


















Embryonic stem cells

Likewise (pg. 38) the RNP states:


Yet on (pg. 37-38) they comment:







Marijuana Mexico



Source: GOP

Comments     Threshold


RE: I fail to see religion's
By tigen on 9/6/2012 6:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
An embryo is technically a human being.

The supreme court arbitrarily used the third trimester as a magical point in development with regard to abortion law.

Why shouldn't infanticide be legal? Newborn infants are still completely dependent on someone else to survive and don't yet have consciousness.

RE: I fail to see religion's
By Flunk on 9/9/2012 9:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
You have to draw a line somewhere, you just seem to have drawn the line slightly sooner than the law.

You could just as easily argue that we must mate with each other at every possibly opportunity because otherwise we might kill some possible human beings.

It's all a matter of where you draw that line of what is a human being and what is not.

RE: I fail to see religion's
By Asetha on 9/11/2012 11:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
Your comment is incoherent. Mating with each other to prevent the killing of humans? What?

And the definition of a human being is what a male and female human being produce when their cells combine to make a new one.

So now that's cleared up, any other reasons why we should continue killing human beings? I mean coherent ones?

RE: I fail to see religion's
By corduroygt on 9/11/2012 4:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, they may end up like you so it's best to nip it in the bud.

RE: I fail to see religion's
By Asetha on 9/12/2012 2:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
Still so full of surprises you are! Here I thought just when your posts couldn't contain more reasoned and fact-based arguments you go and out-do your last fact-filled post!

Oh, silly me. I must have been drunk when I read your latest post. Here I thought you were arguing some reasoned position. Troll.

RE: I fail to see religion's

RE: I fail to see religion's
By EricMartello on 9/14/2012 5:38:19 AM , Rating: 2
An embryo is technically a human being.

No it is not a human being, it is the basic framework for what can develop into a human being if the pregnancy is allowed to continue its full duration. If you remove an embryo from the womb and sever its connection to the host (mother), it will not spring to life and it will not continue development. It will just be a pile of goop.


We have medical technology that can be used to identify at which point the fetus has developed into a fully-functional human that would survive outside the womb without requiring any additional life-support and without any "missing parts".

Any time prior to this point is fair game for abortion, but the law is quite lax right now and I do not think abortions should be allowed if a doctor checks and confirms that the fetus has matured to a point where it can sustain itself.


Their level of consciousness is irrelevant. Once they're born and separated from the mother (umbilical cord cut) they are an independent form of life and officially a "human".

Comparing a fully developed human that has been born to an embryo is simply being ignorant. They are not one in the same.

RE: I fail to see religion's
By mcnabney on 9/21/2012 9:49:02 AM , Rating: 2
Roe v Wade was actually quite clear. A woman only has complete autonomy in the first trimester. A doctor must concur in the second, and two doctors must concur that it is medically necessary in the third trimester. The Pro-Life movement has clouded the issue, but Roe was surprisingly well thought out.

