygotes which then develop into two separate embryos.

Then, the two embryos fuse into one.

No, they have there own distinct existances. To say that they are part of the cycle is like saying that sodium and chlorine are salt.

But sodium and chlorine are on the path of salt!

They aren't. They stop being what they were before when they fuse. The same is true here.

Sometimes, fusion is part of a path of development. This is true in this case. It is very, very true in the development of muscle. It is true in the development of many types of cells. Why do you discount fusion as part of development? Could it be because you can't logically hold your argument otherwise?

At first, it is two. There are two separate eggs fertilized by two separate sperm. They form to separate zygotes which then develop into two separate embryos.

Then, the two embryos fuse into one.

So it is then one entity when previously it was two. Fine.


But sodium and chlorine are on the path of salt!

Dont mock me. They are chemicals. They will not nessecarly fuse. Neither will sperm and egg nessecarly fuse.


Sometimes, fusion is part of a path of development. This is true in this case. It is very, very true in the development of muscle. It is true in the development of many types of cells. Why do you discount fusion as part of development? Could it be because you can't logically hold your argument otherwise?

Because it is the development of the embryo. The sperm and the egg are not the embryo. The embryo cannot be said to exist untill they are fused. (It proberbly isnt embryo at that stage. I'm not sure but I think the term may be zygote or something like that. But the term is not important, the point is). Sperm and egg can be said to exist, but they will not nessecarly form an embryo.

Not dishonest at all on my side... One of those websites I linked to earlier that you already accepted as proof, said that brain waves were detectable at 40 days, that's less than 6 weeks. So now what are you going to do?

I'll tell you, you're going to change the parameters yet again and say that you didn't really mean brain waves at all, but something else, anything else, so that you can still endorse elective abortions...

Thank you for your help in this. I'm glad I'm not the only one here as I so often am in other debates.

So it is then one entity when previously it was two. Fine.

But there were two separate lives there, according to you. Is it possible for two humans to become one?

Dont mock me. They are chemicals. They will not nessecarly fuse. Neither will sperm and egg nessecarly fuse.

And the embryo won't necessarily implant. And the embryo won't necessarily develop into a fetus. And the fetus won't necessarily develop into a child. And the child won't necessarily develop into an adult......

These are all things that can happen, if the path is right.

But there were two separate lives there, according to you. Is it possible for two humans to become one?

Yes, quite clearly.



And the embryo won't necessarily implant. And the embryo won't necessarily develop into a fetus. And the fetus won't necessarily develop into a child. And the child won't necessarily develop into an adult......

These are all things that can happen, if the path is right.

You miss my point. Short of accidnet or natural causes the embryo will implant and will develop etc. However there are many other factors that mean that a sperm will not fertialise an egg.

And again you miss the point that the embryo does not exist till the sperm and the egg fuse. Thus how can the sperm and the egg be considered the earleir stages of something that does not yet exist. Salt does not exist till sodium and chlorine mollicules fuse.

You miss my point. Short of accidnet or natural causes the embryo will implant and will develop etc. However there are many other factors that mean that a sperm will not fertialise an egg.

Nope, I'm pretty sure that all of the factors that mean a sperm will not fertilize an egg are either accident or natural causes.

And again you miss the point that the embryo does not exist till the sperm and the egg fuse.

You miss the point that this is irrelevant. Your skeletal muscle does not exist until the various cells fuse and form myotubes, but no biologist in their right minds would suggest that single cells are not a part of the path of development of muscle.

Thus how can the sperm and the egg be considered the earleir stages of something that does not yet exist.

The same way that individual myocytes are considered the early stages of healthy skeletal muscle. The same way that individual macrophages are considered the early stages of osteoclasts. Part of the path of development is fusion.

No because it have to have its own DNA AND be a seperate entity. This is one entity, not two.

It's attached. How do you define a separate entity. At one point did the human twins you say were there become one entity in the case of a chimera and which one died according to you?

No, they have there own distinct existances. To say that they are part of the cycle is like saying that sodium and chlorine are salt. They aren't. They stop being what they were before when they fuse. The same is true here.

I didn't realize there was a salt cycle. I'll give you a hint when you are talking about the cycle or circle of life or the reproductive cycle that gametes are not included is saying that came from magic. Obviously, eggs and sperms are part of the reproduction, just like an embryo. To say otherwise is to not understand reproduction.

Not dishonest at all on my side... One of those websites I linked to earlier that you already accepted as proof, said that brain waves were detectable at 40 days, that's less than 6 weeks. So now what are you going to do?

So which one is right? Certainly they can't both be right. According to one of your sites the brain isn't even formed at 6 weeks.

I'll tell you, you're going to change the parameters yet again and say that you didn't really mean brain waves at all, but something else, anything else, so that you can still endorse elective abortions...
No, I'm not. I meant brain activity. I have no intention of changing. I think they allow abortions too late already in some states. I am only pro-choice up until that point, except in cases to protect the mother. I would vote for brain activity to be the time it is only allowed in emergencies.

No, I'm not. I meant brain activity. I have no intention of changing. I think they allow abortions too late already in some states. I am only pro-choice up until that point, except in cases to protect the mother. I would vote for brain activity to be the time it is only allowed in emergencies.

Just to clarify, because people use this differently:

Do you mean brain activity as in basic brain-stem activity, or brain activity as in higher order brain activity?

So it is then one entity when previously it was two. Fine.



Dont mock me. They are chemicals. They will not nessecarly fuse. Neither will sperm and egg nessecarly fuse.



Because it is the development of the embryo. The sperm and the egg are not the embryo. The embryo cannot be said to exist untill they are fused. (It proberbly isnt embryo at that stage. I'm not sure but I think the term may be zygote or something like that. But the term is not important, the point is). Sperm and egg can be said to exist, but they will not nessecarly form an embryo.

They will form an zygote or die. Much like a embryo will become a fetus or die.

Just to clarify, because people use this differently:

Do you mean brain activity as in basic brain-stem activity, or brain activity as in higher order brain activity?

Higher order. Measured brain waves. To be honest, I'm not sure how you define higher order brain activites. I think at the point the brain is controlling the body is the time it should be considered to be only available in dire circumstances. I actually am referring to the same kind of activity that once absent we consider a person to be dead. Certainly if that lack of activity is how we measure death, then it can be used to measure the beginning of life as well. Then the line is not arbitrary.

I know it doesn't happen at the same moment in all fetuses but it is possible to limit it to a point where the fetus is not beginning to control its body. In some places they are already sucking their thumb when people would allow abortions. I definitely don't agree with this.

EDIT: Dang I just lost at dodgeball and I was hoping to come here and do some pwning but you covered everything already.

Preaching to the choir here, I understand it is not an easy option.

You're so inconsistent is hilarious. I'll tell you what, if I can quote you saying the opposite of what you say here, will you admit that you're just flipping your arguments so you don't have to admit your arguments are illogical? Deal?


It may not be living, but it is still human and deserves protection.

Yep, my grandfather is still human. Someone protect him. He's buried in Illinois and the ground is freezing.

You're so inconsistent is hilarious. I'll tell you what, if I can quote you saying the opposite of what you say here, will you admit that you're just flipping your arguments so you don't have to admit your arguments are illogical? Deal?

Yep, my grandfather is still human. Someone protect him. He's buried in Illinois and the ground is freezing.

Damn. Can't get online for a couple of days.... finally get back on, and find that Jocabia and Dempublicents have pretty much nailed every available argument.

Only thing I saw I can pick up... is Avalon seruiously saying that cloned embryoes have no mothers?

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.
how do you think that it's a womans choice is an illogical arguement? are you male or female. of course the man has to be involved in the decision if he is around. however if the father has abonded the pregnant woman then it's ultimately her choice. it's hypocritical of many conservatives to say it's murder- so is the death penalty but thats ok to them. it's too balck and white to say that a foetus is a humn life and abortion is murder. there are all different cases like rape and sexual abuse. also im not saying i necessarily would have one but i would never judge anyone that does or has. it's their business. i think to avoid a situation where abortion would be considered is to educate peope fully on sexual health and prptection etc. unwanted pregnancy can be prevented. it's just ignorance about birth control in alot of cases, but especially in the event of rape, women should make up their own minds. it's not a decision that's taken lightly by any means.

So which one is right? Certainly they can't both be right. According to one of your sites the brain isn't even formed at 6 weeks.

What are you talking about? None of them said the brain wasn't formed at 6 weeks. Not only are brain waves detected at 40 days, it says that the brain controls muscle movement and organs at 6 weeks. Not 8 or 10, but 6, during the embryonic stage still...

Day 40: Brain waves can be detected.

Week 6: The liver functions fully, and the brain begins to control muscle
movement and organs.

Week 7: The jaw, teeth buds, and gums develop.

Week 8: The unborn child is now referred to as a fetus and has everything
that is found in a fully developed adult.

Week 9: Fingerprints are apparent in the skin, and the grasping reflex is
now present.

Week 10: Squinting, swallowing, and wrinkling of the forehead are added
to the list of the fetus' abilities.
http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/develop.htm

No, I'm not. I meant brain activity. I have no intention of changing. I think they allow abortions too late already in some states. I am only pro-choice up until that point, except in cases to protect the mother. I would vote for brain activity to be the time it is only allowed in emergencies.

Well then, which is it? Do you choose 40 days or 6 weeks for limiting the elective abortions? You know, those that occur outside of the diagnosis/treatment prescribed by a doctor who is acting in the interest of both patients?

how do you think that it's a womans choice is an illogical arguement? are you male or female. of course the man has to be involved in the decision if he is around. however if the father has abonded the pregnant woman then it's ultimately her choice. it's hypocritical of many conservatives to say it's murder- so is the death penalty but thats ok to them. it's too balck and white to say that a foetus is a humn life and abortion is murder. there are all different cases like rape and sexual abuse. also im not saying i necessarily would have one but i would never judge anyone that does or has. it's their business. i think to avoid a situation where abortion would be considered is to educate peope fully on sexual health and prptection etc. unwanted pregnancy can be prevented. it's just ignorance about birth control in alot of cases, but especially in the event of rape, women should make up their own minds. it's not a decision that's taken lightly by any means.

Firstly, to say that its the womans choice makes the assumption that she is making the decision in a vacumm. She isnt. If she was the only one affected by her decision then I agree it would be her choice. But she isnt. The embryo is. It is better for the embryo to live than for her to be pregnant. Even if you dont agree, it is not up to you or anyone else to play God with the embryo's life like that.

Secondly, I am pro life and I do not support the death penalty.

Thridly, in the case of rape it is hardly fair for the woman to push the consequences of this act to the embryo. It has done nothing wrong. You can argue that neither has the woman, which is true, but since being pregnant is better off than being dead then she is taking less of the consequences than the embryo would if it were destroyed.

You're so inconsistent is hilarious. I'll tell you what, if I can quote you saying the opposite of what you say here, will you admit that you're just flipping your arguments so you don't have to admit your arguments are illogical? Deal?

I know its not an easy thing to do, but it is not right. Easy or hard.


Yep, my grandfather is still human. Someone protect him. He's buried in Illinois and the ground is freezing.

Your grandfather is dead. The embryo is not. Unless you can somehow prove it is

Only thing I saw I can pick up... is Avalon seruiously saying that cloned embryoes have no mothers?

No, they still have unique DNA from their biological mothers so the point is moot.

What are you talking about? None of them said the brain wasn't formed at 6 weeks. Not only are brain waves detected at 40 days, it says that the brain controls muscle movement and organs at 6 weeks. Not 8 or 10, but 6, during the embryonic stage still...

Day 40: Brain waves can be detected.

Week 6: The liver functions fully, and the brain begins to control muscle
movement and organs.

Week 7: The jaw, teeth buds, and gums develop.

Week 8: The unborn child is now referred to as a fetus and has everything
that is found in a fully developed adult.

Week 9: Fingerprints are apparent in the skin, and the grasping reflex is
now present.

Week 10: Squinting, swallowing, and wrinkling of the forehead are added
to the list of the fetus' abilities.
http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/develop.htm



Well then, which is it? Do you choose 40 days or 6 weeks for limiting the elective abortions? You know, those that occur outside of the diagnosis/treatment prescribed by a doctor who is acting in the interest of both patients?

Not that it immediately causes any speculation, necessarily... but I note that you found a source that quotes 'pro-life' and Christian/theological sources as the first three sources in it's bibliography...

I think what Jocabia is refering to is COHERENT neural activity. Random electrical pulses in a 40-day foetus, or 'reflex' activity at 6-weeks do not automatically equate to coherent brain activity... and certainly not to any form of cognizance.

The time-frame I've most commonly seen, is that coherent brain activity usually starts in the 20th+ week.

There has been some speculation as to whether a foetus might be able to actively respond to pain (as opposed to nerve reflexes) by the 24th week, and some speculate as early as the 20th week... which is roughly when the 'hardware' seems to go online.

"Baroness Greenfield, a professor of neurology at Oxford University and the director of the Royal Institution, said there was evidence to suggest the conscious mind could develop before 24 weeks... Many believed foetuses should be given anaesthetics during a late abortion, after 20 weeks."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/10/nfoet10.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/10/ixhome.html


"Prof Glover, of Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, who is to chair a conference on the issue at the Royal Institution in November, said yesterday that many questions remained about when the foetus became sentient. She said: "It is incredibly unlikely that the foetus could feel anything before 13 weeks because there is no linking to the brain at all. After 26 weeks it is quite probable.

"But between 17 and 26 it is increasingly possible that it starts to feel something and that abortions done in that period ought to use anaesthesia." Prof Glover acknowledged that by raising the matter she could be providing ammunition for anti-abortionists. She said: "I am pro-choice, but one should not muddle the two. One should think about how one is doing it in the most pain-free way."

According to one study, aborted foetuses have been heard to cry from 21 weeks and some doctors believe that distress can be felt as early as 13 weeks. Others question whether the foetus can feel pain before 26 weeks. Under present law, abortion can be carried out only until the 24th week of pregnancy unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as a threat to the life of the mother."

http://www.readthetruth.com/horrorstory.htm

(Let me just point out that that second source is admitting the knowledge gap VERY much against their will, I'd imagine.... I looked for evidence on a VERY Anti-Abortion site: An example of the site sentiment:
"What kind of doctor performs abortions?

The evil kind. They should not even be referred to as doctors. A doctor has sworn an oath to protect human life. Abortionists are evil, callous people driven by greed... Take a look at the next abortionist that you see on T.V. They look like death warmed over. Their eyes are blank, empty, soul-less."

How curious:

I said:

"Only thing I saw I can pick up... is Avalon seruiously saying that cloned embryoes have no mothers?"

