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.
It's debatable whether science is unable to clone humans. We don't pursue that avenue of scientific research for a host of reasons, but choosing not to and being unable to are two different things. My point though, is that the clone would indeed be human. So qualifying human life status on an embryo because of unique DNA is a moot argument. Unique has nothing to do with it, the argument rests solely on the presence of human DNA, not that the embryo is DNA unique and therefore separate from the mother.
It's not an anti-choice argument that I'm posing, but rather I'm asking that pro-life proponents have clarity in their argument.
So on the basis that perhaps one day scientists somewhere will be able to clone a human being that defuncts the argument that a fetus is a human being? Why would it? Are identical twins somehow less human because their DNA is the same?
What differentiates a fetus from a toenail is that it is an individual seperate from its parents even though it may reside for a time inside of a womans uterus. It is seperate, unique and wholly a different human being then its mother or father. To compare a fetus with a sperm is ridiculous as is equating a fetus to a toenail, a tapeworm, or a hangnail which have all been arguments from prochoice people to excuse abortion as no more of a big deal then getting your hair trimmed.
Abortion is a big deal, the death of anyone is a sad thing and the entire situation should be treated with respect and a certain gravity that is wholly lacking in your mocking 'argument'.
Right, the parents in the DC public school district don't want their children to have the essentials of life that the Neo-Cons are only to happy not to provide. It's obvious that you have no defense for the Right balking at providing healthcare, nourishment, housing, education and a safe environment to those who have actually been born. I guess it's hard to comprehend the need when you're standing on that high platform screaming for the 'rights' of the unborn. Gotcha!
You know nothing of me, and clearly have not retained anything that I have written about this subject on this thread or on any other.
Easier to engage douchbaggery methods of debate....
At anyrate since you are so curious I brought up the DC schools as an example of what happens when parents are desperate for an escape from the craphole their public schools have become -- liberal lead public school system I might add. They had vouchers (thanks reps!) that were taken away by the new administration (dems, I thought you were for the children?). The parents are not particularily happy about that, but so what? Isn't a wonderful democratic ideal 'suffer for the good of the whole, except for us'. Reminds me more then a little of the republican mantra
But hell, look at the catholic church. Say what you will they do put their money where their mouth is (and no pedo priest jokes, please ) and really do serve pregnant mothers by giving them places to live, help with either adoption or with keeping their child through housing, job training and parenting classes.
And then too many conservatives do give to charity...blah blah blah. But I don't think you really want to learn anything here. It is ever so much easier to chant "Me Good You Bad' and the ever popular 'They are sooo stupid because X,Y, and Z'. Well, good luck with that.
Abortion is a big deal, the death of anyone is a sad thing and the entire situation should be treated with respect and a certain gravity that is wholly lacking in your mocking 'argument'.
Prove to me that a zygote or an embryo can sustain life outside of the uterus and I may change my stance on the abortion issue. You can't because it can't. The 'host' of said zygote or embryo which cannot maintain life unless attached to the 'host', has the right to terminate said 'occupancy'.
I ask you where is the outrage, the saddness at the immoral practice of the Neo-Cons who continually deny the right to life services to those who have been born?
She lied about being raped ... a great person to have on the anti-choice side. She claims that she was used by the pro-choice movement, when, in fact, she is being even more used by the anti-choice movement .. it's vile.
Some people develop morally and spiritually. Others do not. The slime rag lawyers that used her to promote abortion on demand are no longer on her side.
Easier to engage douchbaggery methods of debate....
At anyrate since you are so curious I brought up the DC schools as an example of what happens when parents are desperate for an escape from the craphole their public schools have become -- liberal lead public school system I might add. They had vouchers (thanks reps!) that were taken away by the new administration (dems, I thought you were for the children?). The parents are not particularily happy about that, but so what? Isn't a wonderful democratic ideal 'suffer for the good of the whole, except for us'. Reminds me more then a little of the republican mantra
But hell, look at the catholic church. Say what you will they do put their money where their mouth is (and no pedo priest jokes, please ) and really do serve pregnant mothers by giving them places to live, help with either adoption or with keeping their child through housing, job training and parenting classes.
And then too many conservatives do give to charity...blah blah blah. But I don't think you really want to learn anything here. It is ever so much easier to chant "Me Good You Bad' and the ever popular 'They are sooo stupid because X,Y, and Z'. Well, good luck with that.
"Douchbagger methods"? Stating facts about the resistance of the Right to provide services to the children whose parents or lack of parents cause hunger/homelessness/poor health/sub-optimal education is using douchbagger methods?
I'm not putting down, defending or even discussing the Catholic Church. You can go on about them to somebody else. Stay on topic why don't you. Typical song and dance to keep from addressing the issue at hand.
I have no doubt that Conservatives give to charities of their choice. What has that got to do with policy. The Right does not want to provide services to children in need. Their voting practices prove that without a doubt. Neo-Cons who post here are constantly ranting about social services, etc.
And where did I express curiosity about YOU? I don't care who or what you are.
Pssst, a zygote/embryo/fetus is NOT a child. With that caveat, I agree, no one has the right to kill a child. So why do Conservatives deny assistance to children who are hungry, homeless, in need of medical care? Why do they insist these children die due to lack of food, shelter, health care? They are immoral, self serving killers who murder thousands of children yearly by denying them the services they need to live.
Prove to me that a zygote or an embryo can sustain life outside of the uterus and I may change my stance on the abortion issue. You can't because it can't. The 'host' of said zygote or embryo which cannot maintain life unless attached to the 'host', has the right to terminate said 'occupancy'.
I ask you where is the outrage, the saddness at the immoral practice of the Neo-Cons who continually deny the right to life services to those who have been born?
Was I talking bout zygotes? Or embryos?
I believe I was talking about fetuses and yes, a fetus can survive outside of the womb at earlier times in gestation. And it is human as is the zygote and as is the embryo.
Abortion is going to happen and my view is very simple and clear -- make it safe, make it legal and make it early. Preferably plan b early, but still.
Regardless, whether it is a zygote, an embryo or a fetus it deserves the respect of acknowledging that a human life has been lost. To deny that fetus its humanity may make you feel better, but it is intellectually dishonest.
As to what happens after the baby is born -- hey, I am not nor have never been a neo con. You have a problem with them take it up with them. I see no reason to defend viewpoints and practices that have nothing to do with me.
"Douchbagger methods"? Stating facts about the resistance of the Right to provide services to the children whose parents or lack of parents cause hunger/homelessness/poor health/sub-optimal education is using douchbagger methods?
I'm not putting down, defending or even discussing the Catholic Church. You can go on about them to somebody else. Stay on topic why don't you. Typical song and dance to keep from addressing the issue at hand.
I have no doubt that Conservatives give to charities of their choice. What has that got to do with policy. The Right does not want to provide services to children in need. Their voting practices prove that without a doubt. Neo-Cons who post here are constantly ranting about social services, etc.
And where did I express curiosity about YOU? I don't care who or what you are.
No, you are a person who apparently believes a sperm is an indivual living human being the same as a fetus.
I wouldn't brag about that.
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.
) and really do serve pregnant mothers by giving them places to live, help with either adoption or with keeping their child through housing, job training and parenting classes.
