Abortion

[Brambila]

I support legal abortion in the first 90 days of pregnancy.  After than, no legal abortions unless the mothers' health is endangered.

The 90 day cutoff is good because it is near the time wheere the fetus rapidly starts looking (an feeling) more like a human being.

God. That's pretty shallow. Because it doesn't look like a human, you can kill it? LOL. That's horrible!

You can't kill something that isn't alive

It's not alive? Have you ever taken Biology (wait, you're 13, no you havent).

In Biology you will learn that the requirements for a living being are METABOLISM, ABILITY TO REPRODUCE, GROWTH, and STIMULI. The fetus does all four, and therefore is alive. Certainly more alive than Bacteria or tapeworms.

[© tweed]

In Biology you will learn that the requirements for a living being are METABOLISM, ABILITY TO REPRODUCE, GROWTH, and STIMULI. The fetus does all four, and therefore is alive. Certainly more alive than Bacteria or tapeworms.

Whoa...so if two 10-week old fetusus had sex they could have a baby?

[© tweed]

Also, by the simple fact that the embryo is growing and not decaying, I would consider that to be a sign of life.

He said the fetuses has the ability to reproduce.

[Patunia]

In Biology you will learn that the requirements for a living being are METABOLISM, ABILITY TO REPRODUCE, GROWTH, and STIMULI. The fetus does all four, and therefore is alive. Certainly more alive than Bacteria or tapeworms.

Whoa...so if two 10-week old fetusus had sex they could have a baby?

Are you implying that someone is not alive until they can actually reproduce? Shall we kill all those boys younger then 8 and girls younger then 12 who have become a nusance?

[A18]

In Biology you will learn that the requirements for a living being are METABOLISM, ABILITY TO REPRODUCE, GROWTH, and STIMULI. The fetus does all four, and therefore is alive. Certainly more alive than Bacteria or tapeworms.

Whoa...so if two 10-week old fetusus had sex they could have a baby?

Yes...if when they grew up they had sex again.

[Gabu]

Also, by the simple fact that the embryo is growing and not decaying, I would consider that to be a sign of life.

Trees grow.  Should we issue a blanket ban on the cutting down of trees?

[A18]

In Biology you will learn that the requirements for a living being are METABOLISM, ABILITY TO REPRODUCE, GROWTH, and STIMULI. The fetus does all four, and therefore is alive. Certainly more alive than Bacteria or tapeworms.

Whoa...so if two 10-week old fetusus had sex they could have a baby?

Are you implying that someone is not alive until they can actually reproduce? Shall we kill all those boys younger then 8 and girls younger then 12 who have become a nusance?

And all women over a certain age.

And expect a lot less people to admit being sterile when this policy is enacted.

[Brambila]

In Biology you will learn that the requirements for a living being are METABOLISM, ABILITY TO REPRODUCE, GROWTH, and STIMULI. The fetus does all four, and therefore is alive. Certainly more alive than Bacteria or tapeworms.

Whoa...so if two 10-week old fetusus had sex they could have a baby?

Ability is the keyword. They don't have the sperm production, but neither do infants, or children either up until before the third adolescence.

[© tweed]

Are you implying that someone is not alive until they can actually reproduce? Shall we kill all those boys younger then 8 and girls younger then 12 who have become a nusance?

IT's not what I said it's what Brambila said.

[Brambila]

Also, by the simple fact that the embryo is growing and not decaying, I would consider that to be a sign of life.

Trees grow.  Should we issue a blanket ban on the cutting down of trees?

No, for the same reason I can't kill you.

[Patunia]

Also, by the simple fact that the embryo is growing and not decaying, I would consider that to be a sign of life.

Trees grow.  Should we issue a blanket ban on the cutting down of trees?

Are tress human beings? We cut down mature growth forests. Shall we cull our human population of old people? You know, its kinda insulting to be compared to a tree in this way.

[A18]

Also, by the simple fact that the embryo is growing and not decaying, I would consider that to be a sign of life.

Trees grow.  Should we issue a blanket ban on the cutting down of trees?

He said it was human life. He didn't say that human life had to be protected.

[Gabu]

Also, by the simple fact that the embryo is growing and not decaying, I would consider that to be a sign of life.