You had previously said:...


"Stop taking this out of context. A cloned embryo has no mother. It is not created in the same way. And it is an indvidual entity..."


Now you say:

No, they still have unique DNA from their biological mothers so the point is moot.

Hoist by your own petard? Less than honest? Changing arguments? Just can't remember what you said?

Which is it?

Your grandfather is dead. The embryo is not. Unless you can somehow prove it is

The Bible suggests 'life' starts at the first breath...

The Egyptians believed 'life' started at puberty...

Current law in the US attributes 'life' as basically starting once the
baby' leaves the birth canal.


Thus - since your argument is the one that opposes 'established' precedent... the onus is on YOU to show that 'life' starts at an earlier time.

Unless you can categorically show that, it is safe to assume that a foetus is not 'alive'.

Alright, human life begins the instant the sperm and the egg meet. Abortion destroyes that, so therefore is murder. And, using this "Prochoice" argument, meaning its a woman's right to murder her child, then I suppose that all of the mothers who have killed their children in cases of neglect are outside the law as well.

How curious:

I said:

You had previously said:...

Now you say:

Hoist by your own petard? Less than honest? Changing arguments? Just can't remember what you said?

Which is it?

It does not have a mother in the sense that it was created by one. It does have a mother in the genetic sense.

What are you talking about? None of them said the brain wasn't formed at 6 weeks. Not only are brain waves detected at 40 days, it says that the brain controls muscle movement and organs at 6 weeks. Not 8 or 10, but 6, during the embryonic stage still...

Day 40: Brain waves can be detected.

Week 6: The liver functions fully, and the brain begins to control muscle
movement and organs.

Week 7: The jaw, teeth buds, and gums develop.

Week 8: The unborn child is now referred to as a fetus and has everything
that is found in a fully developed adult.

Week 9: Fingerprints are apparent in the skin, and the grasping reflex is
now present.

Week 10: Squinting, swallowing, and wrinkling of the forehead are added
to the list of the fetus' abilities.
http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/develop.htm



Well then, which is it? Do you choose 40 days or 6 weeks for limiting the elective abortions? You know, those that occur outside of the diagnosis/treatment prescribed by a doctor who is acting in the interest of both patients?
I don't choose any date at this time. I would have to do more research, but I told you when in the development of the fetus it would no longer be allowable in my view. I have said this several times. I know you read well, so where is your question coming from. Until the detection of the same time of brain activity that we consider necessary to determine if an already born patient is alive, there are not 'both patients'. Once we have that activity, however, I agree that the fetus should be considered a life as this is a measure we've used for life for some time, exclusive of the abortion debate.

Firstly, to say that its the womans choice makes the assumption that she is making the decision in a vacumm. She isnt. If she was the only one affected by her decision then I agree it would be her choice. But she isnt. The embryo is.


This kind of logic ALSO means that women should not be allowed to defecate. Should she be allowed to choose to empty her bowels? She isn't alone in the decision.... her faeces are affected too!

Yes, I AM being flippant - but you have YET to PROVE that an embryo is a human life, and thus should be accorded any special 'rights'.

It is better for the embryo to live than for her to be pregnant.


I don't think that is what you MEAN to say...

Even if you dont agree, it is not up to you or anyone else to play God with the embryo's life like that.


I don't believe in 'god'. You are appealing to a higher power as 'authority' for your argument. Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

And, surely, Damocles is going to be pissed that you stole his cuttlery... it's double-edged, my friend.

It's not up to YOU to 'play God', either, by enforcing YOUR anti-abortion agenda on another.


Thridly, in the case of rape it is hardly fair for the woman to push the consequences of this act to the embryo. It has done nothing wrong.


So? As you point out... neither has she.

You can argue that neither has the woman, which is true, but since being pregnant is better off than being dead then she is taking less of the consequences than the embryo would if it were destroyed.

You keep saying this... you have yet to prove it.

Hollow rhetoric, my friend.... you bring NOTHING to the table.

The Bible suggests 'life' starts at the first breath...

The Egyptians believed 'life' started at puberty...

Current law in the US attributes 'life' as basically starting once the
baby' leaves the birth canal.


Thus - since your argument is the one that opposes 'established' precedent... the onus is on YOU to show that 'life' starts at an earlier time.

Unless you can categorically show that, it is safe to assume that a foetus is not 'alive'.

Nor is it dead. Since it is neither and we know that it is not inanimate, seing as it is growing and developing (unlike an inanimate object) we can therfore assume that it is human and alive. It is either alive, dead or inanimate. It is not dead seing as it is not decomposing. It is not alive since it does not meet the requirement for responding to stimuli. It is not inanimate since it is growing and developing. Some would now say that it is animal IE the equivlent to an insect and thus no more morall/immoral to destroy than a wasp. However its DNA would suggest otherwise. That would suggest that it is human, not animal.

Alright, human life begins the instant the sperm and the egg meet. Abortion destroyes that, so therefore is murder. And, using this "Prochoice" argument, meaning its a woman's right to murder her child, then I suppose that all of the mothers who have killed their children in cases of neglect are outside the law as well.

PROVE IT... my friend.

I mean... sorry, and all, but your argument holds less water than a net:

"human life begins the instant the sperm and the egg meet"... one egg meets MILLIONS of sperm.... only ONE leads to conception... and THAT 'process' takes about a day.

"meaning its a woman's right to murder her child"... murder is a legal term. It implies a human victim (it has yet to be PROVED" that a conceptus counts as a 'human life')... and it implies an ILLEGAL killing, which isn't happening in the case of legal abortion.

"then I suppose that all of the mothers who have killed their children in cases of neglect are outside the law as well"... currently, US law (and many others) accords 'rights' to the human entity WHEN it leaves the birth-canal. You are arguing apples and pears, my friend. One entity HAS no legitimate 'rights', the other has PROTECTED legal status.

It does not have a mother in the sense that it was created by one. It does have a mother in the genetic sense.

Of COURSE it was 'created by' a mother... since the 'clone cell' is just an iteration of the 'parent' cell... thus, it is THE SAME cell...

This kind of logic ALSO means that women should not be allowed to defecate. Should she be allowed to choose to empty her bowels? She isn't alone in the decision.... her faeces are affected too!

Yes, I AM being flippant - but you have YET to PROVE that an embryo is a human life, and thus should be accorded any special 'rights'.

Yes you are being flipiant, and it doesnt serve your purpose. It is a living human entity. It may not be "alive" in that sense, but its make up is living and it is developing in the way of a human. Therefore it needs protecting.


I don't think that is what you MEAN to say....

Quite right. I meant to say. It is better for her to be pregnant than for the embryo to die.


I don't believe in 'god'. You are appealing to a higher power as 'authority' for your argument. Sounds like a logical fallacy to me

And, surely, Damocles is going to be pissed that you stole his cuttlery... it's double-edged, my friend.

It's not up to YOU to 'play God', either, by enforcing YOUR anti-abortion agenda on another..

Right. So not killing people is playing God. Dont be silly. Of course I have the right to play God if by playing God you mean allowing people to live, saving lives etc. Its rediculous to suggest that not killing people is playing God. By that logic I play God every day by walking through the quad and not killing anyone who walks past me.


So? As you point out... neither has she.

You keep saying this... you have yet to prove it.

Hollow rhetoric, my friend.... you bring NOTHING to the table.

It is obvioius. It is better for the embryo to be alive and the woman pregnant than for it to be dead and her not to be.

Of COURSE it was 'created by' a mother... since the 'clone cell' is just an iteration of the 'parent' cell... thus, it is THE SAME cell...

Not created in the same fashion (IE sex). It has a biological mother, but not a mother in the sense of the creation etc. Basicly will a child cloned in a lab and grown in an artifical womb develop the same maternal bond with its bilogical mother that it would if it were created inside her.

"then I suppose that all of the mothers who have killed their children in cases of neglect are outside the law as well"... currently, US law (and many others) accords 'rights' to the human entity WHEN it leaves the birth-canal. You are arguing apples and pears, my friend. One entity HAS no legitimate 'rights', the other has PROTECTED legal status.

Appeling to the law is pointless. We are arguing for a change in the law.

Nor is it dead. Since it is neither and we know that it is not inanimate, seing as it is growing and developing (unlike an inanimate object) we can therfore assume that it is human and alive. It is either alive, dead or inanimate. It is not dead seing as it is not decomposing. It is not alive since it does not meet the requirement for responding to stimuli. It is not inanimate since it is growing and developing. Some would now say that it is animal IE the equivlent to an insect and thus no more morall/immoral to destroy than a wasp. However its DNA would suggest otherwise. That would suggest that it is human, not animal.
This is false and you have admitted it is. The cells are alive that is not the same as the mass of cells being alive and a life. Want me to prove that you've already agreed? No problem.

You are missing the point. The fact is that the potential for it being alive is certian bar accident and natural causes.

Now, in case you missed it, if it has the POTENTIAL for being alive then it is not yet alive, now is it? Whoopsy, you want to reword? There is another one of those inconsistencies. You were wrong, it is easy.

I know its not an easy thing to do, but it is not right. Easy or hard.

It's not right to show you're being inconsistent, in a debate? What would be more right? To allow you to enslave pregnant women based on ideas even YOU can't keep straight, based on lines you keep moving, based on the rules you keep making that vary from page to page, based on the embryo not yet being alive (which you've admitted), not being a person, not having rights and not having any brain activity? If you can't form your argument in a way that isn't logically inconsistent and isn't stable (it's CONSTANTLY shifting), how do you expect ANYONE to agree with you?

Not created in the same fashion (IE sex). It has a biological mother, but not a mother in the sense of the creation etc. Basicly will a child cloned in a lab and grown in an artifical womb develop the same maternal bond with its bilogical mother that it would if it were created inside her.

Again, ignorance. They are grown inside of a woman, most often the mother, and, yes, it will form exactly the same bond.

Yes you are being flipiant, and it doesnt serve your purpose. It is a living human entity. It may not be "alive" in that sense, but its make up is living and it is developing in the way of a human. Therefore it needs protecting.



Quite right. I meant to say. It is better for her to be pregnant than for the embryo to die.



Right. So not killing people is playing God. Dont be silly. Of course I have the right to play God if by playing God you mean allowing people to live, saving lives etc. Its rediculous to suggest that not killing people is playing God. By that logic I play God every day by walking through the quad and not killing anyone who walks past me.



It is obvioius. It is better for the embryo to be alive and the woman pregnant than for it to be dead and her not to be.

You can't even be consistant in the same post. It's not alive, it is alive, it's not alive. You can't kill an entity that is not alive. Simple. You've admitted it's not alive, so we are done with that argument, yes?

Nor is it dead. Since it is neither and we know that it is not inanimate, seing as it is growing and developing (unlike an inanimate object) we can therfore assume that it is human and alive. It is either alive, dead or inanimate. It is not dead seing as it is not decomposing. It is not alive since it does not meet the requirement for responding to stimuli. It is not inanimate since it is growing and developing. Some would now say that it is animal IE the equivlent to an insect and thus no more morall/immoral to destroy than a wasp. However its DNA would suggest otherwise. That would suggest that it is human, not animal.

I really don't know where you look for your terms, my friend?

Is a foetus alive? Certainly, after a certain point, VERY strong arguments can be made for it... although, we use response to sensory stimuli as a marker for 'life'.... and a blastocyst-stage conceptus doesn't really meet THAT requirement.

Even if it IS alive... is it a 'human life'? This has yet to be proved.

IS it dead? That same grey area... if it isn't alive, is it dead? I'd say that, since it is a step in a 'life-cycle, and is basically BRACKETED by stages of life, it can't be actually DEAD.

Is it inanimate? What the hell has THAT to do with anything?

A windmill is 'animate' - but, certainly not alive. An egg is inanimate, but is a 'live' entity.

Inanimate is NOT the 'logical third point' of an alive/dead/? triangle.

Regarding 'growing and developing'... these are pretty arbitrary terms, my friend. I have produced molecules in the lab, that 'grow and develop'. You don't have to look any further than polymer reactions.

(By the way, 'dead' things don't 'decompose' without EXTERNAL help... i.e. the right environment).

And then - that last point of yours.... that there is some MORALITY linked to the pure presence of human DNA.

You do realise that human faeces are RICH in human DNA, yes?

Not created in the same fashion (IE sex). It has a biological mother, but not a mother in the sense of the creation etc. Basicly will a child cloned in a lab and grown in an artifical womb develop the same maternal bond with its bilogical mother that it would if it were created inside her.

You read too many science-fiction stories, my friend.

You read too many science-fiction stories, my friend.

Seriously, if we could do that why wouldn't just put fetuses in these artificial life chambers if they were a danger to the mother?

By the by, I have a meeting and we are debating where to hold it so all the participants will only have to take one flight (no layovers). I'm pushing for Atlanta. Dec 2.

Yes you are being flipiant, and it doesnt serve your purpose. It is a living human entity. It may not be "alive" in that sense, but its make up is living and it is developing in the way of a human. Therefore it needs protecting.


Did you know there is a disorder that effectively leaves a foetus with an open head? Like... no brains in there, as such?

It's 'alive'... in as much as the tissue is growing and developing... and the tissue is DEFINITELY human.... so - where do you stand, with reference to THAT entity?


Quite right. I meant to say. It is better for her to be pregnant than for the embryo to die.


Matter of opinion. The mother may be serving a purpose... the conceptus is still just tissue. One HAS potential, the other has REACHED potential.

Same thing... you have just decided you prefer the unachieved potetial to the achieved.


Right. So not killing people is playing God. Dont be silly. Of course I have the right to play God if by playing God you mean allowing people to live, saving lives etc. Its rediculous to suggest that not killing people is playing God. By that logic I play God every day by walking through the quad and not killing anyone who walks past me.


Are you religious? Gos is ALL ABOUT killing people, if you ever read the Bible. Hell, ONE group of people get murdered for god.... for pronouncing a word differently. (Look up the word 'shibboleth' at some point).


It is obvioius. It is better for the embryo to be alive and the woman pregnant than for it to be dead and her not to be.

