I agree with everyone that said as soon as it can think/survive outside the mother's body.

Now lets shift the direction slightly. Based on what's been said so far about when a human's life begins, do the rights afforded to people apply to what will become human? The buying and selling of fertilized eggs/fetus's/zygots is a good starting point.

A cancer cell being compared to a zygote that will become a human inside a woman's reproductive system as the same?
Pretty sad stretch there TW, even for you. I know you like to argue, but you can't do better than that, really?

When it has learned how to walk and talk.

They are both human cells - living tissue. Therefore they must be human life according to the same reasoning that somehow ignores thousands of zygotes 'murdered' in fertility clinics. Sad that you ignore the most damning part of that post?

Zygote and cancer cells are same - stem cells. Cancer (ie breast cancer, leukemia, etc) is when stem cells have gone astray. Suddenly those stem cells are no longer human life because they replicate faster? Suddenly because they replicate faster, then they are no longer human?

Rather silly to somehow claim a zygote so different from other human cells. They are all human life according to those religious definitions. Why does a zygote instead have "god's seal of approval"? Silly emotion.

Well that won't work, because you've brought up the root question of all arguments on the Internet.

I'm pretty much in lock-step with wolf. Don't pretend you're doing something less than you're doing. We can honestly disagree on its morality just don't make me complicit in your choice by having me fund it. Yes, I'll extend this argument to stem cell research.

I'd say viability & at the same time, I agree with wolf, call a spade a spade. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be perfectly legal. Stem cell research is however a whole different kettle of fish, it's a bunch of goddamn cells for crying out loud.

The terminology wasn't invented by abortionists, it's used thoughout biology. And even in colloquial use - maybe not those particular words - there is a difference. If a woman trying to become pregnant has a period after having sex, she doesn't say "our baby died", she says "we're not going to have a baby".

Roughly two-thirds of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.

So if we use this new "correct" terminology, there are more babies at the wastewater treatment plant than at the hospital.

Huh. Could it be, something about this terminology seems a little emotionally loaded.

I'm against abortion, but for killing babies.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....egressive1.gif

It's not whether or not a zygot is a human or just tissue that's the really important issue here. The issue is when that person is concidered human enough to have rights. If a fetus is not human enough to have a right to life then it can also be bought and sold as a commodity, simple logic. You can take it further and say that even though you cannot experiment on humans without consent you can do so with a fetus. Go another step and laws against genetically modifying and cloning humans do not apply before it becomes human. There seems to be a misunderstanding about what is really upsetting people here, it's the issues down the road that are the big problem. And please don't say that even though a fetus isn't human we can be wishy-washy and pretend it is in some cases.

I think that would be around 6 or 7 years old. Humans, more than any other mammal, require years of protection and assistance before they can "survive" on their own.

That said, this is an issue because we humans still have sex for pleasure and bonding rather than for just procreation. It's all about technology, the technology that is used to do work for us (no more need for children for their labor) or that which is used to control (inhibit/encourage) our reproduction. We really need more research on male contraception. We men have trouble keeping our dicks in our pants and you women are always allowing them into your vaginas (except in the case of rape); yet the burden of the result (unwanted pregnancy) always seems to be carried by the woman. We all know how reason goes out the window in the throes of sexual passion, so a male contraceptive that would make sperm ineffective until the couple desires a baby would be a good solution; though I can hear Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred" song playing in the background. Let's shift the burden for birth control to the men.:neutral:

Valid points of possibilitys 9th Engineer.


The veto and issue I thought was from harvested eggs frozen and not fertilized ? Are they viable life? I don't think so. I think we can say the same for a chicken egg. We eat them because they are not fertilized. I don't think we would want to if even we suspected they were fertilized even if they looked the same. So do we have some inborn instinct that a fertilized egg is viable.?