Well, you are ignoring the fact that the only human lifeform that is capable of developing into viable human children that you are willing to "protect" are those human lifeforms that exist in women who no longer wish to remain pregnant.

And, yeah, fertilized human eggs are killed and disposed of at in vitro fertilization clinics just as surely as they are killed and disposed of at abortion clinics.

And the ONLY real difference between those two examples of fertilized eggs is that there is a woman who no longer wishes to gestate one of them.

So, if you aren't consistent with your position about wanting to "protect" fertilized human eggs, how do we know for sure that your real goal isn't just to want to control women?

The children that have problems are very likely to just languish on the foster system on the taxpayer's dime. Think about how many children are already on the system waiting for adoptive homes.

How would changing the judicial system help? I'm not following you...

SCOTUS has already ruled that forced sterilization is unconstitutional, and finances change. The two cannot be logically linked.

Actually, I can tell the difference between a clump of nonsentient cells, something that isn't much different from the cells that comprise my own body, and a "person."

To me, it isn't our bodies that make us people or persons, it's our capability of thought that makes us people or persons.

Kill someone in the womb who has sentient thought, like after about 23 weeks gestation, and there is the possibility for a "murder" to have occured.

Kill a human body without any capability of sentient thought, and it is likely that you've only killed a bunch of cells and nothing more.

Jefferson, you can attack me personally to your heart's content. It doesn't change the fact that what I have been saying is logical and reasonable.

Do you think that rape victims should have the right to abort? I never did get that answer from you...

Birth control does not always work, Jefferson. I agree that couples should be responsible and avoid the dilemma in the fist place, but sometimes even the best attempts don't work.

So now you've decided that you're God. Nice. You decide when a baby becomes a human. But even then, you qualify it...

Yes, you do have a depraved mind and a seared conscience.

...and yet you CONTINUE to justify murdering unborn babies.


Pregnancy, in cases of rape, accounts for about one-tenth of 1% of all abortions. WHY ARE YOU OBSESSED WITH THAT PERCENTAGE?


Oh, I know! It's because you're trying to divert attention AWAY from the FACT that you're MORE THAN HAPPY to see hundreds of thousands of unborn babies BUTCHERED every year in the United States.

Sick and depraved. Sick and depraved.

Regardless of your whimpering about these things, you are STILL PROMOTING THE BUTCHERING OF UNBORN BABIES.

Well, so do you...such as at fertilization, or at whatever point in the human lineage whereby you declare human lifeforms should be protected.

(Actually, I would argue that every living thing that exists within the human lineage is "human." And, we were discussing people and persons, not what is or isn't "human.")

"To me, it isn't our bodies that make us people or persons, it's our capability of thought that makes us people or persons."


Oh, well theres your trouble. See at conseption, the person is implimented with what we call DNA. All his functions, looks, eye color, every single thing about this person is pre determined. So in truth, from a single cell, this person certainly has the ability to think. Its incoded in him. That part just hasnt developed yet. But it is most certainly there.

Yeah, but it's harder to murder the unborn babies if you look at it that way.

And that's the exact same reason that WWII soldiers were taught to call Japanese soldiers "Gooks" or "Japs". It's SO much easier to kill them if you can first de-humanize them.

[quote=Preacherman;74830Oh, well theres your trouble. See at conseption, the person is implimented with what we call DNA. All his functions, looks, eye color, every single thing about this person is pre determined. So in truth, from a single cell, this person certainly has the ability to think. Its incoded in him. That part just hasnt developed yet. But it is most certainly there.[/quote]

While it might be true that DNA is a blueprint for the future development of a human body, that doesn't mean that that single cell that carries that DNA is capable of thought.

And, if a single cell is to be "protected" because of what might occur-such as thought-further down the line in its development, then why shouldn't that same protection be granted to some other cells that carry human DNA?

After all, viable human bodies can be developed by isolating individual cells in a blastocyst (induced twinning) and-at least in theory-through induced parthenogenesis of a human germ cell (an unfertilized human egg).