It is not obvious. It is OPINION. And, so far, it is unsupported.

i am late to this debate but one of my favorite topics. life, as it is stated in both the biological and chemical sciences begins at conception for every living creature on this earth, not just humans. conception is the moment the ova and sperm combine, not meet as stated earlier by another post. At this combination, be it panda, frog, or human, a new life is formed, one that is genetically complete and fully alive, although dependant for a time on an outside force, womb, egg, egg sack ect. Recently a panda in the US became pregnant with two babies. One was lost midterm and everyone said she had lost the baby. with animals everyone understands that life begins at conception, it is only with humans that this debate rages. we are ultimately different in many ways from animals, our sense of true consciousness for example, but biologically speaking we follow the same patterns. Science says that a life begins at conception, and that includes a human life, check any science text. The only real debate in the pro-abortion/pro-life is weather or not it is allowable for a mother to kill her baby and if so, for what reasons. If you keep up with the day to day debate even leading pro-choice oganizations are now admitting that it doesn't have to do with when life begins, they agree that 'life' begins at conception, even planned parenthood one of the leaders of the pro abortion side, but rather, at what stage does the importance of the life of the baby override the wish of the mother. Prolife says a life is a life, no one has a right to take a life simply based on choice, prochoice places varrying, and changing, random dates and ages on life to gauge its worth against the wish of the mother.

Seriously, if we could do that why wouldn't just put fetuses in these artificial life chambers if they were a danger to the mother?

By the by, I have a meeting and we are debating where to hold it so all the participants will only have to take one flight (no layovers). I'm pushing for Atlanta. Dec 2.

Woohoo! Atlanta's a couple of hours from here, but do-able.

Now... if you can have your meeting in Atlanta, but go for dinner in Gainesville....

Back on topic - indeed... our friend seems to ignore the fact that, the reason we STILL keep babies in 'mommy', is because we can't do it any other way.... YET.

Damn, the minute THAT tech becomes available, abortion becomes irrelevent... right?

Appeling to the law is pointless. We are arguing for a change in the law.

The other poster wanted to compare two disparate groups.

No point arguing with me about it... I didn't MAKE him/her wrong, I just showed the legal reason why he/she WAS wrong.

And, my friend... I was TALKING about a legal status... how is 'appealing to law' pointless, when we are DISCUSSING law?

i am late to this debate but one of my favorite topics. life, as it is stated in both the biological and chemical sciences begins at conception for every living creature on this earth, not just humans. conception is the moment the ova and sperm combine, not meet as stated earlier by another post. At this combination, be it panda, frog, or human, a new life is formed, one that is genetically complete and fully alive, although dependant for a time on an outside force, womb, egg, egg sack ect. Recently a panda in the US became pregnant with two babies. One was lost midterm and everyone said she had lost the baby. with animals everyone understands that life begins at conception, it is only with humans that this debate rages. we are ultimately different in many ways from animals, our sense of true consciousness for example, but biologically speaking we follow the same patterns. Science says that a life begins at conception, and that includes a human life, check any science text. The only real debate in the pro-abortion/pro-life is weather or not it is allowable for a mother to kill her baby and if so, for what reasons. If you keep up with the day to day debate even leading pro-choice oganizations are now admitting that it doesn't have to do with when life begins, they agree that 'life' begins at conception, even planned parenthood one of the leaders of the pro abortion side, but rather, at what stage does the importance of the life of the baby override the wish of the mother. Prolife says a life is a life, no one has a right to take a life simply based on choice, prochoice places varrying, and changing, random dates and ages on life to gauge its worth against the wish of the mother.

Welcome to the Forum, my new friend.

Your input is appreciated.

Now - let me address some of your points:

"life, as it is stated in both the biological and chemical sciences begins at conception for every living creature on this earth".

Show a source? Conception is NOT a moment. It is a process... that takes about a day to carry-out. Which point in that process is deemed as the REAL start-point? Also - since sperm and ova meet MANY of the requirements for life... why is a conceptus alive, moreso than the sperm? If it is NOT 'more alive'... then how does 'life' begin at conception?

"a new life is formed, one that is genetically complete and fully alive"

Interesting choice of words... what about abberent DNA? That creature would not be 'genetically complete'. Is it still alive? Also - many of the situations required for a thing to be considered a 'life', are not present in the initial stages of the conceptus' development. By THAT margin, the conceptus/blastocyst/early foetus is not FULLY alive, at all.

"Recently a panda in the US became pregnant with two babies. One was lost midterm and everyone said she had lost the baby"

Appeal to popularity. JUST because 'everyone said' something, has no bearing on it's truth.

"with animals everyone understands that life begins at conception, it is only with humans that this debate rages".

Appeal to authority again... and with still no evidence. Show a source that illustrates how EVERYONE understands what you claim?

"Science says that a life begins at conception, and that includes a human life, check any science text".

Show a source? Oh - and, bear in mind... school textbooks are not the BEST sources, because they oversimplify.

"The only real debate in the pro-abortion/pro-life is weather or not it is allowable for a mother to kill her baby and if so, for what reasons".

No - the REAL debate is: "IS a 16 week (for example) foetus 'alive'"? OR, "does a woamn have sovereignty over her OWN body/body processes"?

"even planned parenthood one of the leaders of the pro abortion side"

There IS no 'pro-abortion' lobby. There are people who WISH to prevent a woman from having the right to choose, and those who WISH to allow her the right to choose. I am aware of no 'side' in this battle, which is a faction that ENDORSES abortion as an option.


I like your points, my friend... they are a hell of a lot more coherent, and consistent, than most being posted by 'your side' in this debate'

However, you are arguing the 'is a foetus alive' question as though it has already been answered... and there is STILL no reason to believe it has been.

The other poster wanted to compare two disparate groups.

No point arguing with me about it... I didn't MAKE him/her wrong, I just showed the legal reason why he/she WAS wrong.

And, my friend... I was TALKING about a legal status... how is 'appealing to law' pointless, when we are DISCUSSING law?

Because it doesn't support his argument, duh? I'll let you know about the Atlanta thing.

Because it doesn't support his argument, duh?


That's news to me... I've seen so many conflicting points made by Avalon II, I've begun to doubt there is 'an argument'....


I'll let you know about the Atlanta thing.

I'll keep my eyes peeled.

Which... is kind of gross, if you think about it.....

i am late to this debate but one of my favorite topics. life, as it is stated in both the biological and chemical sciences begins at conception for every living creature on this earth, not just humans. conception is the moment the ova and sperm combine, not meet as stated earlier by another post. At this combination, be it panda, frog, or human, a new life is formed, one that is genetically complete and fully alive, although dependant for a time on an outside force, womb, egg, egg sack ect. Recently a panda in the US became pregnant with two babies. One was lost midterm and everyone said she had lost the baby. with animals everyone understands that life begins at conception, it is only with humans that this debate rages. we are ultimately different in many ways from animals, our sense of true consciousness for example, but biologically speaking we follow the same patterns. Science says that a life begins at conception, and that includes a human life, check any science text. The only real debate in the pro-abortion/pro-life is weather or not it is allowable for a mother to kill her baby and if so, for what reasons. If you keep up with the day to day debate even leading pro-choice oganizations are now admitting that it doesn't have to do with when life begins, they agree that 'life' begins at conception

First, w00t, go Panda!
Next:
My religion disagrees: Heaveny Father and Jesus disagree. It is life only when the spirit enters the body for a permanent period. This happens only once the fetus takes the first breathe (and thus born). Before than a soul is just a visitor because he has no way of knowing if he will survive (because body kills them naturally all the time).

I'd sad that Pro-choice organizations would subcume to lies and false information that stem from Pro-life people.

even planned parenthood one of the leaders of the pro abortion side, but rather, at what stage does the importance of the life of the baby override the wish of the mother. Prolife says a life is a life, no one has a right to take a life simply based on choice, prochoice places varrying, and changing, random dates and ages on life to gauge its worth against the wish of the mother.
Planned parenthood isn't pro-abortion: just pro-legal abortion.
They don't force abortions: they make it possible for one to choose.

Sorry, Kabram, life does not begin at conception for all people. That is a belief because it can't be proven if it really does. We can prove cells are alive, but actual life? Nope, can't be proven till it is sentient enough.

i am late to this debate but one of my favorite topics. life, as it is stated in both the biological and chemical sciences begins at conception for every living creature on this earth, not just humans. conception is the moment the ova and sperm combine, not meet as stated earlier by another post. At this combination, be it panda, frog, or human, a new life is formed, one that is genetically complete and fully alive, although dependant for a time on an outside force, womb, egg, egg sack ect. Recently a panda in the US became pregnant with two babies. One was lost midterm and everyone said she had lost the baby. with animals everyone understands that life begins at conception, it is only with humans that this debate rages. we are ultimately different in many ways from animals, our sense of true consciousness for example, but biologically speaking we follow the same patterns. Science says that a life begins at conception, and that includes a human life, check any science text. The only real debate in the pro-abortion/pro-life is weather or not it is allowable for a mother to kill her baby and if so, for what reasons. If you keep up with the day to day debate even leading pro-choice oganizations are now admitting that it doesn't have to do with when life begins, they agree that 'life' begins at conception, even planned parenthood one of the leaders of the pro abortion side, but rather, at what stage does the importance of the life of the baby override the wish of the mother. Prolife says a life is a life, no one has a right to take a life simply based on choice, prochoice places varrying, and changing, random dates and ages on life to gauge its worth against the wish of the mother.

Your first post. A landmark. Should have taken your time. I don't agree with my esteemed colleague, however. Your post is not at all consistent. I'll show you.

If you keep up with the day to day debate even leading pro-choice oganizations are now admitting that it doesn't have to do with when life begins, they agree that 'life' begins at conception,

prochoice places varrying, and changing, random dates and ages on life to gauge its worth against the wish of the mother

Apparently, the pro-choice are all in massive agreement that life begins at conception, but they place random dates and ages on life to gauge its worth against the mother's. How is it possible for both of those statements (in your grammar world, part of the same sentence) can be true at the same time? They are logically inconsistent as is your post.

By the way, grammar structure was created to make things easier to read. Those rules don't disappear on the internet. Try paragraphs and a period once in a while and this will make it far more likely that your post will be read and responded to.

Your first post. A landmark. Should have taken your time. I don't agree with my esteemed colleague, however. Your post is not at all consistent. I'll show you.





Apparently, the pro-choice are all in massive agreement that life begins at conception, but they place random dates and ages on life to gauge its worth against the mother's. How is it possible for both of those statements (in your grammar world, part of the same sentence) can be true at the same time? They are logically inconsistent as is your post.

By the way, grammar structure was created to make things easier to read. Those rules don't disappear on the internet. Try paragraphs and a period once in a while and this will make it far more likely that your post will be read and responded to.

Tut tut... now who's not playing nice....?

;)

Tut tut... now who's not playing nice....?

;)

I know. What happened? It's like we switched personalities. I didn't like that post. It came off like, "why is there even a debate? You guys are supporting murderers and everyone knows it. So quit arguing, you losers."

First, w00t, go Panda!
Next:
My religion disagrees: Heaveny Father and Jesus disagree. It is life only when the spirit enters the body for a permanent period. This happens only once the fetus takes the first breathe (and thus born). Before than a soul is just a visitor because he has no way of knowing if he will survive (because body kills them naturally all the time).

I'd sad that Pro-choice organizations would subcume to lies and false information that stem from Pro-life people.

Planned parenthood isn't pro-abortion: just pro-legal abortion.
They don't force abortions: they make it possible for one to choose.

Sorry, Kabram, life does not begin at conception for all people. That is a belief because it can't be proven if it really does. We can prove cells are alive, but actual life? Nope, can't be proven till it is sentient enough.

I might not agree with your religious orientation (if this post is reflective of such...), but I think this is a very worthy post, and certainly reinforces the point I argued against the other poster.

I met not agree with your religious orientation (if this post is reflective of such...), but I think this is a very worthy post, and certainly reinforces the point I argued against the other poster.

My religious beliefs don't tell me specifically the time the fetus becomes a life. I look to science for such things, generally (although i'd be willing to explore it), but tell me how sacred free will is. Any poster, particularly a religious poster, is going to hear about it if they are suggesting enslaving a woman as an incubator based on falsehoods and half-truths. One of these posters would not only enslave women for a nine-month period, but enslave all of us to the point of risking our lives at the whim of the government.

EDIT: To be fair, I waffle on conscription, which is not dissimilar in nature, but my purpose for doing so is for the betterment of the individual and thus society as a whole (like making school mandatory), unlike enslaving people only for the betterment of other people and not themselves.

Welcome to the Forum, my new friend.

Your input is appreciated.

Now - let me address some of your points:

"life, as it is stated in both the biological and chemical sciences begins at conception for every living creature on this earth".

Show a source? Conception is NOT a moment. It is a process... that takes about a day to carry-out. Which point in that process is deemed as the REAL start-point? Also - since sperm and ova meet MANY of the requirements for life... why is a conceptus alive, moreso than the sperm? If it is NOT 'more alive'... then how does 'life' begin at conception?
'conception' in the scientific meaning of the word is the time that the cell first divides and it happens in an instant. it may take hours for the sperm to fully unite with the ova but the moment it does the cell begins to divide, that moment is conception. the baby is alive at conception because it contains every bit of information that you have in your body today, it is alive in the scientific sence of the word meaning that is matabilizes enegry, grows, and has the capacity it reproduce.

"a new life is formed, one that is genetically complete and fully alive"

Interesting choice of words... what about abberent DNA? That creature would not be 'genetically complete'. Is it still alive? Also - many of the situations required for a thing to be considered a 'life', are not present in the initial stages of the conceptus' development. By THAT margin, the conceptus/blastocyst/early foetus is not FULLY alive, at all.

Eveyrthing science deems necessary for life is inheriant that the moment the cell splits for the first time. "'abberent dna" if you are refering to a cancerious mass, which is the most common usage of that term, does not contain all the necesary qualities of being alive. if you are using the term to apply to genetic defects such as downs syndrom then it is genetically complete, simply not genetically 'perfect' there's a big difference.

"Recently a panda in the US became pregnant with two babies. One was lost midterm and everyone said she had lost the baby"

Appeal to popularity. JUST because 'everyone said' something, has no bearing on it's truth.
Your whole appeal, since you disregard science and play to the abrotrary concept of defining life as what society says it is, is an appeal to popularity. i was simply using this as an example, as most ppl have heard of it since it happened recently.
"with animals everyone understands that life begins at conception, it is only with humans that this debate rages".

Appeal to authority again... and with still no evidence. Show a source that illustrates how EVERYONE understands what you claim?
a quoted source? What source would you find athoritary? which school of science would you like the referenced quote from? I will be more than happy to post one if you can give me what source you'd like, biology, chemestry, Hawkins, planned parenthood, lifedynamics, etc?

"Science says that a life begins at conception, and that includes a human life, check any science text".

Show a source? Oh - and, bear in mind... school textbooks are not the BEST sources, because they oversimplify.
"Virtually all authors who have considered life from the point of view of molecular biology have regarded the property of self-reproduction as the most fundamental aspect of a living organism. —John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" there is one, not from a text book.
"Living organisms are made up of one or more cells, can grow and develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli, and have a metabolism."Paul Mahoney from "ask a scientist" found at http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01490.htm

"The only real debate in the pro-abortion/pro-life is weather or not it is allowable for a mother to kill her baby and if so, for what reasons".

