Recommend who you support for President

Consider this: The man's "contribution" to the baby making process is alive, correct? The woman's "contribution" is alive, correct? When these to living things combine do they, at some point, stop being living things?

 

The sperm and egg are not alive in the same way you or I are...they have no brain, no nervous system, they have no organs, they are not organisms but cells created by an organism. Together cells make up an organism...

There are millions of cells dying on an organism like a human being every day...do you morn the passing of a skin cell? Sperm that are inside you die and you create more, a female ejects an egg every month, that egg is discarded...it is not alive in the same sense as you and I are alive.

If I had to say what biology has taught me is that conception is two cells combining DNA matter, this sets off cellular replication. For some time, these cells are not specialized....there are no brain cells, skin cells, organs, etc..they are just non-specialized cells that contain DNA and are set to replicate, the same as any other cell...like skin cells that quickly replicate to replace dead ones. At a certain point these cells start to imprint...becoming specialized and at this point the mass of replicating cells start to take form, a brain is formed at a certain point, organs, eyes, hands, feet, etc...By late term, the fetus not only resembles a human but has much of the functionality of one save it still cannot exist outside the womb...

So I have always felt that this mass of cells becomes a life in earnest when the brain and nervous system develops...thats just me.

 

I appreciate your opinion but I'm not saying the cells are human life, rather I believe the joining of those cells becomes a life.
A set of tires, some fenders & a motor individually don't make a car but when all the components are combined...viola, you have a functioning, operational automobile.

 

I agree, so when it now has tires, fender and motor, it is a car...I see those components as being similar to say the heart, liver, brain and nervous system...so when those develop...it is indeed a life in my opinion.

I guess the question is when is it a life, when the two cells combine, or when the organism is indeed developed and has all its components. Its a tough issue for me as I would not call myself an advocate for abortion. I am generally of the mind set it should be avoided...that is by responsible actions be it birth control or abstinance...whatever, just dont start the process if you arent going to let it run its course...

 

David,

I ditto what Drusus said in his last post.

Also...about the soul thing..you have to remember that not everyone belives that...therefore it is irrelevent to the discussion. Unless you want to prove that souls do exist, that is.



stainless

 

First ultra sound that insurance companys pay for as a routine measure is 8 weeks henceforth the insurance companys are in fact recognizing that life begins at 8 weeks. I think that is a good starting point for putting a hold on having an abortion and then count it down more but i would not go as far as saying it is at conception for that would take away the morning after pill option for those who have been raped or did something under heavy influence with someone else under heavy influence.

 

The scientific definition of 'life' is indeed not nailed down. But there is no doubt in my mind that it doesn't take a fetus long to be alive by most any definitions. Bacteria are considered alive. A plant is considered alive. A cockroach is considered alive. Certainly by 4 to 5 weeks after conception, a baby's nervous system is forming up, the heart is beating, brain and lungs are forming, etc. It's certainly alive. Still growing and unable to survive outside the womb, but alive.

 

....and we're deaing with a life, or potential life demanding on your view, so we need to err on the side of safety.

 

Fine, don't kill a roach if you see one in your house then.


stainless

 

fine, potential life....so when you wear a condom, or a woman uses birth control...she is killing of the sperm....which is the potential to make that life, therefore you have committed murder (sperm cells are technically living)


stainless

 

Or if a little bunny is in your way on the sidewalk, just stomp on it? All I was talking about was my feelings on life not about your, mine or anyone else's rationalizations for terminating it.

 

Sadly, you miss the much larger point. Human life, once formed, has to be protected above all other things. Our unborn children have to be given an opportunity.
I find it hypocritical to hear statements such as "our children's children" (when libs are talking about the economy) coming out of the mouths of people who are also pro-abortion.

 

Did you ever consider that "pro-abortion libs" might look at it like this?

Although I don't care for the statistically insignificant comment I pretty much agree with all of this.

Abortion as "birth control" is wrong and as Isa pointed out docor's that make a living off of it are not high on my list of "swell guys".

When one really looks at it this question will never be resolved. We all have our feelings and they are strong.

