Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yeah, one is human and the other is a ******! It's different!If the difference isn't obvious, then there is no reason to believe you can be taught it.
but science does notA new living human organism comes into existence at conception.
That is a demonstrable scientific fact and is not open for debate or opinion any more than whether water is water.
It is alive. It is genetically human. It is a distinct organism unto itself.
These are demonstrable scientific facts.
Then the law disagrees with you.
but science does notA new living human organism comes into existence at conception.
That is a demonstrable scientific fact and is not open for debate or opinion any more than whether water is water.
It is alive. It is genetically human. It is a distinct organism unto itself.
These are demonstrable scientific facts.
Then the law disagrees with you.
i can be both pro-choice and pro-life at the same timemani is wrong, a true conservative can be both pro-life and pro-choice
what it depends on is how they can justify their stands on the issue
The only thing I will concede is wrong with my opening supposition is the absolutist language I chose. But without it, I doubt this thread would've gotten off the ground.
But now that it's off the ground, I still maintain that pro-choice is MORE consistent with conservative ideals than pro-life.
i am pro-life as i believe life begins at conception and as such should be protected
i am pro-choice as i dont believe it is the federal governments position to be imposing laws that restrict the choices individuals can make
that should rest in the state and local governments to decide
Then the law disagrees with you.
The Law once said blacks were 2/3 human for the purposes of the census
The Law once said blacks and women were property
In some places, the Law said Jews weren't human
The Law thinks (or thought; I'm not sure whether it's still on the books) a tomato is a vegetable
You really want to keep digging that hole?
What hole?
I said in my post that I believe life begins at conception. However, the law disagrees. And obviously it isn't as cut and dried as it seems, otherwise the abortion argument would not have been happening for the last 40 years.
If the difference isn't obvious, then there is no reason to believe you can be taught it.
Really? Because I'm pretty sure they still argue over whether Jews and Blacks are human over at Stormfront. I'm also pretty sure the science is settled on that.
I think that there's still debate in the scientific community as well. Otherwise, this debate would have been over decades ago.
this is true
Science and the law are often at odds.
Really? Because I'm pretty sure they still argue over whether Jews and Blacks are human over at Stormfront. I'm also pretty sure the science is settled on that.but science does not
I think that there's still debate in the scientific community as well. Otherwise, this debate would have been over decades ago.
most homicide law is locali can be both pro-choice and pro-life at the same timeThe only thing I will concede is wrong with my opening supposition is the absolutist language I chose. But without it, I doubt this thread would've gotten off the ground.
But now that it's off the ground, I still maintain that pro-choice is MORE consistent with conservative ideals than pro-life.
i am pro-life as i believe life begins at conception and as such should be protected
i am pro-choice as i dont believe it is the federal governments position to be imposing laws that restrict the choices individuals can make
that should rest in the state and local governments to decide
The Fed shouldn't have laws regarding homicide?
What if one state once again makes it legal to kill Mormons?
The Law once said blacks were 2/3 human for the purposes of the census
The Law once said blacks and women were property
In some places, the Law said Jews weren't human
The Law thinks (or thought; I'm not sure whether it's still on the books) a tomato is a vegetable
You really want to keep digging that hole?
What hole?
I said in my post that I believe life begins at conception. However, the law disagrees. And obviously it isn't as cut and dried as it seems, otherwise the abortion argument would not have been happening for the last 40 years.
How long did the slavery argument last? Hell, there was a war over it.
Or the various eugenics arguments in history?
O really?Really? Because I'm pretty sure they still argue over whether Jews and Blacks are human over at Stormfront. I'm also pretty sure the science is settled on that.I think that there's still debate in the scientific community as well. Otherwise, this debate would have been over decades ago.
It's settled on that issue.
Obviously not on the abortion issue.
What hole?
I said in my post that I believe life begins at conception. However, the law disagrees. And obviously it isn't as cut and dried as it seems, otherwise the abortion argument would not have been happening for the last 40 years.
How long did the slavery argument last? Hell, there was a war over it.
Or the various eugenics arguments in history?
Um, so?
It's not as cut and dry as it seems. Otherwise the debate would not still be happening.
O really?Really? Because I'm pretty sure they still argue over whether Jews and Blacks are human over at Stormfront. I'm also pretty sure the science is settled on that.
It's settled on that issue.
Obviously not on the abortion issue.
Show me the scientific papers/evidence to suggest that a human zygote is not genetically human or is not alive.
It depends who you ask. Some groups say life begins as soon as a sperm fuses with an egg. Others believe the boundary is more blurred.
Ian Wilmut, the creator of Dolly the sheep and Britain's latest researcher to gain a human cloning licence, will only use human embryos to research motor neurone disease until they are 14 days old. The two-week line was drawn largely because before that time, embryos have not developed what is called the primitive streak, a thickening of the embryo that eventually forms the backbone.
Jack Scarisbrick, of the charity Life, says the creation of human embryos for research is morally offensive. "When sperm and ovum meet, that is an irrevocable act of a new life coming into existence. These lines are completely arbitrary," he says.
"People ask when does life begin, as if there's a sharp moment, but one of the difficulties is that all of the proposed boundaries are fraught with problems," says Jonathan Glover, director of the Centre of Medical Law and Ethics at King's College London. The primitive streak may well be the precursor of the nervous system, but its development doesn't mark the beginning of consciousness, so it is irrelevant, says Glover. "The other argument for the 14-day rule is that before then, you can get twinning or triplets. But surely, if there's a real case for saying embryos have a right to life, the number of embryos that happens to be present in a pregnancy is irrelevant," he adds.
Current Scientific Views of When Human Life Begins
Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. Here is a brief examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins.
How long did the slavery argument last? Hell, there was a war over it.
Or the various eugenics arguments in history?
Um, so?
It's not as cut and dry as it seems. Otherwise the debate would not still be happening.
Whether a black man is human is not cut and dry? That's why I can still find rednecks who think they're not?
"People ask when does life begin, as if there's a sharp moment, but one of the difficulties is that all of the proposed boundaries are fraught with problems,"
but its development doesn't mark the beginning of consciousness
Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after.
Is settled science. Your own quotes prove that as they don't attempt to argue it, choosing instead to argue an entirely different matter.Um, so?
It's not as cut and dry as it seems. Otherwise the debate would not still be happening.
Whether a black man is human is not cut and dry? That's why I can still find rednecks who think they're not?
No. When life begins.
"People ask when does life begin, as if there's a sharp moment, but one of the difficulties is that all of the proposed boundaries are fraught with problems,"
Life begins when a system is seen to demonstrate those characteristics which define it as alive.
Life exists before conception, as both ovum and sperm are alive.
They do not cease to be alive at conception; they do not die. Rather, they create a new system which also demonstrates those characteristics which define it as alive. Hence a new living organism is created. One that is genetically human. A living human organism. A human life.
Your own source doesn't even deny this.
but its development doesn't mark the beginning of consciousness
That's not the question you raised.
Moving the Goalposts - SkepticWiki
Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after.
No, they don't. Not a single one of them can argue any of those other positions on scientific grounds. They're arguing on when 'personhood'- a philisophical and ethical question, not a scientific one, begins. Or when sentience might arise.
They so as much themselves, as you quoted.