No - the REAL debate is: "IS a 16 week (for example) foetus 'alive'"? OR, "does a woamn have sovereignty over her OWN body/body processes"?
agains, science already proved life begins at conception, instead of having me track down what is now 'common knowledge' among the scientific community maybe its best for you to be up to date on the knowledge having to do with a debate. *not meant in a mean spirit*

"even planned parenthood one of the leaders of the pro abortion side"

There IS no 'pro-abortion' lobby. There are people who WISH to prevent a woman from having the right to choose, and those who WISH to allow her the right to choose. I am aware of no 'side' in this battle, which is a faction that ENDORSES abortion as an option.

I mean lobby or side as those entities that fight to keep abortion legal. if you have read any of planned parenthood's literature they endorse abortion as an option, and fight bitterly against any who wish to limit it, even doing so outside of the law. if you wish examples of that i can give them but it would require significant space.

I like your points, my friend... they are a hell of a lot more coherent, and consistent, than most being posted by 'your side' in this debate'

However, you are arguing the 'is a foetus alive' question as though it has already been answered... and there is STILL no reason to believe it has been.
it has been to the medical community, tell me which entity you would like a quote by and i can probably find it in minimal time.

Your first post. A landmark. Should have taken your time. I don't agree with my esteemed colleague, however. Your post is not at all consistent. I'll show you.





Apparently, the pro-choice are all in massive agreement that life begins at conception, but they place random dates and ages on life to gauge its worth against the mother's. How is it possible for both of those statements (in your grammar world, part of the same sentence) can be true at the same time? They are logically inconsistent as is your post.

By the way, grammar structure was created to make things easier to read. Those rules don't disappear on the internet. Try paragraphs and a period once in a while and this will make it far more likely that your post will be read and responded to.
While my grammar may slip at times I expect people to actually read what I wrote. They agree on life beginning at conception, as stated. But, as stated, they do not agree on the WORTH of that life. That worth is assigned at random stages. That's what I said and that's what's happening.

it has been to the medical community, tell me which entity you would like a quote by and i can probably find it in minimal time.

I would like to see everything Biology (science) deems necessary for life. I mean, I've actually already seen it several times posted here by a Biologists with sources and an embryo does not meet those requirements, but I would like to see your scientific source that shows an embryo as a life from conception. Thank you for your time on that.

First, w00t, go Panda!
Next:
My religion disagrees: Heaveny Father and Jesus disagree. It is life only when the spirit enters the body for a permanent period. This happens only once the fetus takes the first breathe (and thus born). Before than a soul is just a visitor because he has no way of knowing if he will survive (because body kills them naturally all the time).

I'd sad that Pro-choice organizations would subcume to lies and false information that stem from Pro-life people.

Planned parenthood isn't pro-abortion: just pro-legal abortion.
They don't force abortions: they make it possible for one to choose.

Sorry, Kabram, life does not begin at conception for all people. That is a belief because it can't be proven if it really does. We can prove cells are alive, but actual life? Nope, can't be proven till it is sentient enough.
Planned parenthood is very much pro abortion, read their statistics, they do not coucil people on any course but abortion in their clinics as stated by several outpatient polls. The Bible says "You knit me together in my mothers womb." and "My form was not hidden from you" and John recognized Jesus while both children were still inutero. Esua and Jacob struggled in their mother's womb. Every time the word 'child', 'babe', 'baby', or 'son' is used in relation to an unborn child in the Bible it is the SAME word used for one that has already been born. *my husband has about 40 pages written on the word choices, I expect i could email them to you if you wanted, but check Strongs Concordance or a Bible Dictonary for verification* The God of the Bible, and the Jesus of the Bible, make no distinction between a baby not yet left the womb from a baby who has been born.

While my grammar may slip at times I expect people to actually read what I wrote. They agree on life beginning at conception, as stated. But, as stated, they do not agree on the WORTH of that life. That worth is assigned at random stages. That's what I said and that's what's happening.

Then I have to say that your statement wasn't inconsistent, just false. Verifiably, undeniably false. The pro-life community doesn't entirely agree on when life begins certainly the pro-choice community is no different. We have already shown multiple sources on the what is considered the beginning of life. In opinion, there is no consensus. Now, in science, there is a consensus as to the definition of a living organism and up until the fetal stage it really can't be argued that those conditions are met, but again, I'd like to see your sources. It should be easy since you claim that all sources agree, even pro-choice sources.

If you meet people's minimum expectations of grammar, they will meet your expectations of reading your posts.

I would like to see everything Biology (science) deems necessary for life. I mean, I've actually already seen it several times posted here by a Biologists with sources and an embryo does not meet those requirements, but I would like to see your scientific source that shows an embryo as a life from conception. Thank you for your time on that.
THese were found a quick search of 'biological definition of life' online.
"The four main types of biological entities described above share some unique characteristics that can allow us to distinguish them from non-living things. These characteristics are:

(1). Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. Cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
(2). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.

(3). Organisms tend to be homeostatic. In other words, they regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.

(4). Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.

(5). Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves. Reproduction can either be sexual or asexual. Sexual reproduction involves the fusing of haploid genetic material from two individuals. This process creates populations with much greater genetic diversity.

(6). Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste." http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9a.html
a child from conception does all of these or has the potential to do all of these *ei humans can't reproduce until puberty between 12-16 usually*

"The Definition of Life:
Can the fertilized egg be included?
When asking the question, "When does human life begin?" one first needs to define the properties that are characteristic of any living organism. A scientific and factual answer to this controversial question will separate the characteristics of living and nonliving organisms and then determine what category the fertilized egg falls into. An answer to the aforementioned question will answer the following question: Does the fertilized egg possess the same properties of all living organisms?

Cleveland Hickman, Jr., Larry Roberts, and Allan Larson (1997) begin to provide answers to these questions. "Although we do not force life into a simple definition, we can readily identify the living world and separate it from the nonliving. Many remarkable properties have arisen during life's history and are observed in living forms in various combinations. They clearly identify their possessors as part of the unified historical entity that we call life."

According to Hickman, Roberts, and Larson (1997), any living organism will meet the following seven basic properties of life:

1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and
complex molecular organization.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems
demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.
3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity
of inheritance.
5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining
nutrients from their environments.
6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.



(A photograph of a fertilized egg.)
An analysis of the fertilized egg must be made to determine if the fertilized egg and the resulting zygote, embryo, and fetus can all be classified as living organisms. Do these entities meet the properties seen in all living organisms?

1) Chemical Uniqueness. Fertilized eggs possess their own unique DNA
from conception.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Hickman, Roberts, and
Larson (1997) explain that the most basic unit in the biological
hierarchy is the cell. The cell holds the properties of living organisms,
and cells can be manipulated in the laboratory and can be reproduced,
whereas nonliving elements cannot. Therefore, the fertilized egg would
meet this criteria, although it would be a more basic unit of the
biological hierarchy.
3) Reproduction. Francis Beckwith (1994) observes that the zygote
possesses two different methods of reproduction: cell reproduction and
twinning. According to Beckwith (1994), twinning is "a form of asexual
reproduction, which can occur after conception."
4) Possession of a genetic program. Francis Beckwith (1994) confirms
that from conception, the fertilized egg has "its own unique genetic
code." The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the
genetic information that will ever be needed.
5) Metabolism. Francis Beckwith (1994) confirms that from conception,
the fertilized egg meets the requirement of metabolism.
6) Development. Hickman, Roberts, and Larson (1997) state,
"Development describes the characteristic changes that an organism
undergoes from its origin (usually the fertilization of the egg by sperm)
to its final adult form." Thus, although the fertilized egg will take on
different forms throughout its life cycle, the development of life begins
at conception.
7) Environmental interaction. The entity in the womb interacts with its
environment in many ways. Kicking and jumping are both examples.
In addition, research has shown that the fetus can be soothed by music
and can recognize the voice of its mother.


The fertilized egg, from the moment of conception, meets each of the properties that have been found to determine if an organism can be classified as living. Based on this definition, life begins at conception. " http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm

"although there is no universal agreement as to a definition of life, its biological manifestations are generally considered to be organization, metabolism, growth, irritability, adaptation, and reproduction." http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/l1/life.asp again, a baby from conception has all of these qualities

"Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for evolution to take hold through a population's mutation and natural selection. To grow and develop, living creatures need foremost to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.

To qualify as a living thing, a creature must meet some variation for all these criteria"
http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html

Planned parenthood is very much pro abortion, read their statistics, they do not coucil people on any course but abortion in their clinics as stated by several outpatient polls. The Bible says "You knit me together in my mothers womb." and "My form was not hidden from you" and John recognized Jesus while both children were still inutero. Esua and Jacob struggled in their mother's womb. Every time the word 'child', 'babe', 'baby', or 'son' is used in relation to an unborn child in the Bible it is the SAME word used for one that has already been born. *my husband has about 40 pages written on the word choices, I expect i could email them to you if you wanted, but check Strongs Concordance or a Bible Dictonary for verification* The God of the Bible, and the Jesus of the Bible, make no distinction between a baby not yet left the womb from a baby who has been born.
And as I said: the spirit entewrs the body temporaryily. I said it is not permanent till it is born.

Prove that is permanent while in the womb from the bible and you a cookie.

Just because they call it not a fetus and a baby does'nt mean it isn't.

Planned parenthood is very much pro abortion, read their statistics, they do not coucil people on any course but abortion in their clinics as stated by several outpatient polls. The Bible says "You knit me together in my mothers womb." and "My form was not hidden from you" and John recognized Jesus while both children were still inutero. Esua and Jacob struggled in their mother's womb. Every time the word 'child', 'babe', 'baby', or 'son' is used in relation to an unborn child in the Bible it is the SAME word used for one that has already been born. *my husband has about 40 pages written on the word choices, I expect i could email them to you if you wanted, but check Strongs Concordance or a Bible Dictonary for verification* The God of the Bible, and the Jesus of the Bible, make no distinction between a baby not yet left the womb from a baby who has been born.

Can anyone help me decide if abortion is right for me?

Most women look to their husbands, partners, families, health care providers, clergy, or someone else they trust for support as they make their decision. Specially trained counselors at women's health clinics can talk to you in private. You may bring someone with you. You will discuss your options — adoption, parenting, and abortion. Your counselor will try to make sure that no one is pressuring you to have an abortion.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/pub-abortion-q-and-a.xml

Are there contraindications for abortion?

Medication Abortion — Not usually recommended for women who


are unsure about having the procedure

are more than 63 days pregnant

take anti-clotting medication or have blood-clotting disorders

have severe heart, liver, or kidney problems

have seizures more than once a week

take any medicine that should not be combined with methotrexate, mifepristone, or misoprostol

cannot return for follow-up visits

are unwilling or unable to have a vacuum aspiration if the medical abortion is incomplete

have an allergy to the medications

Vacuum Aspiration — Not usually recommended for women who


are unsure about having the procedure

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/pub-abortion-first-trimester.xml

Hmmm.. that doesn't sound very pro-abortion. It sounds like they think abortion is a personal choice that should not be made under duress (pro-choice) and that they don't want ANYONE to encourage abortion to someone who doesn't want it. They also state that there are other options beside abortion.

Then I have to say that your statement wasn't inconsistent, just false. Verifiably, undeniably false. The pro-life community doesn't entirely agree on when life begins certainly the pro-choice community is no different. We have already shown multiple sources on the what is considered the beginning of life. In opinion, there is no consensus. Now, in science, there is a consensus as to the definition of a living organism and up until the fetal stage it really can't be argued that those conditions are met, but again, I'd like to see your sources. It should be easy since you claim that all sources agree, even pro-choice sources.

If you meet people's minimum expectations of grammar, they will meet your expectations of reading your posts.
My consensus is not any one group but general biological science, do a basic search for 'biology definition of life' and you will come up with plenty of definitions, all basically the same, all that I have found applicable to a baby from conception. for some good sources to check for prochoice agreeance, most of these contain quotes that you'll have to look for but are good reading, are: Lime 5 *an out of print book but not difficult to fine*, pop.org *no www on that*, www.lifesite.net or www.lifesitenews.com, www.afa.net, www.lifedynamics.com, and, one of my favorites, www.afterabortion.info.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/pub-abortion-q-and-a.xml



http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/pub-abortion-first-trimester.xml

Hmmm.. that doesn't sound very pro-abortion. It sounds like they think abortion is a personal choice that should not be made under duress (pro-choice) and that they don't want ANYONE to encourage abortion to someone who doesn't want it. They also state that there are other options beside abortion.
i was refering to polls taken of woman after they has spoken to Planned Parenthood about a pregancy. In one poll *found at www.afterabortion.info* 79% if women surveyed said the councilors were heavily in favor of abortion. that's just the first one I could find, I've read dozens and could probably find them all eventually. I could also probably find the quote, its been about 2 years since I read it the first time, that planned parenthood refused to release its official internal possition on how it councils people for or against abortion. you have to look at what they tell ppl who are in need of help, not what they have posted. When people go to planned parenthood they are told to abort, legal studies have even found that they provide abortions on people who are not pregnant! *lime 5 has the best resouces on those studies*

Again, ignorance. They are grown inside of a woman, most often the mother, and, yes, it will form exactly the same bond.

Let me just clarify what you are saying here. Suposing a clone is made of John, whose parents are Sarah and Henry. The clone's embryo is implanted inside Jane. Does this then mean that the baby will form a maternal bond with Jane (the mother in the sense of the woman who carried the child) or Sarah (the mother in the sense of genetics)

And as I said: the spirit entewrs the body temporaryily. I said it is not permanent till it is born.

Prove that is permanent while in the womb from the bible and you a cookie.

Just because they call it not a fetus and a baby does'nt mean it isn't.
the spirit always enters the body temporarily, my spirit is only in this body until it dies. its been in this body since the moment i was conceived, and will remain there until I die. Its not permanent. Just because 'temporary' lasted, so far, 23 years, doesn't mean that it is any less temporary than if it had lasted 3 years, or 3 months, or 3 days, or if it will last for 30 years, or 60. The Bible no where calls these bodies our permanent home, that's kind of the point. As for your second point, there are other words that could have been used, abortion, and the thought that unborn babies are not human, are not new concepts. Abortion was practiced in ancient Rome and much earlier. The Greeks, Phonetcians, Bablonians, Egyptians, they all had the concept of abortion.

