White Doors

Evidently not. You are partisan. There are many more readers here than posters. Pity for you and the 'opinions' that you have expressed here thus far.

You brought it up... I just answered. As for having the "right" to kill a fetus.... we've been over this, you just don't like the answer. You can't "kill" something which is not alive according to the law. Wow - the minds of simpletons. Indeed Yes! You surely CAN kill something that isn't 'alive' according to 'law' - what you CAN'T do is murder it. Get it yet?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/06/bush-disabled-children/ This is one example of the right wing cutting off services for disabled children. You said enablement helps families with children. I have no idea what that is but with child poverty numbers up, it seems that this is an outlandish claim. Is enablement the equivalent of "it takes a village" or a "thousand points of light?" Thanks for a mealy mouthed statement if there ever was one. hahaha Wow. Bush introduce the 'no child left behind' legislation and all the democrats were clapping furiously. How has that worked out? Fact is - the more that the state introduces it's mandatory interference, the less well off the cildren we all claim to be concerned about, are. And you are quite correct- - you have no idea.

We have having this conversation because some people have the OPINION that 'human life' begins at conception but that is not a biological fact. Biologically speaking a fetus is living tissue but it is not a 'human life' because the term 'human life' is subjective term that has no scientific definition.What your are trying to do is claim that your definition of 'human life' is a biological term. No, what you are trying to do is make an astronomical assupmption that some sort of miraculous 'biological function' occurs at the moment of childbirth that matches with current Canadian legal definition of human rights. It does not match. Your attempt to 'match' the two is making you look a wee bit ridiculous if you don't mind my saying. Your argument is akin to the catholic church punishing Caperinicus in the 16th century for having the audacity to assert that the sun does not revolve around the earth. IOW your politics do NOT match with science.

Actually, Catchme's right, at least as far as Canadian law is concerned. I had forgotten it myself till I read her post, but when I read it I remembered it from a law ourse I took in university. It was a real case we studied about a mother who lost her baby due to negligence, but she could not sue on behalf cof the baby, only herself. I'm sure I could dig up the case if you are really interested.... Otherwise, we're back to "life begins at conception" as an opinion. hahaha. wow - really stubborn people on this subject I guess. Ok, I will type slower... Biological LIFE (human or not) begins at conception. Legal HUMAN 'rights' currently in Canada, begin at birth. Please note that Canada is the ONLY developed country that has no LEGAL legislation in regards to abortion. Does that make us more progressive? I'll leave it to the readers to decide. BTW That is NOT an opinion. It is merely biological FACT. Argue with biologists - not me.

and what, pray tell, does this actually mean? too much rye perhaps?

Can't really me asserting the right wing doing anything. But you prove my point. Short term memory much? your assertion: What, you think I'm too lazy to 'back page' once? Prove it. what state? what facts? Show me some numbers. Otherwise your partisan claptrap is only that. Again, thanks for coming out.

Thank you for proving my point.

Cite for the right wing's enablement project and how it has reduced child poverty? Your assertion, your burden.

Jesus... False. We ARE a mass of human cells. false. Every human has unique DNA. 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother = 46 total. You may have heard of DNA testing from watchig CSI. Sorry for getting drole on you riverwind - normally you do not deserve it, but in this case you do.

THANK YOU Wilber.

Perhaps the 'right wing' believes the 'state' should provide 'enablement' and not replace the role of parenting? Sometimes caring is not DOING it is enabling. just a thought.

No it is not because the term 'human' is a value judgement not a scientific term. When I cut my hair I am killing 'human' life according to your definition because any cell which has human DNA must be human. Oh man, if I had a shovel I'd give it to you. Would 'homo sapien' be preferable to your sensitivities? BTW, your hair is DEAD and unable to produce a human being. Anything else?

Nah, peanut gallery will do - thanks.

I DID read it in fact. Russia has the highest abortion rate in the developed world. Would you say child services in Russia are superior to South Dakota? Again, your partisanship is getting in the way of you having an intelligent conversation.

Of course not. But when I say why I don't try to pretend it is science. I am claiming that human biological life begins at conception and you seem to disagree? THAT is science. Plain and simple. Do I feel abortion should be 100% outlawed? No.

Good post August. Who made this argument however?

Why should they be different? Biologically speaking humans are no different from any other carbon based lifeform. What you want to do is impose a moral/metaphsyical value on something that happens to have human DNA. There is nothing wrong with making that argument but you have no business claiming it is a argument based on science. You mean you don't? What do you eat? I cannibalism on the same plane as eating a carrot? It seems to be. Funny how people can make a terrible comparison and fight it to the death eh? can you say stubborn?

Child poverty in Canada. http://www.campaign2000.ca/rc/rc06/06_C200...lReportCard.pdf Sorry, not sure where you got: "The right wing want to ensure the pregnancy goes to term and then not have the state responsible for the care of that child afterwards." from that document. ie: keep digging.

Why should they be different? Biologically speaking humans are no different from any other carbon based lifeform. What you want to do is impose a moral/metaphsyical value on something that happens to have human DNA. There is nothing wrong with making that argument but you have no business claiming it is a argument based on science. Again, show me where I said that please. I said LIFE begins at fertilization. People having abortions should be aware of this. It is a fact. Your comparing a fetus to bread mould is morally disngenious. And human DNA and mould DNA IS quite different.

You are the one parsing the definition of life. You have claimed that 'life' begins at conception but you do not define what you mean by life. However, given the context of the discussion you seem to be implying that the 'life' that begins at conception is more important than the 'life' that grows on a piece of bread. If that is the case then your are not really stating a scientific fact - you are providing an opinion that is no more valid than the people that say the life starts at birth. So you are saying that biological human life and mould are morally equivelent? How progressive of you Riverwind! Bravo!

I find it amazing that people are worried about banks what with the ravaging of the human race being perpetuated by the Belugas.

The State has been increasingly not taken responsibility for a child that is physically and mentally handicapped. The right wing want to ensure the pregnancy goes to term and then not have the state responsible for the care of that child afterwards. Cite?

The mold on a piece of bread is biologically alive - does it have a right to life? Strawman of the very worst sort Riverwind and you know it. Where did I say ANYTHING about the 'right' to life? waiting.. btw, nice post Wilber.

My point here, which you seem not to be getting, is that you are trying to dictate to me, and all other women, how to use our reproductive equipment. I was trying, with little success, to show what it is like when the shoe is on the other foot.