With all the back & forth conversation last night



this post that i made also was completely overlooked

one fo the agruments for that is that the brain activity begins at approximately 25 weeks of gestation, shortly before the beginning of the third trimester. some believe a fetus is nothing more than a mass of cells bu not a human at that time

i know what most of the arguments are


and i am not speaking personally to you Rose


nor to any one directly , but in general statements


but most of the arguments to me , are absolutely absurd




No one denies that any other offspring


from any other species


is not actually what it is



so why with Human Life ???



and why is it so important when there is brain activity



Life starts from the Moment of Conception



I think that the sad truth


is that some people try to find ways out


to make their actions not seem so cruel



they have seared their consciences


cause some people are not being responsible


so they think of any excuse they can come up with


to justify their behavior

in the cases of rape, molestation or physical abuse...the person may or may not see it that way and they should have the right to make a choice. again...I'm not talking about those that use it for birth control...that I don't agree with, but they have rights as well. but until someone is in that position...it's not clear cut about what to do

You said we are reading it literally, it does not say they can not so that is your assumption that there is a problem with it.



You have not proven it to me. You used the atheist argument to get her but it's totally flawed since the DoI specially denote a deity by capitalizing the word Creator. To an atheist God is a fictional character and any right assigned by that fictional character would be worthless.



Bit of a stretch there IMO. If it were as open and shut as all that then our laws would not have to specifically state such things yet they do. The DoI does not. So any inference that you make is simply conjecture. Educated guess and... um... dare I say it... an assumption


Of course as I have said before, all this is moot since that is not where the question within the law lies. The law does grant life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all legal human beings. The question within the law is at what point after conception does an embryo become a living human being with all those rights. Within present law embryo's do not have legal rights they are not at this time considered human beings. The currently accepted definition for that point is after brain wave activity starts. Before that they are not human beings under the law. For the DoI to have any effect other than what it does, it would have to define the point at which a conception becomes human and it does not.

Nicely put Rapunzel

I'm go to quote out the one part of your statement that I believe creates the disagreements.



I to believe that life starts at the moment of conception. But that is a belief not a scientific fact that can be established empirically. Brain waves are something that can be proven and seen and are something all humans find unique to life. I do not believe the laws of the land should be based on beliefs no matter how strongly I hold my own beliefs I do not think it's right to assume everyone else should feel the same. I accept the brain wave definition because it is the earliest place or defining point that all seem to be able to agree upon. It's better than the alternative of defining it as being at birth when the child start breathing (an older definition for when life begins).

Everyone is entitled to a view on this subject but nobody can make a choice or judge what is right for another person. Personally i do not care what anyone else chooses to do, i am too busy being interested in my own life.

I care but I also care enough about my own freedoms and beliefs not to invade someone else's. If I can dictate theirs then certainly they can dictate mine. Since I do not hold the same opinions and beliefs as the majority I stand to lose much.

Pro Life myself

here Dan....is a hankie for your nose

it was not ignored it was already made read the post above it on the same page

finally something that makes since davey

Remember once any person's "rights" are gone, controlled, limited or eliminated guess whose rights they will go after next...

yours

but the creator is only fictional if you say said creator is a god

i did not say that you did

there is a definition for creator (one who creates) thus when a new cell is created then their need to be a creator whether theat creator is man or god there is still a creator

thus upon that creaton of the cell their are rights protected by the doi



"""laws would not have to specifically state such things yet they do."""

where does it specifically state (as you say to meust) that the giver of life may take it

and if this is true why is there a warrant out for the arrest of the motehrof the 13 yo boy in minn. that is refusing chemo for her son

contradicting yourself here



when it is created by its creator

and when a new cell is present it is a new creation created by thier creator and thus it is protected if you do not twist the doi to say something other than what is written

as point i made 3 pages back

what is the human creating inside them a puppy a kitten

or as rapunzel said a frog

talk about stretching there now you are stretching when ya say when is it human



http://mingle2.com/topic/show/223643?page=7

Wait a second....

You replied to my post before i made it ?


what ? i have to check but that sounded so funny...


I have an early morning appointment so i need to run

all this quoting is allowing me the freedom of deja vu