As of yet, the only arguments I have seen suggesting that we protect the emrbyo/early fetus are emotive and, essentially, religious. I am not in favor of forcing any religious or philosophical position upon other people through the law. I feel that only that which we can demonstrate in an objective manner should be legislated. Thus, I will not legislate that a woman cannot abort an embryo/early fetus, as doing so would be to force my religion upon her through the law.

If someone can provide an objective definition of "human person" that includes zygotes/embryos, does not include other single human cells or human organs, and does not invoke the potentiality argument, I would like to see it.

Being pro-life does not necessitate one using religious or philosophical arguements. In fact being pro-abortion does require philosophical arguements of choice. Each human life has rights regardless of its level of development. To take any other position is subjective. The pro-life position is the only logical and consistent position. Arguement that talk about women right are totally illogical. It is the rights of the child, not the woman. We have determined long ago the murder is wrong. Therefore it should be wrong in all cases. We even call self defense something other than murder to differentiate it. I don't need any religious arguement to be pro-life, anti-death penalty and anti-euthenasia. They are all three logically consistent. Any other arguement is not.

"Pro-Choice: What is your logic?"

I can't justify telling some woman that she has to have a baby, OR that she has to have an abortion. Ergo, it's her choice! DUH? :p

"Pro-Choice: What is your logic?"

I can't justify telling some woman that she has to have a baby, OR that she has to have an abortion. Ergo, it's her choice! DUH? :p
can you justify telling someone that they can't kill another? Every law in existance is basically the telling of people that they can't do something that they may wish to do.

THese were found a quick search of 'biological definition of life' online.
"The four main types of biological entities described above share some unique characteristics that can allow us to distinguish them from non-living things. These characteristics are:

(1). Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. Cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
(2). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.

(3). Organisms tend to be homeostatic. In other words, they regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.

(4). Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.

Embryos cannot respond to stimuli. Babies do.

(5). Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves. Reproduction can either be sexual or asexual. Sexual reproduction involves the fusing of haploid genetic material from two individuals. This process creates populations with much greater genetic diversity.

(6). Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste." http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9a.html
a child from conception does all of these or has the potential to do all of these *ei humans can't reproduce until puberty between 12-16 usually*

Embryos cannot produce waste. It is not until later stages (when it is considered a fetus) that waste is produced. Embryos have no waste system.

"The Definition of Life:
Can the fertilized egg be included?
When asking the question, "When does human life begin?" one first needs to define the properties that are characteristic of any living organism. A scientific and factual answer to this controversial question will separate the characteristics of living and nonliving organisms and then determine what category the fertilized egg falls into. An answer to the aforementioned question will answer the following question: Does the fertilized egg possess the same properties of all living organisms?

Cleveland Hickman, Jr., Larry Roberts, and Allan Larson (1997) begin to provide answers to these questions. "Although we do not force life into a simple definition, we can readily identify the living world and separate it from the nonliving. Many remarkable properties have arisen during life's history and are observed in living forms in various combinations. They clearly identify their possessors as part of the unified historical entity that we call life."

According to Hickman, Roberts, and Larson (1997), any living organism will meet the following seven basic properties of life:

1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and
complex molecular organization.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems
demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.
3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity
of inheritance.
5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining
nutrients from their environments.
6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.



(A photograph of a fertilized egg.)
An analysis of the fertilized egg must be made to determine if the fertilized egg and the resulting zygote, embryo, and fetus can all be classified as living organisms. Do these entities meet the properties seen in all living organisms?

1) Chemical Uniqueness. Fertilized eggs possess their own unique DNA
from conception.

So do my liver cells.

2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Hickman, Roberts, and
Larson (1997) explain that the most basic unit in the biological
hierarchy is the cell. The cell holds the properties of living organisms,
and cells can be manipulated in the laboratory and can be reproduced,
whereas nonliving elements cannot. Therefore, the fertilized egg would
meet this criteria, although it would be a more basic unit of the
biological hierarchy.

So can my liver cells.

3) Reproduction. Francis Beckwith (1994) observes that the zygote
possesses two different methods of reproduction: cell reproduction and
twinning. According to Beckwith (1994), twinning is "a form of asexual
reproduction, which can occur after conception."

So can my liver cells. Reproduction must be as an organism, not cellular. If a creature I have named bleeps cannot create other bleeps, it is not an organism. Your other source pointed this out. Cellular reproduction occurs at this stage but not reproduction of the 'organism'. However, this is a difficult measure because many organism can only reproduce during certain stages in their development. It is a necessary requirement for being considered a unique species, however not a requirement for life (sterile humans are still humans, ligers are certainly considered a life).


4) Possession of a genetic program. Francis Beckwith (1994) confirms
that from conception, the fertilized egg has "its own unique genetic
code." The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the
genetic information that will ever be needed.

So do my liver cells.

5) Metabolism. Francis Beckwith (1994) confirms that from conception,
the fertilized egg meets the requirement of metabolism.

So do my liver cells. If you are only talking about cellular metabolism, than all cells of the body qualify. In order to meet this requirement an 'organism' must do this as a mass, otherwise each cell is an organism.

6) Development. Hickman, Roberts, and Larson (1997) state,
"Development describes the characteristic changes that an organism
undergoes from its origin (usually the fertilization of the egg by sperm)
to its final adult form." Thus, although the fertilized egg will take on
different forms throughout its life cycle, the development of life begins
at conception.

Given. This is a good indicator, but does not separate it from a sperm or egg cell.

7) Environmental interaction. The entity in the womb interacts with its
environment in many ways. Kicking and jumping are both examples.
In addition, research has shown that the fetus can be soothed by music
and can recognize the voice of its mother.

Ah, see. These kinds of reaction don't happen until very late in the development (as evidenced by your own source). And thus you show why an embryo CANNOT be considered an organism. Ouch. Your own source does not agree with you and you said all sources agree.

The fertilized egg, from the moment of conception, meets each of the properties that have been found to determine if an organism can be classified as living. Based on this definition, life begins at conception. " http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm

What about environmental interaction?

"although there is no universal agreement as to a definition of life, its biological manifestations are generally considered to be organization, metabolism, growth, irritability, adaptation, and reproduction." http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/l1/life.asp again, a baby from conception has all of these qualities

What about environmental interaction (irritability and adaption)

"Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for evolution to take hold through a population's mutation and natural selection. To grow and develop, living creatures need foremost to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.

What about shedding of waste and stimulation?

To qualify as a living thing, a creature must meet some variation for all these criteria"
http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html

This is false and you have admitted it is. The cells are alive that is not the same as the mass of cells being alive and a life. Want me to prove that you've already agreed? No problem.


I agree that the cells being alive and being a mass of cells is diffrent to being a life. However we have a problem. There are here three states of being. Inanimate, alive or dead. An embryo is not alive since it cannot respond to external stimuli. It is not dead since it it not decomposing or breaking down, and the fact that its cells are alive and not dying. It is not inanimate since its cells are growing and developing. So what does that make it? It is still human since its DNA proves it so. It is human and alive. Granted not a human life but the development it is going through seperates it from everything else in the body.


Now, in case you missed it, if it has the POTENTIAL for being alive then it is not yet alive, now is it? Whoopsy, you want to reword? There is another one of those inconsistencies. You were wrong, it is easy.

Fine. I made a mistake a few pages back which I have now corrected.

the spirit always enters the body temporarily, my spirit is only in this body until it dies. its been in this body since the moment i was conceived, and will remain there until I die. Its not permanent. Just because 'temporary' lasted, so far, 23 years, doesn't mean that it is any less temporary than if it had lasted 3 years, or 3 months, or 3 days, or if it will last for 30 years, or 60. The Bible no where calls these bodies our permanent home, that's kind of the point. As for your second point, there are other words that could have been used, abortion, and the thought that unborn babies are not human, are not new concepts. Abortion was practiced in ancient Rome and much earlier. The Greeks, Phonetcians, Bablonians, Egyptians, they all had the concept of abortion.

I'd say you misunderstood the word 'soul', but that's nothing special... the real Hebrew meaning has long been lost on most.

You make the assertion that the 'soul' is in the flesh at conception.

I say: prove it.

I also say - if this is true, which twin gets the soul?

can you justify telling someone that they can't kill another?
Of course! They're not in someone else's womb! :p

I agree that the cells being alive and being a mass of cells is diffrent to being a life. However we have a problem. There are here three states of being. Inanimate, alive or dead.

Still not true.

Inanimate means 'not moving'... and can respond to living things, as well as non-living.

A better triumvirate would be living, dead, and NOT living.

I agree that the cells being alive and being a mass of cells is diffrent to being a life. However we have a problem. There are here three states of being. Inanimate, alive or dead. An embryo is not alive since it cannot respond to external stimuli. It is not dead since it it not decomposing or breaking down, and the fact that its cells are alive and not dying. It is not inanimate since its cells are growing and developing. So what does that make it? It is still human since its DNA proves it so. It is human and alive. Granted not a human life but the development it is going through seperates it from everything else in the body.

You made up that there are only three choices. I don't accept it. Source?

Fine. I made a mistake a few pages back which I have now corrected.
Good, then we won't see that same mistake repeated over and over and over as we have in the past. I'm glad we reached its conclusion.

Let me just clarify what you are saying here. Suposing a clone is made of John, whose parents are Sarah and Henry. The clone's embryo is implanted inside Jane. Does this then mean that the baby will form a maternal bond with Jane (the mother in the sense of the woman who carried the child) or Sarah (the mother in the sense of genetics)

You seem to be confusing 'bonding' with having anything to do with parenting... either surrogate or 'normal'.

An unborn child in the uterus can bond with whichever voices it hears most commonly. A newborn bonds with the faces it sees most.

Neither type of bonding has anything to do with the incubator (the 'mother')... of necessity.

Being pro-life does not necessitate one using religious or philosophical arguements. In fact being pro-abortion does require philosophical arguements of choice. Each human life has rights regardless of its level of development. To take any other position is subjective. The pro-life position is the only logical and consistent position. Arguement that talk about women right are totally illogical. It is the rights of the child, not the woman. We have determined long ago the murder is wrong. Therefore it should be wrong in all cases. We even call self defense something other than murder to differentiate it. I don't need any religious arguement to be pro-life, anti-death penalty and anti-euthenasia. They are all three logically consistent. Any other arguement is not.

Actually the original Hebrew of "THou Shalt not Kill" refers to unlawful killing.

Unless you think Soldiers are "playing god" by fihting in a war?

We differenciate because murder and killing are two different but related things. One can be justified legally, but not the other.

My consensus is not any one group but general biological science, do a basic search for 'biology definition of life' and you will come up with plenty of definitions, all basically the same, all that I have found applicable to a baby from conception. for some good sources to check for prochoice agreeance, most of these contain quotes that you'll have to look for but are good reading, are: Lime 5 *an out of print book but not difficult to fine*, pop.org *no www on that*, www.lifesite.net or www.lifesitenews.com, www.afa.net, www.lifedynamics.com, and, one of my favorites, www.afterabortion.info.

Nope, you've already provided a source that states that gives examples of what constitutes a response to stimuli and an embryo is not capable of that type of response. Certainly you're not claiming that embryos jump and kick (with non-existent legs) or do any such thing. It must respond to stimuli as an entity and it is not capable of doing so.

Luke 1:38- "And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

Now why would you leave out that verse, Avalon, when you quoted all the way to verse 37

Mary wanted it to be as God willed. It wasnt going to be any other way. There is no indication that Mary was given a choice


I am proposing we remove it, not kill it. If a premature baby dies even if all efforts are made to keep it artificially alive, it isn't murder.

I agree.


It's feeding off of the woman. Taking nutrients out of her blood without authorization. It's stealing.

So blood donation is stealing? Eating is stealing since it takes the nutrients from the food and you use them? And lets remember my point from earlier. You do not have the right to cut off someones access to the only supply of food they have to keep them alive.


There is no other right if you don't have the right to your own body! If a woman doesn't have the right to her own body, why does an embryo have it??

Of course there is a right to a body. But which one would be loosing it more. The woman if she is pregnant, or the embryo if its aborted.


She's not "allowed" to make a decision, she has to make the decision, no one else can make it for her.

She does not have the right to destroy the embryo


Some non-lethal diseases were lethal ages ago because we didn't have the technology to cure them. So it is with abortion. One day it will be non-lethal, but now it is.

You miss my point. What you are saying is that a disease is eqivelnet to abortion. That is not the case. Just because we do not have the technology now to remove an embryo from a mother without killing it, does not make it right that we kill it now. In the same way it would not be right for us to kill someone with a non-lethal disease. Of course it is not good that people die from lethal diseases now but there is nothing we can do. But in the case of preganacy there is something we can do. IE nothing. If we do nothing in many cases both mother and embryo will live. The embryo may die naturally which is sad but nothing we can do about it.


Even if you were right, that's not what happens, and comatose patients are unplugged all the time. (By the way, I don't think doctors can tell exactly when a comatose person is going to be fine, if ever.)

If there is a comatose patinet who we know is going to be ok in 9 months time, but in the meantime needs to be on a life support machine, removing the machine would be killing him.

Embryos cannot respond to stimuli. Babies do.



Embryos cannot produce waste. It is not until later stages (when it is considered a fetus) that waste is produced. Embryos have no waste system.



So do my liver cells.



So can my liver cells.



So can my liver cells. Reproduction must be as an organism, not cellular. If a creature I have named bleeps cannot create other bleeps, it is not an organism. Your other source pointed this out. Cellular reproduction occurs at this stage but not reproduction of the 'organism'. However, this is a difficult measure because many organism can only reproduce during certain stages in their development. It is a necessary requirement for being considered a unique species, however not a requirement for life (sterile humans are still humans, ligers are certainly considered a life).




So do my liver cells.



So do my liver cells. If you are only talking about cellular metabolism, than all cells of the body qualify. In order to meet this requirement an 'organism' must do this as a mass, otherwise each cell is an organism.



Given. This is a good indicator, but does not separate it from a sperm or egg cell.



Ah, see. These kinds of reaction don't happen until very late in the development (as evidenced by your own source). And thus you show by an embryo CANNOT be considered an organism. Ouch. Your own source does not agree with you and you said all sources agree.



What about environmental interaction?



What about environmental interaction (irritability and adaption)



What about shedding of waste and stimulation?
How do you get your reply to break up like that?

