No, the *reason* we don't kill them is absolutely relevant. We used to shoot them, until they looked like there wouldn't be any, anymore. If for some reason they became superabundant, we would likely open a hunting season on them. We're unlikely to advocate that with humans, even with overpopulation.

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

Good point.

__________________
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

Yea, and if we killed eagle eggs there would be no eagles. They are endangered. Eagle eggs MAKE eagles. Eggs are eggs. Nothing more. I don't believe they are the same. The reasons behind not killing them is completely relevant.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

Eagle eggs are eagles (qualifier: fertilized). Human embryos are humans.

Like I said, smash some eggs and use the "viability" argument. Good luck in jail.

__________________

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

Tell me what's wrong with the viability argument. I certainly don't belive eagle eggs are eagles until they are developped. Just a bunch of unfeeling and unknowning bunch of cells.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

but you're assuming that the standard used with respect to protected animals should also apply to humans. Why?

Isn't it pretty absurd to assert that a zygote or embryo is a person? If a zygote is just as much a person as you or I then doesn't "person" become a term that merely denotes human species?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

That woud be because the reason we don't smash eagle eggs has nothing to do with viability, or at what point they do or don't become eagles. You'd get in just as much trouble for bulldozing critical (protected) habitat, and that isn't even alive. That law is about the practical preservation of a species.

Eagle eggs are potential eagles, and human embryos are potential humans. Neither potential is realized at that stage, and we treat them quite differently. Good thing, too; the eggs of endangered birds are often taken from the nest and captive reared, so that the bird will lay and raise another clutch, thus doubling that years reproductive output. Imagine if we started doing that with humans!

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

Actually, your argument is not. You are making a claim that you, obviously, can not support and simply repeating said claim ad nauseum is not going to make it true.

The fact that you seem to be intellectually unable to wrap your mind around the scientific fact is your own failing and has nothing to do with what is. People had a hard time wraping their minds around the fact that the earth is round and that the universe doesn't revolve around the earth as well when they were first introduced to information that ran contrary to what they believed.

As I have invited you before, do bring some credible science that substantiates your claim and then feel free to make it part of the discussion. By now, however, we both know tha

I already have. I can provide more, but apparently, it would make no difference as you seem to be unable to read what I have already posted but just so you can't claim that I was arguing over your head or something, lets go through this again for your benefit.

"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. [/color]

OK. Which part of "a new human being" is it that you believe is speaking merely to belonging to the human species. This states explicitly, and in no uncertain terms that unborns at any stage are living human beings.

"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.)

Again, HUMAN BEING. Not simply a reference to belonging to the species, but A HUMAN BEING. This isn't rocket science si modo, you really should be able to think your way through this if you are going to argue the subject.

"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

Again, HUMAN BEING. This isn't vague language, or language that could be construed to mean something else. This says that unborns at any stage of development are human beings. Your suggestion that they aren't saying this is either terribly disenginuous or the result of a severe reading comprehnension problem. I won't hazzard a guess as to which.

"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." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

Once more, I ask, how much more explicit could the language be? This isn't a suggestion of belonging to the species. This is a simple declarative statement saying that the child is a human being from the very beginning.

Now once again, I invite you to provide some credible science that suggests that we don't become human beings until we are viable. At such time as you can provide corroboration for said argument, we can make it part of the discussion. Till then, it is nothing more than your uneducated opinion and the hard science I have provided states, in no uncertain terms, that your opinion is flatly wrong and therefore doesn't belong in the discussion. Good luck to you.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Accidentally being run over or deliberately? If it is an accident, then accidents happen. If one deliberately runs over you then that person is guilty of murder? Are you suggesting that being run over by a car deliberately is something that society does or the individual who did it?

Wars are actions sanctioned and taken by governments and killing within the rules of engagement do not fall under the same laws and interations between individuals within the borders of the country. The fact that you would attempt to equate them and then believe that somehow it changes what an unborn is brings the weakness of your argument into sharp relief.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

As with si modo, I do invite you to provide some credible science that states that we are not human beings until our brain has developed to some specified level.

I have provided credible materials that state explicitly that unborns, at any level of development are human beings. When you provide some equally credible material that says they are something other than human till a certain level of brain development we can make that part of the discussion. Till then, uneducated opinions that run contrary to hard science simply don't constitute rational, or valid arguments. Good luck to you in finding some credible materials that support your obviously wrong opinion.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Are you familiar with our laws? You can't be charged for homicide if you kill a plant.

You really haven't thought this out very well have you? A small bit of research on your part will yield decisions from the court that acknowledge a difference between letting one who is so sick or injured that no reasonable hope of recovery exists die and deliberate, and premeditated killing. No analogy that attempts to compare letting someone who is very sick or injured die and killing a perfectly healthy individual is valid.

The fact that you would attempt to compare actions taken against a perfectly healthy individual and actions taken on the behalf of one who is so injured that no reasonable hope of recovery exists highlights the inherent weakness of your argument.

By the way, you have a right to live, but you do not have a right to have extraordinary measures taken on your behalf or the right to bankrupt your family if there is no reasonable hope of your recovery.

This represents such a basic misunderstanding of developmental biology, that I am embarrassed for you that I need to answer it.

Eggs and sperm are simply cells that belong to men's and women's bodies. Any second year lab student could easily identify them as belonging to a particular person's body. As such, they are of no more consequence than toenail clippings. Once fertilization is complete, however, they are no longer part of a man's or woman's body. Sperm and egg no longer exist as such and what exists in their place is a new body. A new human being that has his or her own DNA which any second year lab student could easily identify as not belonging to either of its parent's bodies.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

One is certainly more mature than the other but both are equally human. The fact that you can't wrap your mind around the fact is your failing and has nothing to to with the biological realities.

It isn't my claim. I have presented ample credible science to support the fact. I do welcome you to provide some equally credible science to support your claim. It is obvious by now, however, that you can't and aren't ever going to because no such credible evidence exists. Arguing from your inability to understand the subject matter is always a bad plan.

I have provided credible science that states explicitly that unborns at any stage of development are living human beings.

Again. The materials that I provided are credible science and they say HUMAN BEING. Do feel free to provide some equally credible material that says that they are something else.

The framers said that we come into being with certian rights. Simple as that.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.