No defense of your position. I see. You simply hold it as an article of faith and believe what you believe without regard to any fact at all.

Maybe you haven't noticed that a couple of states have personhood bills on the ballots this year. If any one of them passes, it will trigger a lawsuit which will surely go to the supreme court. The suit will not have the court looking at privacy issues of women, it will cause the court to examine whether or not unborns, at any stage of development, including zygotes, are living human beings. The pro life side of these cases are going to be able to bring tens of thousands of pages of hard science that states without reservation that the offspring of two human beings is never anything other than a human being, including practically every medical school textbook on the subjects of embryology, fetology, human developmental biology and OB/Gyn, and literally thousands of top medical doctors and researchers which will testify that unborns at any stage of development are living human beings.

Tell me pogo. What evidence do you believe the pro choice side of this case is going to be able to produce that states that the offspring of two human beings is something other than a human being?

I would ask the same question of you ajg.

Neither of you seems to grasp that the heart of this issue is not a woman's right to privacy, but whether or not unborns are living human beings. When the majority in roe v wade made their decision, they based that decision on an assumption. They assumed that unborns were not living human beings and violated their professional and judicial ethics, making a decision that could cause great harm (40 million deaths so far) in a state of uncertainty. If unborns are living human beings, then a clash of rights exists between the child and its mother and in this country, when the rights of two individuals clash, the rights of one must give way to the more fundamental rights of the other. The right to live is the most fundamental right one has and trumps all other rights except the right to self defense if one's life is in imminent danger.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Yes and there is a difference between an infant and a toddler, and a toddler and a teenager, and right on down the line. It is called growth and maturation. I never said that unborns were not immature. I said that they were just as human as you. I find nothing at all in the constitution that suggests that one must reach a certain level of maturity in order for ones most basic human rights to be protected. Can you direct me to that section?

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Sorry to say this, PaleRider, but I suspect you haven't read this thread in it's entirety because this argument has been addressed. My skin cells are human but these are not beings. They are not viable beings. These cells will not remain alive on their own without the multicellular organism hosting them.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I read the thread and as I originally stated, no evidence has been presented that suggests that unborns, at any stage of development are something other than human beings. I am not sure what constitutes either evidence or proof in your neck of the woods, but in mine, when the subject is scientific in nature, credible science serves as proof unless some other credible science can be offered up in rebuttal that effectively refutes the first. Simply making an inane remark about skin cells constitutes neither evidence, nor proof.

I can provide all manner of credible science that states explictly that unborns, at any stage of development are human beings. These 3 are from medical school textbooks that have been translated into multiple languages and are in use in medical schools around the world to teach the subjects of embryology, fetology, developmental biology, and OB/gyn.

"the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology"T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.)

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, vii.


I encourage, and invite you to provide some equally credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is at some point something other than a human being. Do that, and you have the beginnings of an argument. Fail to do that (and I know you will) and you will just have to write that argument off as lost and perhaps try a new one.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Your neck of the woods? LOL

Anyway, moving beyond foolish assumptions, let's see some of that scientific evidence that these human 'beings' are viable. Thanks.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Viability has nothing at all to do with being a human being. If it did, anyone who needed life support would stop being a human being. Human being is what one is, not the result of the degree to which one manifests one's potential.

By the way. I have provided credible science to support my postion. If there are foolish assumptions here, they are yours which so far, are nothing more than your unsubstantiated, uncorroborated opinion.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

How do you figure?

See, that has already been brought up. The human being on life support has already been proven to be viable. That human being is not viable now, but once was. The first trimester fetus has no viability.

Viability has everything to do with it. You cannot dismiss the issue of viability because it is an inconvenience to your argument.

No, you have provided no proof that a fetus in the first trimester is a viable human being.

I realize you wish to dismiss viability because that is convenient, but that is simply not possible in the abortion debate.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Go to a state park out west.

Find a American bald eagle nest.

Smash the eggs within.

Use the "viability" argument when you get arrested.

Look me up when you get out of prison.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

Prescisely for the reason I suggested. If being able to survive on one's own were the standard for being a human being, anyone who requires life support would stop being a human being until such time as they were able to survive on thier own again.

So you are saying that viability is some sort of magical get into the human species card and once you are in, you can't be put out even if you are no longer viable? Sounds sort of like racism to me only the biggotry is based on age rather than skin color.

Human beings are not human beings because they are "viable" or "independent" or "autonomous." We all know people who lack these attributes to some extent or other. We all lack them to some extent or the other. Viability may be necessary in order to stay alive, but it is very simply uninformative about what it is that is staying alive, whatever it may be.

As I said, I encourage you to provide some credible science to support your claim. I had no problem finding credible science that states explicitly that we are, indeed, living human beings from the time we are concieved. Your word simply isn't going to suffice here.

I am sure that you wish that were so, but so far, you have provided no credible materials to support such a claim and you are not going to be able to because no credible scientist would argue that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

Human beings is simply what we are. There are all manner of things you can do to make yourself a better human being, but nothing in this world can make any of us "more or less" of a human being.

I never argued that they were mature, or viable. I argued that they are living human beings and thus far, you have offered nothing but your unsubstantiated, uncorroborated opinion that viability has anything to do with being a human being.

Until you can provide some credible science that states explicitly that until an unborn is viable, it has no meaning. It is simply a small piece of crap that you are throwing against the wall hoping to get it to stick.

I have provided credible science that states that we are human beings from the time we are zygotes (1 cell). Can you, or can you not offer up any credible science that proves that viability is what makes us human beings?

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Are you making the point that human fetuses should be killed at will until we put ourselves on the endangered species list?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

So true. The viability argument is just one more of the ineffective arguments put up by the pro choice side.

Even when they see genuine science that states explicitly that unborns at any stage of development are living human beings, their programming doesn't allow them to see that they are making a flat earth argument in the face of hard science that states explicitly that they are wrong.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

So where is this hard science?

being obtuse is not attractive. Even federal law recognizes unborns, at any stage of development as members of the species homo sapiens (human beings) just as the law recognizes the contents of an eagle's egg, at any stage of development as an eagle because that is precisely what it is.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.