As noted an oranism must possess some form of all of these characteristics. Your liver is alive, but it is part of you as it is an intresic concept of your system. Since you're alive your liver is alive, but if i took your liver out of you I wouldn't kill you, I wouldn't necessarily even kill the liver if I put it in someone else who was compatible, but regardless of how much your liver grew it will never reproduce or survive as an independant system. Babies from conception follow all the requirements of life, lets recap your objections:

waste: just like the singular cells of your body produce waste that little tiny baby, even if it is only 2 or 4 cells, does produce waste as a by product of growth and matabilism. Its not feces but its still a waste byproduct.
Stimuli: Even at a 2 cell state the baby response to stimuli. Its response is basic, usually death as it is so sensitive at this state, but it is a response.
DNA Uniqueness: your liver cells are YOUR liver cells, a baby's cells are unique only to that individual, this is true even of identical twins.
reproduction: of course this is talking of the intire organism, and babies can reproduce, once they reach that stage of development. By your logic a 4 year old isn't alive because it can't reproduce, yet. The requirement is met by its ulitmate ability, already fully detailed in its DNA. And a creature that is sterile is by default capable of reproduction until something acted upon it to make it not able, usualy this is chemical but can be for some other reason. For instance, lygers *and other hybrids* are technically furtile, they produce sperm and eggs, occassionaly even live births, usually however, the problem is with carring an offspring to term. There have been cases of even 3 generation hybrids giving birth to live offsprings.

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.

I don't, and I dont think most people think that abortion should be taken lightly, and many people that are pro-choice are against abortion personally. However, what we seem to agree on is that we don't want to give the federal govt. the ability to tell us what we can and cannot do with our own body. I mean, there is a constitutional amendment so you can have a freakin' assault weapon if you want it, and how many people bitch about the govt. trying to take that "right" away from them. And I consider that to be much less intrusive than being alowed to make decisions about your body.

Now, some people think that when the egg is first fertilized, that it is a human being, and they of course are subject to that belief. And you have that choice, which is a very good thing. Others are not, and I have not seen anything that would make me reconsider at this point. So I favor being allowed to make a choice.

She does not have the right to destroy the embryo
You can rationalize and rattle on and on about anything you like, but what it boils down to is, I cannot justify ( on moral or any other grounds ) telling someone else what they have to do with their own womb. It's her womb, not mine, not the state's, not anyone's but hers.

BTW ... I find abortion morally repugnant, but I refuse to use the law to justify my morality. If I can't convince a woman that it's unacceptable to have an abortion, then I'm out of the loop.

Nope, you've already provided a source that states that gives examples of what constitutes a response to stimuli and an embryo is not capable of that type of response. Certainly you're not claiming that embryos jump and kick (with non-existent legs) or do any such thing. It must respond to stimuli as an entity and it is not capable of doing so.
They responde to stimuli. It does not kick, but it changes its chemical make up in response to outside stimuli. Usually, since it is so delicate at this stage, it dies. This is why chemical abortion works. It the baby did not response to outside stimuli it would be uneffected by the chemicals used to induce abortion at early stages or develement.

Mary wanted it to be as God willed. It wasnt going to be any other way. There is no indication that Mary was given a choice


So - you are saying that Jesus was the product of rape?


So blood donation is stealing? Eating is stealing since it takes the nutrients from the food and you use them? And lets remember my point from earlier. You do not have the right to cut off someones access to the only supply of food they have to keep them alive.


No... read the posts you reply to, please.

Look for words that will give you clues.... like "without authorisation"...


Of course there is a right to a body. But which one would be loosing it more. The woman if she is pregnant, or the embryo if its aborted.


The woman, obviously. The embryo has no consciousness, so can feel no loss.


She does not have the right to destroy the embryo


Actually, she does.

You are confusing YOUR wishes, with law.


You miss my point. What you are saying is that a disease is eqivelnet to abortion. That is not the case. Just because we do not have the technology now to remove an embryo from a mother without killing it, does not make it right that we kill it now. In the same way it would not be right for us to kill someone with a non-lethal disease. Of course it is not good that people die from lethal diseases now but there is nothing we can do. But in the case of preganacy there is something we can do. IE nothing. If we do nothing in many cases both mother and embryo will live. The embryo may die naturally which is sad but nothing we can do about it.


You cannot kill that which has no life.

You keep appealing to emotion with your vocabulary... and you STILL lack evidence.


If there is a comatose patinet who we know is going to be ok in 9 months time, but in the meantime needs to be on a life support machine, removing the machine would be killing him.

No. Removing the machine is not 'killing him'... it is just 'not keeping him alive'.

Remeber, you said we should not 'play God'? Well, isn't keeping someone alive that cannot feed themselves, or breathe without help, 'playing God'?

Also... the whole point with the comatose patient, is that we CAN'T know that this person will be okay in 9 months. Or ever.

So blood donation is stealing? Eating is stealing since it takes the nutrients from the food and you use them? And lets remember my point from earlier. You do not have the right to cut off someones access to the only supply of food they have to keep them alive.

Blood donation has the permission of the donor. Did you not read the statement you are replying to? It says "without permission". Are you comparing a woman to food? The food is dead. And when it was living we didn't consider it to be worth asking are you saying that women have the same value as livestock?

You certainly do have that right. If I have the only food around for thousands of miles I have no obligation to share it, particularly not to my own risk and detriment.

Of course there is a right to a body. But which one would be loosing it more. The woman if she is pregnant, or the embryo if its aborted.

The woman clearly. The embryo has nothing to lose. As you've admitted it can't even lose life since it has not become a life yet.

She does not have the right to destroy the embryo

She doesn't destroy it. It is still an embryo after abortion. It just will not reach it's potential. Much like if I use a condom.

If there is a comatose patinet who we know is going to be ok in 9 months time, but in the meantime needs to be on a life support machine, removing the machine would be killing him.

Hey, I knew we'd see this again. Women are only life-support machines. How dare those life-support machines protest like they have any rights at all? They need to sit there quietly and do their job, right?

They responde to stimuli. It does not kick, but it changes its chemical make up in response to outside stimuli. Usually, since it is so delicate at this stage, it dies.

The death of a cell is not a response to stimuli.

This is why chemical abortion works. It the baby did not response to outside stimuli it would be uneffected by the chemicals used to induce abortion at early stages or develement.

Death is not a response to stimuli. Individual cells respond to stimuli that does not make a group of cells an organism unless they behave as a group. Your source outlines this and you seem to ignore it. An embryo does not as a whole respond to stimuli.

So - you are saying that Jesus was the product of rape?

I'm just gonna say: If the Shoe fits and leave it at that. My Bro Jesus knows what I mean. Little bro's have got to tease the other bro's every once in a while.

Rape requires sex occured though: God just put his Dna into her egg/ovary thingy.
No sex=no rape: even if she is pregnant.

You cannot kill that which has no life.

But you can sure make sure they don't bite you! Zombie movie reference lol

But to be serious, most zombies aren't zombies at all., They are ghouls. Ghouls are intelligent enough to speak (just like most zombies in movies), can paralyze with bite (Night of the Living dead 2), and aren't slowed/limping.


No. Removing the machine is not 'killing him'... it is just 'not keeping him alive'.

Remeber, you said we should not 'play God'? Well, isn't keeping someone alive that cannot feed themselves, or breathe without help, 'playing God'?

Don't fall into that trap. You aren't "not keeping him 'alive'. You are keeping hin functioning.

I'd say you misunderstood the word 'soul', but that's nothing special... the real Hebrew meaning has long been lost on most.

You make the assertion that the 'soul' is in the flesh at conception.

I say: prove it.

I also say - if this is true, which twin gets the soul?
I didn't misunderstand the word. And proving the 'soul' is a theological debate and the only proof I could give you would be from the Bible, which I've already given, but could expound upon. Both twins have a soul, given by God at the moment they come into being. One just came first. Just becuase our science can't tell which baby technically 'split' from the orignal doesn't mean that God doesn't.

How do you get your reply to break up like that?

As noted an oranism must possess some form of all of these characteristics. Your liver is alive, but it is part of you as it is an intresic concept of your system. Since you're alive your liver is alive, but if i took your liver out of you I wouldn't kill you, I wouldn't necessarily even kill the liver if I put it in someone else who was compatible, but regardless of how much your liver grew it will never reproduce or survive as an independant system. Babies from conception follow all the requirements of life, lets recap your objections:

waste: just like the singular cells of your body produce waste that little tiny baby, even if it is only 2 or 4 cells, does produce waste as a by product of growth and matabilism. Its not feces but its still a waste byproduct.
Stimuli: Even at a 2 cell state the baby response to stimuli. Its response is basic, usually death as it is so sensitive at this state, but it is a response.
DNA Uniqueness: your liver cells are YOUR liver cells, a baby's cells are unique only to that individual, this is true even of identical twins.
reproduction: of course this is talking of the intire organism, and babies can reproduce, once they reach that stage of development. By your logic a 4 year old isn't alive because it can't reproduce, yet. The requirement is met by its ulitmate ability, already fully detailed in its DNA. And a creature that is sterile is by default capable of reproduction until something acted upon it to make it not able, usualy this is chemical but can be for some other reason. For instance, lygers *and other hybrids* are technically furtile, they produce sperm and eggs, occassionaly even live births, usually however, the problem is with carring an offspring to term. There have been cases of even 3 generation hybrids giving birth to live offsprings.

The liver doesn't count as alive, because it is intrinsically linked.... by which logic, the foetus cannot claim sole 'alive' status, UNTIL it can survive without the placenta... so about 26 weeks, if 'urban legend' is to be taken as valid evidence.

Regarding the individual DNA... you might want to look into the Chimera concept.

I'm also not sure you can use 'destruction' as evidence of 'responsiveness'. If I hit a peanut with a mallet, it is destroyed... but it isn't legitimately doing something that can be called 'responding to stimuli'.

Regarding "By your logic a 4 year old isn't alive because it can't reproduce, yet".... you are confused. It was you (and your sources) that tried to extend the definitions of what constitutes a 'living' organism, to the conceptus... trying to prove that a 'macro' rule applies in a 'micro' environment.

The problem is, a conceptus HAS no life-cycle... it is just an element OF a lifecycle, and non-sustainable OUTSIDE of that cycle. A mature human can reproduce or NOT reproduce... ONLY the mature human can exist OUTSIDE of the whole cycle.

The death of a cell is not a response to stimuli.



Death is not a response to stimuli. Individual cells respond to stimuli that does not make a group of cells an organism unless they behave as a group. Your source outlines this and you seem to ignore it. An embryo does not as a whole respond to stimuli.
Death is most definately a stimuli, its the most powerful and profound stimuli one can have. Its considered a response in adults, why not in babies? Someone can die from pain, shock, poison, etc. This is their biological RESPONSE to the stimuli. The 'embryo' response as a whole, that fact that 'as a whole' is only a few cells doesn't mean anything. There are intire creatures, mulitcelled oganisims, that are smaller than single cells. And even if you insist that death is not a response, some chemicals/stimuli can have other responses that are not seen until later, such as mental or physical defects or changes. Just because the response is delayed, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In certian creatures, not humans but others, sex, size, weight, and even eventual color can be changed by stimuli inutero while the creature is just a 'mass of cells'.

I'm just gonna say: If the Shoe fits and leave it at that. My Bro Jesus knows what I mean. Little bro's have got to tease the other bro's every once in a while.

Rape requires sex occured though: God just put his Dna into her egg/ovary thingy.
No sex=no rape: even if she is pregnant.


Not sure about this, to be honest. The act was carried out without consent, and resulted in a pregnancy.

If a doctor carried out a procedure to do the same thing, I wonder which law he/she would be tried under.


But you can sure make sure they don't bite you! Zombie movie reference lol

But to be serious, most zombies aren't zombies at all., They are ghouls. Ghouls are intelligent enough to speak (just like most zombies in movies), can paralyze with bite (Night of the Living dead 2), and aren't slowed/limping.


Isn't the stereotypical ghoul actually not true undead? They are kind of 'semi-undead', because they feed on corpse-flesh? Well... traditionally?

That's the other thing, of course... true ghouls are only supposed to eat carrion, I believe.

Hmmm... makes me think... in the recent remake... the zombie baby... would 'killing' it have been 'abortion'?


Don't fall into that trap. You aren't "not keeping him 'alive'. You are keeping hin functioning.

Not falling into the trap.. hence the 'quotes'... I was just responding to the posters words.

I didn't misunderstand the word. And proving the 'soul' is a theological debate and the only proof I could give you would be from the Bible, which I've already given, but could expound upon. Both twins have a soul, given by God at the moment they come into being. One just came first. Just becuase our science can't tell which baby technically 'split' from the orignal doesn't mean that God doesn't.

I smell inconstistancy...

The life begins at conception... the soul begins at conception... except for twins. In twins, one gets a soul, and, after the first cell-division, the second one get's a soul.

So - it has nothing to do with comception, then?

You seem to understand biology, so where is this crap about "which baby technically 'split' from the orignal"? The one cell becomes two... it doesn't 'produce a second cell', the one cell divides in half.

If I hit an orange with a sword (man, have I got it in for fruit, today?), both remaining halves are equal heirs to the 'prime orange'... one isn't 'more orangey' than the other.

The liver doesn't count as alive, because it is intrinsically linked.... by which logic, the foetus cannot claim sole 'alive' status, UNTIL it can survive without the placenta... so about 26 weeks, if 'urban legend' is to be taken as valid evidence.

Regarding the individual DNA... you might want to look into the Chimera concept.

I'm also not sure you can use 'destruction' as evidence of 'responsiveness'. If I hit a peanut with a mallet, it is destroyed... but it isn't legitimately doing something that can be called 'responding to stimuli'.

Regarding "By your logic a 4 year old isn't alive because it can't reproduce, yet".... you are confused. It was you (and your sources) that tried to extend the definitions of what constitutes a 'living' organism, to the conceptus... trying to prove that a 'macro' rule applies in a 'micro' environment.

The problem is, a conceptus HAS no life-cycle... it is just an element OF a lifecycle, and non-sustainable OUTSIDE of that cycle. A mature human can reproduce or NOT reproduce... ONLY the mature human can exist OUTSIDE of the whole cycle.
you said it yourself, its part of the "life-cycle" a 4 year old is PART of the human life cycle, so is the 18 year old, the 50 year old and the 98 year old. Each looks and reacts exactly as its supposed to and is fullness of life for that part of the cycle. To be part of the life-cycle you have to be alive. As for your initial point of the peanut, the peanut was destroyed by your blow, but it wasn't killed. If you rip up a peanut plant and leave it in the sun you will see its response to your stimuli, it dies. You can kill something while destroying it, but distroying something doesn't always kill it. You smash an infant with a mallet you'll both kill and destroy it, its response to your blow is to die. If you hit me with a mallet you probably wouldn't kill me but my response to that stimuli would be pain, probably broken bones, and likely a verbal response as well. If you hit me right I might die, that would be my response, no different than a babies response to its suroundings being flooded with saline for instance.

you said it yourself, its part of the "life-cycle" a 4 year old is PART of the human life cycle, so is the 18 year old, the 50 year old and the 98 year old. Each looks and reacts exactly as its supposed to and is fullness of life for that part of the cycle. To be part of the life-cycle you have to be alive. As for your initial point of the peanut, the peanut was destroyed by your blow, but it wasn't killed. If you rip up a peanut plant and leave it in the sun you will see its response to your stimuli, it dies. You can kill something while destroying it, but distroying something doesn't always kill it. You smash an infant with a mallet you'll both kill and destroy it, its response to your blow is to die. If you hit me with a mallet you probably wouldn't kill me but my response to that stimuli would be pain, probably broken bones, and likely a verbal response as well. If you hit me right I might die, that would be my response, no different than a babies response to its suroundings being flooded with saline for instance.

