That is my point, you said "Ok, I will take a shot at this"......like you did not already have that view point or agenda beforehand, it is completely disengenious. DD
Wanting to debate something you believe in with those you don't? Giddy was getting pulverized and not a pro-life person was coming to his defense. So I took a shot at it. I don't think that's disingenuous at all.
and not the abortee. nice. also, I think you'd be surprised how many times the impregnator has no voice in the decision either. but just for giggles....when do you think life begins?
you are correct judo, I was incorrect about my terminology. however, I have posted links before that show otherwise. I think this one is most telling... http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112 Week 6: The neural tube closes Growth is rapid this week. Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing and your baby's heart is pumping blood. I don't know how much more clearly you can define a life.
Nope the abortee is not a human being until much later on...no rights. I am sure you guys feel the same way about shooting a pregnant deer right? Since that is life too.....all life is equal, right? And life begins I guess when the fetus is able to live on it's own without being conected to the host. DD
I find it to be so amusing that you only see the "other" side as having a "set agenda." NOTHING is pointless to discuss as decisions are being made and re-considered all the time. We don't have to agree to make a law. A law will be made... or changed without unanimity. I guess you think since "our" side doesn't have unanimity, we can't get a law we can live with. Is that how it works?
Not exactly. I was just agreeing with Twhy to move the discussion along but there are other issues even if you consider human life to begin at conception.
Reason doesn't dictate that that organism is human in anything more than the genome is a new human genome genetically. As I said that is a reductive argument that would also apply to a set of skin cells also. My agreement though is purely for the purpose of moving the discussion forward as there are other issues even if you accept that premise. I think again you are conflating terms here. The genome is the specific genetic sequence that determines, genetically, what a cell is. The genome is part of the embryo, as it is part of every nucleated cell, but it also happens to be most important part. I am not calling the embryo the genome just pointing out that the genome is what genetically would determine a species. In speaking of the embryo as an integrated whole though as I noted in an earlier post some of the embryo becomes the placenta and the amniotic sac which while the cells of the placenta have the same genome as the fetus I doubt that you would consider the placenta to be human. In regard to gametes yes the sperm and egg cell are gametes in that they have an incomplete genome but here though science isn't your ally as research has proven that mammalian egg cells can be altered to undergo parthenogenesis, reproduction not requiring another gamete.
May I ask you do you consider someone with no brain functions and unable to process most metabolic functions (I am not just talking about feeding themself but even being able to digest food) but with a functioning heart and spine to be alive?