Trees grow.  Should we issue a blanket ban on the cutting down of trees?

Are tress human beings? We cut down mature growth forests. Shall we cull our human population of old people? You know, its kinda insulting to be compared to a tree in this way.

I'm not comparing human beings to trees.  What I argued in a previous post was that, based on what we know about the development of an embryo, it's no more alive that a tree for the first three weeks of development, and possibly not even until the sixth week of development, when neural activity is finally detected.

[Brambila]

Also, by the simple fact that the embryo is growing and not decaying, I would consider that to be a sign of life.

Trees grow.  Should we issue a blanket ban on the cutting down of trees?

Are tress human beings? We cut down mature growth forests. Shall we cull our human population of old people? You know, its kinda insulting to be compared to a tree in this way.

I'm not comparing human beings to trees.  What I argued in a previous post was that, based on what we know about the development of an embryo, it's no more alive that a tree for the first three weeks of development, and possibly not even until the sixth week of development, when neural activity is finally detected.

But your argument is still void, as a tree IS alive. That certianly doesn't make the tree a human being. The tree is a LIVING TREE, becuase it has tree DNA. A fetus is a human being becuase it has [human DNA.

[Patunia]

Also, by the simple fact that the embryo is growing and not decaying, I would consider that to be a sign of life.

Trees grow.  Should we issue a blanket ban on the cutting down of trees?

Are tress human beings? We cut down mature growth forests. Shall we cull our human population of old people? You know, its kinda insulting to be compared to a tree in this way.

I'm not comparing human beings to trees.  What I argued in a previous post was that, based on what we know about the development of an embryo, it's no more alive that a tree for the first three weeks of development, and possibly not even until the sixth week of development, when neural activity is finally detected.

Does the embryo have the same DNA as a tree?  or a human being?

"That damn embryo is sprouting up again Mum. Ill go buy some Weed BeGone."

[A18]

Also, by the simple fact that the embryo is growing and not decaying, I would consider that to be a sign of life.

Trees grow.  Should we issue a blanket ban on the cutting down of trees?

Are tress human beings? We cut down mature growth forests. Shall we cull our human population of old people? You know, its kinda insulting to be compared to a tree in this way.

based on what we know about the development of an embryo, it's no more alive that a tree for the first three weeks of development

...And trees are 100% alive.

[Gabu]

Also, by the simple fact that the embryo is growing and not decaying, I would consider that to be a sign of life.

Trees grow.  Should we issue a blanket ban on the cutting down of trees?

Are tress human beings? We cut down mature growth forests. Shall we cull our human population of old people? You know, its kinda insulting to be compared to a tree in this way.

based on what we know about the development of an embryo, it's no more alive that a tree for the first three weeks of development

...And trees are 100% alive.

...and nobody is banning the killing of trees.

Tell me in your own words what the difference is between trees and human beings (i.e., why it's okay to kill trees and not humans).  Then I'll tell you why I'm saying what I am.

[Patunia]

Also, by the simple fact that the embryo is growing and not decaying, I would consider that to be a sign of life.

Trees grow.  Should we issue a blanket ban on the cutting down of trees?

Are tress human beings? We cut down mature growth forests. Shall we cull our human population of old people? You know, its kinda insulting to be compared to a tree in this way.

based on what we know about the development of an embryo, it's no more alive that a tree for the first three weeks of development

...And trees are 100% alive.

...and nobody is banning the killing of trees.

Tell me in your own words what the difference is between trees and human beings (i.e., why it's okay to kill trees and not humans).  Then I'll tell you why I'm saying what I am.

You are right. If humans start being to volatile well just do a controlled burn and get rid of a few.

[Gabu]

You are right. If humans start being to volatile well just do a controlled burn and get rid of a few.

I'm not claiming that trees are the same as human beings.  I'm simply asking you to articulate what the difference is in your own words.  Then I'll tell you why I've been saying what I have.

[Patunia]

You are right. If humans start being to volatile well just do a controlled burn and get rid of a few.

I'm not claiming that trees are the same as human beings.  I'm simply asking you to articulate what the difference is in your own words.  Then I'll tell you why I've been saying what I have.