I'm not buying this. You are suggesting that physical damage IS a 'response to stimulus'. By THAT logic, a piece of lead is as alive as the foetus in this regard, because it dents when struck.

You are, I fear, reading a letter of a law, as the spirit.

Regarding the life-cycle... you are not revealing anything new in showing me what I said... I KNOW what I said. I said it! But - to then draw the conclusion that 'to be involved in a life cycle, one must be alive' flies in the face of arguments made so far (i.e. that sperm are involved, but not 'really' alive), and is also just not necessarily logically consistent.

You are confusing an assumption with a truth.

Especially when we have STILL to determine whether an embryo really IS 'alive'... and whether it can EVER be assessed as such - since an embryo cannot be assessed independently of the cycle. There IS no 'embryo' race.

How do you get your reply to break up like that?

You use the same quote tages that are around the entire reply and put them around parts like this (only with these brackets[]):

qoute=Grave_n_Idle I am always right /quote
No, you aren't!
quote=Grave_n_Idle I was right about that statement because I'm always right. /quote
Uh-huh

It would look like this

I am always right
No, you aren't!
I was right about that statement because I'm always right.
Uh-huh

As noted an oranism must possess some form of all of these characteristics. Your liver is alive, but it is part of you as it is an intresic concept of your system. Since you're alive your liver is alive, but if i took your liver out of you I wouldn't kill you, I wouldn't necessarily even kill the liver if I put it in someone else who was compatible, but regardless of how much your liver grew it will never reproduce or survive as an independant system. Babies from conception follow all the requirements of life, lets recap your objections:

waste: just like the singular cells of your body produce waste that little tiny baby, even if it is only 2 or 4 cells, does produce waste as a by product of growth and matabilism. Its not feces but its still a waste byproduct.

They must produce waste as organism not as individual cells. All cells produce waste but not all cells are an organism. Your misunderstanding of the requirement notwithstanding, the embryo does not meet the requirement.

Stimuli: Even at a 2 cell state the baby response to stimuli. Its response is basic, usually death as it is so sensitive at this state, but it is a response.

It does not respond to stimuli. It must respond as an organism. Again. all cells respond to stimuli, but not all cells are an organism. Again, no part of this excludes the sperm and egg if we were to believe your definitions of these requirements. But they exclude the sperm and egg in proper biological understandings and they also exclude the embryo.

DNA Uniqueness: your liver cells are YOUR liver cells, a baby's cells are unique only to that individual, this is true even of identical twins.

Not, necessarily. Twins have DNA uniqueness? Hmmm... Are you sure about that? This has been pointed out time and again. Ever heard of a chimera? Sperm cells have a different DNA makeup than I do. Again, eggs and sperm would qualify if not for the fact the stimuli and waste parts that also exclude the embryo. And there is that little asexual reproduction bit that happens in some creatures that I'm sure would interested to find out they don't qualify as life.

reproduction: of course this is talking of the intire organism, and babies can reproduce, once they reach that stage of development. By your logic a 4 year old isn't alive because it can't reproduce, yet. The requirement is met by its ulitmate ability, already fully detailed in its DNA. And a creature that is sterile is by default capable of reproduction until something acted upon it to make it not able, usualy this is chemical but can be for some other reason. For instance, lygers *and other hybrids* are technically furtile, they produce sperm and eggs, occassionaly even live births, usually however, the problem is with carring an offspring to term. There have been cases of even 3 generation hybrids giving birth to live offsprings.

However, reproductive capabilities are for identifying a unique species. The moment of acheiving reproductive capabilities does not qualify an organism for life or my nephew is not yet alive. And an embryo does qualify as a part of a cycle that includes reproduction, so it has the potential to become a life as does a sperm and egg, only it does not yet qualify because it doesn't meet other requirement just as the sperm and egg don't.

When I mentioned it is the whole organism it is because the explanation listed talked about cellular reproduction, just as it talked about cellular waste and cellular reaction to stimuli. In all cases, it requires the organism to act as a cohesive unit in these things in order to be considered a life rather than a mass of living cells.

I smell inconstistancy...

The life begins at conception... the soul begins at conception... except for twins. In twins, one gets a soul, and, after the first cell-division, the second one get's a soul.

So - it has nothing to do with comception, then?

You seem to understand biology, so where is this crap about "which baby technically 'split' from the orignal"? The one cell becomes two... it doesn't 'produce a second cell', the one cell divides in half.

If I hit an orange with a sword (man, have I got it in for fruit, today?), both remaining halves are equal heirs to the 'prime orange'... one isn't 'more orangey' than the other.
the point was that first there was one, in fullness thereof, then there was two, in fullness thereof. Something came into existance that wasn't there before that instance when a cell splits into two. Logically, the soul enters at the moment of existance. I've read some very indepth treaties on the subject, if you have not you wouldn't have gotten my reference so I apologize for its use. What I have read suggests that one likely possibility is, even thou what we SEE is two equal halves both full heirs to the original cell, its actually a form of cellular reproduction and technically one 'half' came before the other 'half' its seen in creatures that reproduce asexually. Science can not fully understand what happens when a cell divides into twins. I am confident that if we did fully understand we would recognize an 'existance' time for both babies independantly. RIght now anything having to do with twinning is theoretical. Your orange example, while amusing, is not technically correct, a better example would be an orange having a small bump, then rapidily the bump growing to be a completely separete orange and falling away from the first. We know it happens this was even if we can't SEE the moment because each twin has different genetic material. as far as chimeras, which i think you were the one to mention, its even more complex, but is biologically the DEATH of one twin, and the surviving twin, which encompassed the dead one, retaining, still completely seperate from its own DNA, an additional, unique DNA from the second twin.

You use the same quote tages that are around the entire reply and put them around parts like this (only with brackets):

qoute=Grave_n_Idle I am always right /quote
No, you aren't!
quote=Grave_n_Idle I was right about that statement because I'm always right. /quote
Uh-huh

It would look like this


No, you aren't!

Uh-huh



They must produce waste as organism not as individual cells. All cells produce waste but not all cells are an organism. Your misunderstanding of the requirement notwithstanding, the embryo does not meet the requirement.



It does not respond to stimuli. It must respond as an organism. Again. all cells respond to stimuli, but not all cells are an organism. Again, no part of this excludes the sperm and egg if we were to believe your definitions of these requirements. But they exclude the sperm and egg in proper biological understandings and they also exclude the embryo.



Not, necessarily. Twins have DNA uniqueness? Hmmm... Are you sure about that? This has been pointed out time and again. Ever heard of a chimera? Sperm cells have a different DNA makeup than I do. Again, eggs and sperm would qualify if not for the fact the stimuli and waste parts that also exclude the embryo. And there is that little asexual reproduction bit that happens in some creatures that I'm sure would interested to find out they don't qualify as life.



However, reproductive capabilities are for identifying a unique species. The moment of acheiving reproductive capabilities does not qualify an organism for life or my nephew is not yet alive. And an embryo does qualify as a part of a cycle that includes reproduction, so it has the potential to become a life as does a sperm and egg, only it does not yet qualify because it doesn't meet other requirement just as the sperm and egg don't.

When I mentioned it is the whole organism it is because the explanation listed talked about cellular reproduction, just as it talked about cellular waste and cellular reaction to stimuli. In all cases, it requires the organism to act as a cohesive unit in these things in order to be considered a life rather than a mass of living cells.

Well, I AM always right!


Oh - regarding the chimera, etc...

The OTHER argument against DNA uniqueness, is the fact that mitochondrial DNA is 'unique'...it does not match the 'pattern' of nucleus DNA.

Thus, every person is obviously to be considered one entity, populated by another...

Death is most definately a stimuli, its the most powerful and profound stimuli one can have. Its considered a response in adults, why not in babies? Someone can die from pain, shock, poison, etc. This is their biological RESPONSE to the stimuli. The 'embryo' response as a whole, that fact that 'as a whole' is only a few cells doesn't mean anything.

No, it isn't. The embryo's cells die individually. Much like I can kill my skin cells. Concluding that death is a response to stimuli makes the qualification meaningless since all things we would examine for life have cells and all cells die as individuals (and thus the 'organism' would die if all of the cells died.)

[QUOTE=Kabram]There are intire creatures, mulitcelled oganisims, that are smaller than single cells.

Uh-huh. Size was never mentioned. Why are you bringing it up like it's an argument?

And even if you insist that death is not a response, some chemicals/stimuli can have other responses that are not seen until later, such as mental or physical defects or changes. Just because the response is delayed, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

If you are talking about defects, then you can say the same about the sperm and the egg. You have offered no re-definition (because what you are saying is not the way a biologist defines these rules) that excludes the sperm and egg from the process. Accordingly, you are 'proving' that life begins at the moment the eggs form inside the future mother (during her gestation). Also, by your definition, since defects can be passed on from stimuli that was received by the parent they must be part of the same organism, e.g. if a parent does a lot of acid.


In certian creatures, not humans but others, sex, size, weight, and even eventual color can be changed by stimuli inutero while the creature is just a 'mass of cells'.

Or before when it is just a sperm and an egg. You still haven't shown how your definition begins life at conception.

the point was that first there was one, in fullness thereof, then there was two, in fullness thereof. Something came into existance that wasn't there before that instance when a cell splits into two. Logically, the soul enters at the moment of existance. I've read some very indepth treaties on the subject, if you have not you wouldn't have gotten my reference so I apologize for its use. What I have read suggests that one likely possibility is, even thou what we SEE is two equal halves both full heirs to the original cell, its actually a form of cellular reproduction and technically one 'half' came before the other 'half' its seen in creatures that reproduce asexually. Science can not fully understand what happens when a cell divides into twins. I am confident that if we did fully understand we would recognize an 'existance' time for both babies independantly. RIght now anything having to do with twinning is theoretical. Your orange example, while amusing, is not technically correct, a better example would be an orange having a small bump, then rapidily the bump growing to be a completely separete orange and falling away from the first. We know it happens this was even if we can't SEE the moment because each twin has different genetic material. as far as chimeras, which i think you were the one to mention, its even more complex, but is biologically the DEATH of one twin, and the surviving twin, which encompassed the dead one, retaining, still completely seperate from its own DNA, an additional, unique DNA from the second twin.

First: The asexual reference is another red hering, though... the human conceptus is NOT an asexual entity, it is a stage in the life-cycle of a sexual entity. With the asexual entity, there still does not HAVE to be a 'parent' component, and an 'heir' component. Logically - BOTH asexual results of division are the exact same entity, just... duplicated.

This is true with the conceptus... there is one cell, which does not PRODUCE another cell, it merely BECOMES two cells.

I suspect SOME religious persons MIGHT want it argued another way, but there is no LOGICAL reason to argue such.

Also - you say the soul 'logically' enters at the moment the cell splits. This just is NOT logical. First - because the 'soul' you speak of is speculative, it cannot be verified... but ALSO, because: if the 'soul' is is created when the unique cell is created, there IS one 'soul' allocated to the cells that will become a whole person (through cell division) OR to TWO whole persons (through cell division). Logic does nothing to ADD a 'soul' in this situation... indeed, 'logic' argues AGAINST a second 'soul' - unless a 'soul' is created EVERY TIME a human cell splits.

Second: The orange example (thanks for the approval) is NOT best described as budding. The conceptus does not 'bud' a second cell, it is neatly divided in half... a division.

But - in either case, budded-duplicate or sheared-duplicate, the result is the same - no matter how it LOOKS, they actually both use the same mechanism - the nucleus material divides into two discrete entities, and the cell material divides into two discrete entities - but NIETHER truly creates a parent-offspring form.

Third: The point with the chimera is, if a human life is considered to qualify as a human life, BECAUSE of unique DNA - then a chimera has body parts that are somehow a separate 'life' to their own. Chimerical DNA is unique DNA, living inside a 'host' which the DNA does not match.... the same as 'foetal' DNA.

So - which is it? Is the chimerical DNA a 'life', unto itself?

Or is a foetus having 'unique' DNA a flawed argument?

You use the same quote tages that are around the entire reply and put them around parts like this (only with these brackets[]):

qoute=Grave_n_Idle I am always right /quote
No, you aren't!
quote=Grave_n_Idle I was right about that statement because I'm always right. /quote
Uh-huh

It would look like this


No, you aren't!

Uh-huh



They must produce waste as organism not as individual cells. All cells produce waste but not all cells are an organism. Your misunderstanding of the requirement notwithstanding, the embryo does not meet the requirement.



It does not respond to stimuli. It must respond as an organism. Again. all cells respond to stimuli, but not all cells are an organism. Again, no part of this excludes the sperm and egg if we were to believe your definitions of these requirements. But they exclude the sperm and egg in proper biological understandings and they also exclude the embryo.



Not, necessarily. Twins have DNA uniqueness? Hmmm... Are you sure about that? This has been pointed out time and again. Ever heard of a chimera? Sperm cells have a different DNA makeup than I do. Again, eggs and sperm would qualify if not for the fact the stimuli and waste parts that also exclude the embryo. And there is that little asexual reproduction bit that happens in some creatures that I'm sure would interested to find out they don't qualify as life.



However, reproductive capabilities are for identifying a unique species. The moment of acheiving reproductive capabilities does not qualify an organism for life or my nephew is not yet alive. And an embryo does qualify as a part of a cycle that includes reproduction, so it has the potential to become a life as does a sperm and egg, only it does not yet qualify because it doesn't meet other requirement just as the sperm and egg don't.

