Wilber Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Whether you regard it as human or not, it is the only thing that can become a human and if it is left alone it will inevitably become one.Only if the mother that created it continues to live. There is a line somewhere between 6 and 9 months where a fetus could be seperated from its mother without immediately becoming a mass of dead tissue. At that time you could argue that it has all of the biological pieces in place to be called a biologically independent entity with human DNA. That could make it 'human'. OTH, that is my opinion and has no more scientific merit than the opinion that human life begins at conception. Only a human fetus can become a human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Jesus... A mass of cells cannot produce a human either False. We ARE a mass of human cells. A fetus is biologically human tissue but you cannot use science to claim that it is a separate human entity that is biologically distinct from the human body that created it. 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. Claiming that life begins a conception is an opinion - not a scientific fact.false again. Human life by the very definition HAS to begin at conception or else we are not to have this conversation my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 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. Cite for the right wing's enablement project and how it has reduced child poverty? Your assertion, your burden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Only if the mother that created it continues to live. Thank you for proving my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Your assertion, your burden. I assert the right wing doing much of anything. But you prove my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Your assertion, your burden. Can't really me asserting the right wing doing anything. But you prove my point. Short term memory much? your assertion: 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Can't really me asserting the right wing doing anything. But you prove my point. and what, pray tell, does this actually mean? too much rye perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 No, Birth makes you a citizen and all the priveledges and responsibilities that come with that. It does NOT determine when biological life begins. 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 course 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 of 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 No, Birth makes you a citizen and all the priveledges and responsibilities that come with that. It does NOT determine when biological life begins. 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 Otherwise, we're back to "life begins at conception" as an opinion. That is NOT an opinion. It is merely biological FACT. Argue with biologists - not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Human life by the very definition HAS to begin at conception or else we are not to have this conversation my friend.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. Biological LIFE (human or not) begins at conception. Legal HUMAN 'rights' currently in Canada, begin at birthI agree that a fetus is biologically living in the same way that every other tissue in your body is biologically living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 That's NOT the point. The Point is that fetus is alive. Why does the mother have the right to kill it?just asking? Where does this 'right' to kill come from? How do men get this 'right' to kill? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Human life by the very definition HAS to begin at conception or else we are not to have this conversation my friend.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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 You can dance around it all you like but only a human fetus can become a human being. Whatever your position on this issue, you have to deal with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted February 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 That is NOT an opinion. It is merely biological FACT.Argue with biologists - not me. You keep saying this - where's your citations? How about some links to biologists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Another thing of note is that laws are arbitrary. Riverwind should know this in his debating over first nations issues. IMO this argument is going nowhere, I believe life starts at conception, others here do to, others believe it starts at birth. The question is, that since laws are arbitrary, who is to say which side is correct as it is all a matter of opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 I'll leave it to the readers to decide. Evidently not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 That's NOT the point. The Point is that fetus is alive. Why does the mother have the right to kill it? just asking? Where does this 'right' to kill come from? How do men get this 'right' to kill? 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Another thing of note is that laws are arbitrary. Riverwind should know this in his debating over first nations issues. IMO this argument is going nowhere, I believe life starts at conception, others here do to, others believe it starts at birth. The question is, that since laws are arbitrary, who is to say which side is correct as it is all a matter of opinion? It's not about arguing when life starts per se. It's about whether the rights of an unborn and undeveloped life should override the rights of a woman to do what she wants with her body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 I'll leave it to the readers to decide. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 hahahaWow. 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. None of Bush's big ideas have worked out and the Democrats were complicit in the worst of those ideas hurting Americans. Your enablement crapola is another way of saying doing nothing. The right wing is absolutely no help to the poor and has cut program after program increasing child poverty. Thanks for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Another thing of note is that laws are arbitrary. Riverwind should know this in his debating over first nations issues. IMO this argument is going nowhere, I believe life starts at conception, others here do to, others believe it starts at birth. The question is, that since laws are arbitrary, who is to say which side is correct as it is all a matter of opinion? It's not about arguing when life starts per se. It's about whether the rights of an unborn and undeveloped life should override the rights of a woman to do what she wants with her body. WHO exactly brought that argument up? It certainly was not me. My assertion is that if you do have an abortion that you should surely be aware of the scientific facts of the process. You do not agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 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.Wrong. I believe a fetus is not a human life until it can survive on its own outside the mother's body. This would put the line at somewhere around 7 to 8 months. Before then the fetus is just a mass of tissue which is part of the mother's body. My definition of 'human life' is just as biologically sound as your definition. Personally, I think it is aburd to call something that nothing more than a blob of cells human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 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. None of Bush's big ideas have worked out and the Democrats were complicit in the worst of those ideas hurting Americans. Your enablement crapola is another way of saying doing nothing. The right wing is absolutely no help to the poor and has cut program after program increasing child poverty. Thanks for nothing. Thanks for your OPINION. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.