You cant have it both ways. If you argue that biologically we should compare ourselves to trees, then you cant just arbitrarily say "but humans are different." But you also keep saying the same lame thing about no laws to not cut trees down. You continue to equate the 2 as being equal. If trees had as much value has humans then I would support a law to bar all cutting of trees. Hows that?

[Brambila]

You are right. If humans start being to volatile well just do a controlled burn and get rid of a few.

I'm not claiming that trees are the same as human beings.  I'm simply asking you to articulate what the difference is in your own words.  Then I'll tell you why I've been saying what I have.

Because humans have the capacity to plant trees; we have the capacity to reason; we have the capacity to create civilization.

[Gabu]

You are right. If humans start being to volatile well just do a controlled burn and get rid of a few.

I'm not claiming that trees are the same as human beings.  I'm simply asking you to articulate what the difference is in your own words.  Then I'll tell you why I've been saying what I have.

Because humans have the capacity to plant trees; we have the capacity to reason; we have the capacity to create civilization.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.  And, from what we know of fetal development, the same is not true of a fetus until it is at least three weeks old, at which time its heart starts beating, or perhaps even six weeks old, at which time its brain starts functioning.  You can argue that the potential is there, but the same could be said of the other five million sperm that didn't make it into the egg.  The fact of the matter is that it appears not to be taking a human life as we know it, because it appears not to be a functioning, conscious human being at the times stated.

[Brambila]

You are right. If humans start being to volatile well just do a controlled burn and get rid of a few.

I'm not claiming that trees are the same as human beings.  I'm simply asking you to articulate what the difference is in your own words.  Then I'll tell you why I've been saying what I have.

Because humans have the capacity to plant trees; we have the capacity to reason; we have the capacity to create civilization.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.  And, from what we know of fetal development, the same is not true of a fetus until it is at least three weeks old, at which time its heart starts beating, or perhaps even six weeks old, at which time its brain starts functioning.  You can argue that the potential is there, but the same could be said of the other five million sperm that didn't make it into the egg.  The fact of the matter is that it appears not to be taking a human life as we know it, because it appears not to be a functioning, conscious human being at the times stated.

Can an infant reason? No. Can an infant build civilization? No. Can an infant plant a tree? No. So, can infants be killed? Infants are potential producers of civilization, too.

[Gabu]

You are right. If humans start being to volatile well just do a controlled burn and get rid of a few.

I'm not claiming that trees are the same as human beings.  I'm simply asking you to articulate what the difference is in your own words.  Then I'll tell you why I've been saying what I have.

You cant have it both ways. If you argue that biologically we should compare ourselves to trees, then you cant just arbitrarily say "but humans are different." But you also keep saying the same lame thing about no laws to not cut trees down. You continue to equate the 2 as being equal. If trees had as much value has humans then I would support a law to bar all cutting of trees. Hows that?

The claim that I am making is that, according to what we know of fetal development, the embryo is no more functioning or conscious than a tree and, while it looks like a human being, it does not exhibit signs of human life as we know it (i.e., the capacity for thought, action, or reason) at that time.  Therefore, comparing the aborting of something like that to the murder of a human being is not a correct analogy.

[Gabu]

You are right. If humans start being to volatile well just do a controlled burn and get rid of a few.

I'm not claiming that trees are the same as human beings.  I'm simply asking you to articulate what the difference is in your own words.  Then I'll tell you why I've been saying what I have.

Because humans have the capacity to plant trees; we have the capacity to reason; we have the capacity to create civilization.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.  And, from what we know of fetal development, the same is not true of a fetus until it is at least three weeks old, at which time its heart starts beating, or perhaps even six weeks old, at which time its brain starts functioning.  You can argue that the potential is there, but the same could be said of the other five million sperm that didn't make it into the egg.  The fact of the matter is that it appears not to be taking a human life as we know it, because it appears not to be a functioning, conscious human being at the times stated.

Can an infant reason?  No.

Do we know that as a fact?  Not that I know of.  It may not be capable of complex thought, but its brain is certainly functioning.  The same is not true of an embryo that has not sufficiently developed.

Here, let me ask you this question: at what point are human beings declared dead?  When their heart stops beating and their brain stops functioning, right?