When I mentioned it is the whole organism it is because the explanation listed talked about cellular reproduction, just as it talked about cellular waste and cellular reaction to stimuli. In all cases, it requires the organism to act as a cohesive unit in these things in order to be considered a life rather than a mass of living cells.
THe simple response here is if the organism is only a few cells than the response of those cells IS the response of the organism. Pain, which is recognized as a common respose, is nothing more than a few cells responding and letting my brain know that i'm in 'pain' a chemical reaction that is only actually initiated and carried out by a 'few' cells. In a two cell organism, the earliest human, if the two cells die, guess what, the organism just died. Your whole line of logic that a reaction has to be of the 'whole organism' and not just a few cells is fundamentally flawed. Every reaction is started by a few cells. The only reason I excrete waste 'as an organism' is because I have ENOUGH cells to merit gathering the waste as a single, or dual, bodily function to be expelled all at once. ONLY cells are capable of producing waste. If my cells didnt produce waste, i'd never had anything to expel. Your logic fault is one of size. Just because sometimes big doesn't mean that it is any more or less important than something that is small. A mulitcelled oganism that at its completion is only a few cells, and plenty exist, excrete waste just like a human does at the same size. And single celled organisms, which are alive by scienticif standards, are less complex than a mulitcelled human, even if 'multi' only means 4.
As for sperm and egg, they do not grow nor reproduce. They are a potion of someone, and a very distict portion, sperm and egg are said to be the most percise cells of all, but they will never be alive by the standards we have discussed. Only upon their fussion do they create life. they are unique for while they do not contain all of your DNA they are contained fully by your DNA, they are a PART, a baby, of any age, is COMPLETE they need nothing more than time and nutrients, like any creature of any age, to survive, grow, and eventually reproduce.

the point was that first there was one, in fullness thereof, then there was two, in fullness thereof. Something came into existance that wasn't there before that instance when a cell splits into two. Logically, the soul enters at the moment of existance. I've read some very indepth treaties on the subject, if you have not you wouldn't have gotten my reference so I apologize for its use. What I have read suggests that one likely possibility is, even thou what we SEE is two equal halves both full heirs to the original cell, its actually a form of cellular reproduction and technically one 'half' came before the other 'half' its seen in creatures that reproduce asexually. Science can not fully understand what happens when a cell divides into twins. I am confident that if we did fully understand we would recognize an 'existance' time for both babies independantly. RIght now anything having to do with twinning is theoretical. Your orange example, while amusing, is not technically correct, a better example would be an orange having a small bump, then rapidily the bump growing to be a completely separete orange and falling away from the first. We know it happens this was even if we can't SEE the moment because each twin has different genetic material. as far as chimeras, which i think you were the one to mention, its even more complex, but is biologically the DEATH of one twin, and the surviving twin, which encompassed the dead one, retaining, still completely seperate from its own DNA, an additional, unique DNA from the second twin.

However, by your definition the other twin didn't die since it is cellularly alive, capable of reproduction (in Chimeras, reproductive parts can contain DNA from one or the other or both), it can die but has not yet (respond to stimuli), etc. You haven't shown defining the requirements the way you do does not allow chimeras to be considered two lifes.

THe simple response here is if the organism is only a few cells than the response of those cells IS the response of the organism. Pain, which is recognized as a common respose, is nothing more than a few cells responding and letting my brain know that i'm in 'pain' a chemical reaction that is only actually initiated and carried out by a 'few' cells. In a two cell organism, the earliest human, if the two cells die, guess what, the organism just died. Your whole line of logic that a reaction has to be of the 'whole organism' and not just a few cells is fundamentally flawed. Every reaction is started by a few cells. The only reason I excrete waste 'as an organism' is because I have ENOUGH cells to merit gathering the waste as a single, or dual, bodily function to be expelled all at once. ONLY cells are capable of producing waste. If my cells didnt produce waste, i'd never had anything to expel. Your logic fault is one of size. Just because sometimes big doesn't mean that it is any more or less important than something that is small. A mulitcelled oganism that at its completion is only a few cells, and plenty exist, excrete waste just like a human does at the same size. And single celled organisms, which are alive by scienticif standards, are less complex than a mulitcelled human, even if 'multi' only means 4.
As for sperm and egg, they do not grow nor reproduce. They are a potion of someone, and a very distict portion, sperm and egg are said to be the most percise cells of all, but they will never be alive by the standards we have discussed. Only upon their fussion do they create life. they are unique for while they do not contain all of your DNA they are contained fully by your DNA, they are a PART, a baby, of any age, is COMPLETE they need nothing more than time and nutrients, like any creature of any age, to survive, grow, and eventually reproduce.

Okay - this reads like... well, it just doesn't read 'right'...

ONLY cells produce waste? So... how does that explain that a large component of human faeces IS cells?

Also - the assumption is flawed, anyway... swallow a penny, to see what I mean.

Regarding the 'pain' parallel... pain IS a reaction, but it is not being caused by the 'death' of cells... iot is being caused by stimulation of a nerve cell. When you flinch, THAT is the 'response to stimulus'... the whole injury is the CAUSE of the response, not part OF the response.

So - your conceptus being destroyed is experiencing the stimulus, but it does not RESPOND.

"but they will never be alive by the standards we have discussed."

And, as far as I can see (and, I don't SEEM to be alone), it has yet to be PROVED that a foetus is "alive by the standards we have discussed".

Especially when we have STILL to determine whether an embryo really IS 'alive'... and whether it can EVER be assessed as such - since an embryo cannot be assessed independently of the cycle. There IS no 'embryo' race.
Now I know I will: I'm gonna someday create a movie called:
Night of the Embryos!

One of the monents in dialogue:
"We can't kill these things; it is abortion!"
"They can't be proven to be alive... we gotta defend ourselves!"
"*Sigh* Why can't embryos be another race..."

Or something to that effect. :p

Embryos-= Un-dead ;)

I have proven my arguement repeatly and given scientific verifications. I have to go, only 9.30am where i am and time to start my day. But given that the only objections you have with my arguements are with points that I am 'parroting' from know, recognized, and reputable organizations and realms of science I would suggest taking your further questions up with them. Check out biology texts *and by that i mean more than just school books* find disertations on the specific questions, they are to be found by internet searches, colleges, and libraries, about when SCIENCE says life begins and the specific objects you have to THEIR definitions of it. The abortion issue that is being struggled with today as far as lobbying efforts, laws, and information is not one of when life begins but of when the worth of that life is more important than the mothers wishes. In essance a debate on euthenasia. Check the news, check the laws, check the lobbying debates. You will find this to be true if you look at todays headlines, laws, voting, polls etc. The turn our debate as taken has been pushed to the background of todays abortion issue as, for most doctors, abortionists, scientists, and lobbists, its already been address. When asked for sources I've given them, and you have debated the sources, even coming as they were from colleges, scientists, and even nasa. If this is important to you and not just something to waste some time on, please look into it. If you are still for abortion after the understanding that not only the baby is alive but that most abortions are preformed even after the baby has a functional heart, brain, blood, limbs, and even pain receptors, then at least you are being honest with yourself. And while I would still disagree with the morality of it, at least you'd have the respect of being honest. For real life polls and statistics from people working in the abortion industry and those that have had an abortion I would suggest www.afterabortion.info and www.lifedynamics.com both have some very good studies and exposes about the abotion industry in general.
thanks for the lack of personal attacks during this short debate as most of my debates with 'pro choice' people quickly fall into them calling me names based upon my view/religion/politics.
best of luck

THe simple response here is if the organism is only a few cells than the response of those cells IS the response of the organism.

So in your estimation then, once it becomes a larger organism it dies, because once it becomes a larger multi-cellular it becomes clear that it does not react to stimuli.

Pain, which is recognized as a common respose, is nothing more than a few cells responding and letting my brain know that i'm in 'pain' a chemical reaction that is only actually initiated and carried out by a 'few' cells.

Yes, but that pain stimuli is communicated to other cells which prompts a reaction which may or may not be from the same cells.

In a two cell organism, the earliest human, if the two cells die, guess what, the organism just died.

Death does not count as response to stimuli. You can say this all you want, but it makes response to stimuli meaningless, because one it assumes the 'organism' is alive in the first place rather than just being composed of living cells, and two it would make all other stimuli qualifications pointless since all living cells are capable of dying but all groups of living cells cannot be considered an organism.

Your whole line of logic that a reaction has to be of the 'whole organism' and not just a few cells is fundamentally flawed. Every reaction is started by a few cells.

Yes, but the point is that the reaction demonstrates cellular communication. Death does not do that, nor do any of the other things you've suggested.

The only reason I excrete waste 'as an organism' is because I have ENOUGH cells to merit gathering the waste as a single, or dual, bodily function to be expelled all at once.

You really should look into bicellular organisms, the cells do in fact work in concert to excrete waste. If they do not then they are just two separate simbiotic organisms.

ONLY cells are capable of producing waste.

ALL cells are capable of producing waste. If biologists were including cellular waste and death in the waste rule and the stimuli rule that would have just left out both rules and said it must be composed of living cells.

If my cells didnt produce waste, i'd never had anything to expel. Your logic fault is one of size.

My logic fault? You don't understand the difference between cellular actions and concerted organism actions. By your logic we are all just groups of simbiotic organisms. Human beings as a whole do not exist.

Just because sometimes big doesn't mean that it is any more or less important than something that is small.

Can you tell me where I suggested this? Do you not understand the difference between working ONLY as individual cells and working in concert? This happens whether the organism has two cells or billiions.

A mulitcelled oganism that at its completion is only a few cells, and plenty exist, excrete waste just like a human does at the same size. And single celled organisms, which are alive by scienticif standards, are less complex than a mulitcelled human, even if 'multi' only means 4.

Yes, but all of them work together as an organism to excrete waste and react to stimuli. You think that the requirements for a two-celled organism for a billion-celled organism are different. You are wrong.

As for sperm and egg, they do not grow nor reproduce.

False. They do grow. DO you think a mature sperm cell pops out whole? Reproduction is not about cellular reproduction. Many parts of an organism don't reproduce certain types of cells simply by division. The reproductive argument is not an a cellular level but on the level of the organism.

They are a potion of someone, and a very distict portion, sperm and egg are said to be the most percise cells of all, but they will never be alive by the standards we have discussed. Only upon their fussion do they create life. they are unique for while they do not contain all of your DNA they are contained fully by your DNA, they are a PART, a baby, of any age, is COMPLETE they need nothing more than time and nutrients, like any creature of any age, to survive, grow, and eventually reproduce.
Pointless rheteric. It makes no argument. Being completely of one parent does not disqualify something for life since we are aware of asexual reproduction. Try again.

I have proven my arguement repeatly and given scientific verifications.

Why is that several pro-life advocates have come into this thread and stated a bunch of 'facts' that actually often don't agree with their sources or even their other claimed 'facts' and then declare victory. "I have proven my argument repeatedly." Odd, I thought sure we've shown a couple of exceptions to your argument like damage is not a response to stimuli, and the waste argument is not a cellular argument, and that your own sources don't agree with your assessment.

I have to go, only 9.30am where i am and time to start my day. But given that the only objections you have with my arguements are with points that I am 'parroting' from know, recognized, and reputable organizations and realms of science I would suggest taking your further questions up with them.

You are not parroting. They don't agree with you. I showed one of your sources that actually defines the response to stimuli and an embryo does not meet that definition. Since you disagree with your source, I'll take it up with you.

Check out biology texts *and by that i mean more than just school books* find disertations on the specific questions, they are to be found by internet searches, colleges, and libraries, about when SCIENCE says life begins

Yes, but everything you produced that was scientific does not agree with your conclusions. Your premise is flawed, your proof is flawed, your logic is flawed, yet you declare victory.

"You are in love with me"
"No, I'm not. I am inside my head and have feelings for you. None of them are love."
"I've objectively proven my point and your refutations are subjective."

Your argument doesn't make any sense. You came into the thread claiming that all sources agree and then post sources that don't. You claimed that Planned Parenthood says one thing and I showed you that coming from the source they actually say another (which of course you never addressed). You've suggested that all pro-choice people believe one thing and then ignored it when a two posters, both pro-choice, disagreed.

and the specific objects you have to THEIR definitions of it. The abortion issue that is being struggled with today as far as lobbying efforts, laws, and information is not one of when life begins but of when the worth of that life is more important than the mothers wishes.

This is patently false. If you read the 2000 posts in this thread you will see the argument more than not directly revolves around when the beginning of life can be defined.

In essance a debate on euthenasia. Check the news, check the laws, check the lobbying debates.

Ha. This is simply laughable. The reason that pro-life advocates (the ones trying to change the law) are not debating the life question with us in public debates is because in law they cannot win, since law cannot accept religious definitions of life and scientific definitions of life do not agree with pro-life advocates.

You will find this to be true if you look at todays headlines, laws, voting, polls etc. The turn our debate as taken has been pushed to the background of todays abortion issue as, for most doctors, abortionists, scientists, and lobbists, its already been address.

Yes, it has. You are just suggesting it reached the wrong conclusion.

When asked for sources I've given them, and you have debated the sources, even coming as they were from colleges, scientists, and even nasa.

We have debated whether you understand the sources. The definition of life that they give was correct. You were just unable to understand that definition.

If this is important to you and not just something to waste some time on, please look into it. If you are still for abortion after the understanding that not only the baby is alive but that most abortions are preformed even after the baby has a functional heart, brain, blood, limbs, and even pain receptors, then at least you are being honest with yourself.

Again, patently false. Most abortions are performed before eight weeks when some of those things haven't even begun to form and none of them are functional. Pain receptors are generally shown through experimentation to develop around 26 weeks.

And while I would still disagree with the morality of it, at least you'd have the respect of being honest.

Don't worry. We don't think you're being dishonest. I'll give you that. You just don't understand biology and ignore the actual conclusions reached by scientists. It's unfortunate that you are blind to the facts, but we only consider you to be dishonest with yourself.

For real life polls and statistics from people working in the abortion industry and those that have had an abortion I would suggest www.afterabortion.info and www.lifedynamics.com both have some very good studies and exposes about the abotion industry in general.

You suggested that abortion industry agrees with you. Why would exposes be necessary?

thanks for the lack of personal attacks during this short debate as most of my debates with 'pro choice' people quickly fall into them calling me names based upon my view/religion/politics.
best of luck

It would be nice if you had not done the same, but you instead suggested we were being dishonest with you. I consider that to be a personal attack and is particularly interesting given none of the evidence including your own agrees with you. I will Avalon II this, he rejects the biological definition of life so he can make his arguments. You accept that the biological definition is correct and then don't use it. Again, it simply makes no sense.

GnI, can I start doing this? Show up in a HUGE thread for about a half hour. Post some high-profile sources and suggest because they are reputable they cannot be refuted. Then make an argument that is not based on those sources, claim that anyone who argues against me is denying the evidence found on these reputable sources that don't agree with me, then claim I am the victor since I won't consider any arguments other than my own.

"I WIN!!"