Saber_2005

It develops really early on in the pregnancy, matter of fact the brain of a fetus starts dividing into three seperate parts in only 3 weeks after conception. Eight days after fertilization the fertilized ovum (called a blastocyst) implants in the lining of the uterus. It emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. It's self aware after 8 days. Being self aware is being sentient.

The murder thing is why it shouldn't have been legalized in the first place. Sentience is the capacity for basic consciousness. Therefore according to your logic people in comas, people that are asleep, and people that have been knocked out should not have the same rights as someone who is awake and in good health?

This is a thread about whether abortion should be legalized or not. I was reading through the last thread and I noticed a few people had a couple misconceptions about abortion. A fetus or an embryo or whatever is already a human and has been so since the moment of conception. This is not debated at all in the scientific community. Here is the proof that a fetus is human life: Therefore abortion is murder as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary - mur·der (mûr'dər) Pronunciation Key n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

It is a human being. Did you see my posts? From the moment the sperm meets the egg it is human. The scientific community agrees with me on this. So no I don't think it should be different because either way you're killing a human

Sure it is. It's still a human with the same right to live as you or me.

The person is not going through labor if they are dead. So are you saying that a fetus's brain is dead until the umbilical cords are cut then they magically starts thinking? But the debate isn't whether a fetus can think or not its whether it should be considered double murder to kill a woman and her unborn baby. American Heritage Dictionary - mur·der (mûr'dər) Pronunciation Key n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. So the question is: Is a fetus considered a human? And the answer to that question is undeniably yes. Here is proof to back up what I say: Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18. "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Human Embryology & Teratology Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book." Not how they do not say "A birth is the beginning of a new human being." Or "birth is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed" He/she is a human the moment fertilization occurs.

It is very similar. The only difference is that a fetus was not able to think before. It is alive and it is a human life. If he/she isn't shot or stabbed, then he/she will come into the world as a baby. Not much different than a fetus. For he/she is still completely reliant on their parents for survival. A baby has not had a life yet either. All a baby does is eat, excretes waste, and throw up. Does that mean that it should be ok for someone to shoot or stab a baby to death?

So someone on life support or in coma shouldn't have the same rights as a healthy person? Someone in a coma on life support can't think or stay alive on their own, if you know they will make a full recovery in 9 months should it be illegal to kill them because when they come back alive they will complicate your life a little?

If conception occurs, which is where sperm fertilizes an egg, then human life has been created as I cited in my past post. Therefore an egg is not human life so you would only be charged with one murder not millions.

A plant is not human whereas a fetus is, therefore that comparison is groundless.

An athlete is someone who has to endure stress both physical and mental during the event in which they are partaking. Nascar drivers have to deal with driving a car at incredible speed with 42 (i think) other cars around them while taking crazy turns with insane g forces in 100 degree heat. That equals a very physically stressful x-amount of laps. It's mentally stressful because the smallest little wrong move could cost you the race or your car. So the athletic part of the definition fits and it's obviously competitive and it obviously takes skill, therefore I would have to say that it is a sport (even though it's wicked boring to watch )

It scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception therefore it isn't effectively dead, it is effectively human. There is no debate in the scientific community about this. Which means it should be counted as a double murder. If you don't believe me you might believe these guys/girls: Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth Harvard University Medical School "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania "I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception." Dr. Jerome LeJeune Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [it] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Professor Hymie Gordon Mayo Clinic "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Watson A. Bowes University of Colorado Medical School "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception." The official Senate report reached this conclusion: Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings. Source: Abort73.com (don't go there if you have a weak stomach)

He doesn't let anyone who sins into his prescence, that's why he sent Jesus to die for our sins so its not discriminating against castrated people anymore than everyone else in the world (see last post) The raping virgins one is an ugly truth about what happened when an army took over a city, it happened with every culture, not just the jews. And the psalm one still doesn't exist.

Go talk to your science teacher and ask him/her if ecosystems are delicately balanced or not. -Aquatic ecosystems like a river's are varied and delicately balanced. www.rivernetwork.org/river-habitat.php -forests are complex ecosystems, delicately balanced. www.oxfam.org.uk/coolplanet/ontheline/explore/nature/rainforest/animals.htm Second law= Universe tends toward high entropy, which means it tends toward disorder not delicatley balanced ecosystems. No they weren't like god, they just didn't sin.

Take a look at any of the worlds biomes or ecosystems and then tell me that they are not delicately balanced. That's biology 101. He doesn't choose to kill great leaders, was God the one holding the gun that shot Abraham Lincoln? No, but if someone is going to kill someone He won't stop them because that interferes with free will.