Originally posted by generalissimoSo a fish embryo is just as human as we are, then? A zygote is two cells, nothing more. An embryo has a very limited brain and heart, and virtually no organs and only a general shape. Only in the late fetal stage can we begin to describe the baby as being remotely human. And very few people abort third-trimester fetuses, unless there's an emergency.
I agree with you on that
1 edit
Originally posted by scherzoBig Deal. I know a few people with a limited brain and heart walking around as we speak. Should we consider them human as well?
So a fish embryo is just as human as we are, then? A zygote is two cells, nothing more. An embryo has a very limited brain and heart, and virtually no organs and only a general shape. Only in the late fetal stage can we begin to describe the baby as being remotely human. And very few people abort third-trimester fetuses, unless there's an emergency.
Originally posted by whodeyBut they do have a developed body and are grown, not to mention born.
Big Deal. I know a few people with a limited brain and heart walking around as we speak. Should we consider them human as well?
Let me make something clear. I do not like killing babies, unborn or not. But sometimes it is necessary. The following reasons are necessary:
1. Abortion of embryos (not fetuses) for stem-cell research.
2. If the child has a disorder that will kill it in the womb or soon after birth
3. If one or both of the parents are unable to care for it, for whatever reason
4. If it is unanimously decided for a good reason by a couple who are fully aware of the risks and of what they are doing.
Originally posted by SleepyguySince you are the one advocating governmental restrictions on what a free person can do within the confines of their own body, the onus is on you to support your radical position. Your "judgment call" is insufficient grounds for restricting other people's liberties.
Just as you would first have to show that a non-viable fetus is NOT a "human life" before you assert that destroying it is not "killing and innocent human life".
It's a judgment call. Somehow you can look at a picture of a 22 week old fetus and declare that it is not a human life merely because it will not be able to breathe on it's own for a couple mo ...[text shortened]... t during recovery was not a human life for the duration of time they were on life support?
Once you have a right, you can't lose it (though you can forfeit it by certain drastic actions) but until you are human you have no human rights. Simple.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarYour assertion is noted. But what you believe is an insufficient rationale for restricting the freedoms of people who don't believe the same, dubious claim (one that has never been recognized in the law of this country).
From the moment of the conception the life within the mother is genetically human and is alive. I believe that being human and alive defines human life.
Why does a human or pre-human (whatever your believe) have any more right to live then a fly? Life is not precious it is a renewable resource. Many children (of all species) throughout the world die because they lack adequate rescouces to survive. Whether it be food, shelter, defense, medical etc. The right to live is clearly a man made creation. In the wild newborn babies will be left to die if there is not enough food. In our society and evolved states of being we have the choice to abort that child. Why? Not because those mothers and fathers like killing but because something is lacking. Be it money, emotional readiness, or even lack of interest. Isn't it better to forgo the birth of a child if the situation is not ideal. Rather then to force them into such situations. It seems to me to be the cruelest thing of all.
Studies have shown that abortion does have a positive effect on things like education and crime.
This is my perverted view
1 edit
Originally posted by KencorpAll I'll say to that is that I'm very grateful the (then) teen-aged mothers I've my two beautiful adopted children did not share your world view.
Why does a human or pre-human (whatever your believe) have any more right to live then a fly? Life is not precious it is a renewable resource. Many children (of all species) throughout the world die because they lack adequate rescouces to survive. Whether it be food, shelter, defense, medical etc. The right to live is clearly a man made creation. In the wild does have a positive effect on things like education and crime.
This is my perverted view
2 edits
Originally posted by duecerAh, elitism at its finest. Have a quality education and a couple of Beamers parked in the drive way and your morality somehow is somehow greater than your counterparts as well. In fact, that sounds something like what Obama would say. Unfortunately for him, however, the "little people" far outnumber the master liberal race of elitists such as himself.
its not a matter of "perspective" Mississippi ranks last or close to last in almost all category's related to education, quality of life, health, etc... its the backward ignorance that permeates the state that keeps it there.
disclaimer: I'm sure there some rational intellegent people in mississippi, they're just harder to find, same goes for Arkansas, Alaska, Alabama, and South Carolina.
Originally posted by whodeyCalling it elitism implies that he is elite. The chances are he is just some middle manager driving a Ford, but believes himself to be better than most 'cuz he scored 1200 on his SATs.
Ah, elitism at its finest. Have a quality education and a couple of Beamers parked in the drive way and your morality somehow is somehow greater than your counterparts as well. In fact, that sounds something like what Obama would say. Unfortunately for him, however, the "little people" far outnumber the master liberal race of elitists such as himself.