Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been waiting for years for a DECISION to be made on WHEN life "begins". After all, dead or so-called non-living things DON'T GROW. It shouldn't affect the rights to abortion; it does, however, wipe out the tiresome bubble-headed reasoning that an abortion is not killing a life.
I have been waiting for years for a DECISION to be made on WHEN life "begins". After all, dead or so-called non-living things DON'T GROW. It shouldn't affect the rights to abortion; it does, however, wipe out the tiresome bubble-headed reasoning that an abortion is not killing a life.
It's killing something but I wouldn't call it alife.
If it's not a person, as the pro-abortion folks insist, what is it that has unique human DNA, one of a kind finger prints, a complete human body (not another species), a sex, a blood type, a heart beat, etc, yet is not a living human being?
If it has all these things when it is not a person, what changes to make this "non-person" into a person?
If it's not a person, as the pro-abortion folks insist, what is it that has unique human DNA, one of a kind finger prints, a complete human body (not another species), a sex, a blood type, a heart beat, etc, yet is not a living human being?
If it has all these things when it is not a person, what changes to make this "non-person" into a person?
A fertilized egg has none of the attributes you listed (with the exception, perhaps, of the unique human DNA). Therefore, it is not a person. And isn't that Personhood USA's argument - that personhood begins at conception?
[a person becomes a person when he/she has the attributes you listed - specifically a complete human body and, I would add, that is viable outside of the womb]
I for one am glad these initiatives are being addressed by the states. It's as it should be. States themselves should make these decissions. If two states have opposite opinions, move to the one that best suits your beliefs, whatever they may be.
California and Oregon? They must be smoking some medicine! That has about as much chance of passage as making the 8 track tape the official music medium.
And when is that, specifically? That definition changes as medicine improves, doesn't it? Even then, isn't it really on a case by case basis? How can you define a child as a "person" that way? Was a child at 24 weeks in the 1970s less of a person than a child at 24 weeks in 2011 simply because the child in 2011 is considered viable outside of the womb?
And when is that, specifically? That definition changes as medicine improves, doesn't it? Even then, isn't it really on a case by case basis? How can you define a child as a "person" that way? Was a child at 24 weeks in the 1970s less of a person than a child at 24 weeks in 2011 simply because the child in 2011 is considered viable outside of the womb?
Good observation. The point when a fetus is viable outside of the womb has been a moving target. But we're not talking about a fetus. We're discussing a fertilized egg. Perhaps a few minutes or hours following fertilization(?). Outside the female body, with current technology, that's not going to develop into anything.
[in any event, this is we shoud rely on science in regards to this issue]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