Banning abortion period would put an "insignificant number" of fully grown, developed women at risk and why should a victim of rape or incest have absolutely no say in the matter?

Conversely, there will be the "hey it's birth control" thinkers. Yes, we know they're out there. The "damn I got knocked up again" segment.

It can't be banned and it really can't be "regulated". After all regulation takes time and there is only so much in a case of pregnancy.

 

I saw today that Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin from the Constitution Party for President.

 

Is it the childs fault that a rape or incest occured? I am not so hardline that I would be anti abortion in those circumstances if the perpetrator were aborted as well.

 

My biggest issue with abortion is abortions of convenience. I would like to see some numbers on how many of those there are compared to rape/incest/treatens the life of the mother abortions. I bet convenience rules the day.

 

Perhaps that is the cut off date that can be used objectively, leaving emotions and religion aside. If the baby inside is developing a nervous system that means it can feel pain. For those who are pro-abortion or womens right to her body mindset-think about that and I repeat that thought in a clearer tense, a growing baby being pulled apart to death and being able to feel that pain. 3 weeks to be on the safe side should be the cut off date if it is known that a baby inside has a developing nervous system at 4 to 5 weeks.

Murder of the worse kind- the tortured death of an innocent.

 

yeah, not that I am pro-abortion but I could see it being set to a certain point on such criteria. Problem is, hard core pro and anti will never budge...it would require compromise that I just dont ever see happening.

Oh, and I was disappointed Paul came out for Baldwin instead of Nader. Although both Paul and Nader must deal with many of the same issues being third party / Indy mainly electoral issues, they are pretty much polar opposites on most other issues. They are very much the same, IMO when it comes to what I see as honesty and integrity...but for instance on the current topic, Nader is pro-choice while Ron Paul is very much anti-abortion...I kind of see Nader as a true Democrat Liberal while Paul holds true Republican ideals so Paul would never support him nor would Nader support Paul. I do like that many of the third parties got together to form a bit of a union concerning problems that effect them all in the closed electoral system...Maybe as people get more and more disgusted with what they are given to vote for, more people might take another look at a third party...sadly at the moment, most of the third parties have what I would call less than ideal candidates, too extreme, too far left, too far right...

But I just cant get behind Baldwin.

 

Of all the 3rd party folks out there, Ron Paul is my favorite with one major problem, correct me if I'm wrong Drusus.

It seems to be my recollection that I heard Ron Paul once state that he thought we deserved 9/11. That for me is a deal breaker, but like I said, I only THINK I heard that....can't be sure.

Huckabee's great as well, but also one MAJOR problem to me. He put a Mexican consulate in Arkansas for the illegals rather than booting them out. Thats a no-no in my book.

Of all the Repos, I thought he was a damn good debater. Besides, Ted Nugent loves the guy, so he can't be all that bad. I'm pretty mentally in line with the Nuge and was sorry to see him move to Texas, I was hoping he would run for Gov in MI, then I could start buying up cheap houses before he fixed that state back up financially.

Of the Dems I could have voted for Bill Richardson, he has done great things for NM and has experience up the ying yang.

Kuchinich was a total wackjob freak nutcase, Hillary a communist, Obama a radical lefty America hating Black Supremist, and the others......who were they again? Oh yeah, Biden. The gift that keeps on giving, lol. I LOVE Biden, LMAO.

 

Paul thinks the entire world hates us & having our troops stationed abroad is a provocation for future attacks. I tend to agree with him that we don't need US troops stationed all over the world but his implication of the US being a bad guy just sorta rubs me the wrong way. Doesn't he also believe the 9/11 inside job conspiracy?

I have discussed this particular immigration issue with Huckabee, believe it of not. His stance is that without the Mexican workforce being utilized at the time, (I believe it was Tyson, but also involved the entire meat processing industry in AR) the entire industry would be in danger of folding up in his state. It was a lose-lose for the state & the company so his choice was to speed up the legalization process and try to make it a win-win...legal workers, extra $$ in the tax base, etc. He convinced me that he was in a tough spot & made the decision that would benefit the state for the long term, regardless of what the critics thought.
Do you Obama has ever made a decision based on what was best for his constituency without regard to what the critics may say?