So you'd best be careful handling them; eagles have sharp talons!

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

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

Eggs are cells that are of the woman's body. Unfertilized, they are of no more consequence than fingernail clippings.

Nope. I am stating the scientific fact that once fertilization is complete, a new human being exists. I wasn't aware that one must be "enlightened" in order to be a human being and I am afraid that I can't tell you anything about souls.

The egg no longer exists. A new human being exists. From that point, it can mature into a doctor or a lawyer, or a serial killer but from the time fertilization is complete, it can not become more human for it is as much a human being as it will ever be.

The fact that you can't wrap your mind around the scientific facts is your own intellectual shortcoming and, alas, doesn't effect the facts at all.

None of your strawmen have anything at all to do with being a human being. Children born without brains are considered, by law, to be human beings even though they will never have a thought, probably can't feel pain, and will never have any idea what they are. Your argument fails.

I don't operate on opinions when there is hard scientific fact available. People who do are fools, and people who reject hard science in favor of their uneducated opinions are flat earther fools. Do you fit into either category?

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

That being said, can you provide any credible science written by pro choice scientists who say that unborns at any stage are something other than living human beings?

I will answer that for you. Of course you can't because no credible scientist is going to suggest that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything other than a human being.

Scientists who are doing embryonic stem cell research aren't denying that the embryos aren't human beings. They freely admit that they are but argue that it is OK to do the research anyway.

By the way. The definition of "being" is "to exist in reality". It would help if you learned the meanings of words before arguing over their use.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

I am sure you know that talons are something that come with maturity and are just trying to be cute.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

When either Otter or I do, will that actually change your view? And, whether the scientists are pro-choice or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is the science, not the opinion. So far, you've presented the opinions of scientists.

__________________
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

PaleRider, what your argument suggests is that you believe a human weather they have a brain or not deserves to live. I disagree. What do I see in a human without a brain? An empty shell niether deserving life nor death. If a baby was born without a brain would you keep it alive if it were possible? There's no chance it could ever recover so the only choice the parents could make would be to let it die. A mother has a choice when I baby is developping inside of her. The choice is her's weather to give that baby a life just like she had the choice to give a single one of her eggs a life. Once the baby has experience and can feel the pain of death then an abortion should not be legal.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

I have no issue with the fact that a zygote is characteristically human.



No, actually, you haven't. You've provided no citation that stated it was a scientific fact that a zygote is just as much of a person as a child or adult.

Furthermore, you fail to realize that at the end of the day this matter will have to be addressed in terms that are familiar to the majority of Americans, so narrow, scientific interpretations, while having *some* relevance to the matter, do not constitute the sole basis upon which the issue will be decided.

Try to wrap your mind around that, if you can, PaleRider, and stop being so rigidly dogmatic.



yes, and as I have said and will say once again, this matter will have to be addressed in terms much broader than the narrow, scientific reasoning that you rigidly insist is the be-all and end-all for deciding the abortion issue.

BTW, does any of the science that you're aware of state that development, or lack thereof, must be precluded from factoring into the determination of law regarding abortion?



The framers were slave-holders and misogynists and the rights articulated in the US Constitution were not extended to blacks or women, nor to whites who weren't propertied; therefore, it cannot be reasonably deduced that said rights were to apply to all alike.

__________________
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

No. I have presented credible, peer reviewed science. Opinion is not taught in medical school. When a medical textbook says that unborns are living human beings from the time they are concieved, that is not opinion, it is medical fact.

And I encourage you to bring forward some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is at some point something other than a human being. Bring it on. Lets take a look at it and the source.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

And nothing scientific - absolutely nothing - in your sources indicates that the fetus or a zygote is a person, a sentient human being capable of viability outside the incubator otherwise known as a woman. In fact, your sources are scientifically irrelevant to your point (that means the science contained in the paper does not support your claims). Show some science and you'll have my ear.

__________________
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

Whether you agree or disagree is irrelavent. The fact is that human beings, even those with no brains are considered to be human beings and their right to live is protected. For example, children born with anencephaly (no brain) are considered to be human beings and their right to live is protected. They can not be simply killed. They don't live long and there is nothing wrong with letting one who is so sick or injured that no hope of recovery exists die, but even these children with no brains are recognized as human beings and their 14th amendment rights are protected.

What you see, or what you consider, when it flies in the face of accepted science is nothing more than the result of your own intellectual limitations and has no bearing on the facts.

As I said, children born with no brains can not be simply killed because their 14th amendment rights are protected. The courts have said over and over that there is a difference between letting someone who is terribly sick or injured with no reasonable hope of recovery die, and killing a healthy individual. The fact that you need to try to compare the two is evidence of the inherent weakness of your argument.

The rights of two individuals are clashing. It happens all the time. In our legal system, when such a clash occurs, the rights of the one must give way to the more fundamental rights of the other. No right is more fundamental than the right to live. The ability to feel pain, or think is not a requisite for being a human being.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Anencephalic babies are generally born with a partial brain, however, if they meet the criteria of being brain dead, then their organs can be harvested.

Since it is difficult to determine what someone else is or isn't feeling and thinking, we don't use that as a practical criteria. However, brain activity *is* a prerequisite for being a living person, hence the category of 'brain death', even when other organs are still functioning.

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

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

Oh, my. You haven't been around a medical school much, have you? 90% of medicine is opinion.

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

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

Someone has been misrepresenting the facts >.>