First here is the definition of murder. So know I have to prove the embryo from the moment of conception is alive: Things that are alive do seven things in general 1 consume and expend energy- Embryo does this 2 maintain homeostasis- Embryo does this 3 respond to stimuli- Embryo does this 4 grow- Embryo does this 5 are organized- Embroy meets this criteria 6 reproduce- Embryo does this 7 adapt- Embryo does this. Now I have to prove it is human. Chromosomes, DNA, check. Last I have to prove the embryo it is different than the mother. All parts of the mother have the Mother's DNA. From the moment of conception the DNA of the embryo is different. Before the sperm meets the ovum there are two strands of DNA present. After there is a third, never before in existence one. So given the definition of murder and the facts of embryology how is abortion not resulting in the murder of a human? It is fine if you want to be pro-choice, but you should at least be honest and say you use some arbitrary criteria to decide which humans can be murdered and which humans can't be murdered. I don't belittle people for not sharing my beliefs. That ain't my ball game. I belittle people who are crazy, because they need it. Its all out of love.
Are they in the cub scouts? :lol: Nonsense. embryo's cannot reproduce until around the 40th trimester. Another stretch. Gestation is not adaptation. No, you have to prove that it can be independent of its mother to be a human being. Otherwise is it human tissue that is part of a mother's body. I've been honest and have told you the criteria--viability. 3rd trimester Fetuses that can survive outside the womb are legally people. Roe even included 2nd trimester fetuses, none of which has ever survived. But 1st trimester embryo's are part of the mother and its her body and her choice. That's the law.
I find it hard to believe you think the Supreme Court and the American electorate in general can be so wrong about a subject like killing unborn babies but you think the government is not capable of killing a few thousand adults to gain an advantage on the global chessboard. 30 million babies or 3000 adults....which is the bigger sacrifice? You obviously think we have committed the larger crime already. Why is it so hard to believe in a culture where mothers conspire with physicians and government organizations to kill children that governemnt would conspire with businessmen and intelligence agencies to kill a few thousand complete and utter strangers?
viability seems arbitrary. for that matter almost any criteria that we can come up with seems arbitrary. but i take supafan's side because i think it makes most sense to define the human when we have a genetically unique being.
In a vain attempt to redirect the thread to the OP's intent..... Govn'ts were wrong about: pick a topic, any topic...
That is a good one. But truthishly the boy Scouts of today don't have it together like they did in my day. They can reproduce in the same sense a 4 year old can which is different than the sense a rock can. I would side in favor of ability to reproduce. It is just not developed vs. not present. I disagree, and so do a lot of people with glorious letters behind their names. Do I need to pull the quotes again. That is completely arbitrary. On a magical day a lump of tissue becomes a full human being? That doesn't make sense. First the day trimesters change is not exactly known and is based on an estimate. What if a woman who is going to get an abortion is a week more pregnant than she thinks she is and is in the second trimester already? Is she more terrible that the woman who got her abortion at 7 weeks? Is she guilty of something? When we use soft things like viability to define when life starts and who is worthy of protection under the law we expose ourselves to the slippery slope.Either something is human and alive or it isn't. The philisophical junk about the difference between human tissue and human being is bunk. At conceptuion a third individual exists. It is clear as day. People just need to justify the fact that they are ok with little babies being killed.
for the literally millionth time. I do not think our government is truthful. I think truthers have presented no credible evidence to support their wild ass claims. I think the things they claim make absolutely no sense, and that people with a grip on sanity, and I barely have one, could not possible think they do.
Well, I have no interest in rehashing the whole subject at the moment. There are plenty of good arguments and evidence if you are able to think about how it benefits certain parties to have the US military running loose through the entire middle east. There was a larger motive behind those attacks besides bringing down a couple of American landmarks.
