"You can hit the Gym, get your body back"

this alone statement makes me think what kind of people are the "prochoicers". to even list that as a reason to why u shud get an abortion is wrong. Just by listing that they have proved they are horrible human beings and should not get what they want

> [Pw9]~KT~ wrote:

> A woman's choice to kill a baby. Now doesn't that sound just precious. If you don't want the baby there are thousands of others who do or is it just too much of an inconvience in her life to not kill it?

Find the movie Silent Scream and watch as they suck apart a baby, ripping its limbs off because it was an inconvience.

The doctor that did that removal never did another abortion after that.

Holy shit!  Did KT just post in Politics?

Abortion.

Well i agree with abortion. As long as it's within the first 2 months, before the fetus has a heart beat it isn't considered a person merly a ball of cells still forming. If it's just a ball of cells still honestly it's still apart of that females body, in which she can do as she pleases, however again once a heart beat has started now it's alive.

Now even those that are against abortions that i have talked to have changed their minds on certain situations. Example given: The baby will be born with a grave illness, or the mother has HIV and the baby will have it aswell. Ok so now what your saying is it ok to abort that baby, but not others .... who are you god? Your no judge as to which lives get born and which doesn't.

My explanation is prefectly understandable i believe, and from a medical aspect makes perfect sense.

~ Cloud

When do you consider the "egg" a person? There's no way to assess it's neurological functions, nor to say it has any at that time. When your declared dead you have no neurological functions, and your heart stops beating ... so tell me something different that would consider you alive?

~ Cloud

> ~Pw32~  Random Hero wrote:

> When do you consider the "egg" a person? There's no way to assess it's neurological functions, nor to say it has any at that time. When your declared dead you have no neurological functions, and your heart stops beating ... so tell me something different that would consider you alive?

~ Cloud

we consider someone dead, when their potential to live is reduced to practically zero. if we progress through technology to the point where people can regularly be revived well past the point where they had no neurological functions and their heart stopped beating, we would consider them alive.  currently with our technology, the chances to bring someone back after their heart stops beating or they have no neurological functions is next to zero, so thats when we call someone dead. but a fetus's potential to become something we would all consider a living human individual doesnt start at his first heartbeats or neurological functions, but when its conceived.

i would use the same definition a scientist would use. something is alive when it meets most of the following criteria. "   1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
   2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
   3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
   4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
   5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
   6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
   7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

does the lump of cells meet most of this criteria? yep. its alive. but big deal, a toe nail is composed of living cells too.  well, then i look at DNA. a toe nail is a tiny part of a living being. the lump of cells that is an embryo or fetus is unique and is its own living being, seperate from the mother or the father. the DNA is also human. so you combine all this information we know and scientifically, its alive, it is an individual living being, and its human. all of those statements are scientifically sound at conception. all arguments that it is not one or more of those things are religious and have no place in government law unless the government is a religious state.

a scientist looking at a foreign animal wouldnt say because the one creature is inside of the other, it is not its own creature until it leaves the other creature. a scientist  would also not say that it has to something that further developed members of that species does inorder for it to be alive or a part of that species or seperate from its mother. it's not logical to do that with humans either. so arguments saying its not an alive human being because its not breathing or doesnt have a pulse or have neurological functions or isnt outside the mother's body, arent logical....

"and for your sources ... wiki is not a credible source, so i couldn't take that into your debate."

i defined what i think life is and instead of typing out and explaining each criteria, i just copy/pasted the criteria and explanation from wiki, because its well known criteria. ignoring my wiki reference which wasnt trying to prove anything to you but to explain to you what life is, just shows your stubbornness and lack of willingness to listen to new ideas.

"t's not logical to say that a "baby" a human being, not having a pulse, neurological functions, or respiratory rates .... isn't a human ... i guess you consider a corpse a person?"

a corpse doesn't fit the definition of life i gave.

"I never said that either, i gave clear definitions of a living being. Not being inside another, rather functions that you and me experience every second."

i never said that you said that. but its a common argument made by pro-choice people and i didnt want someone else trying to argue that after i made my point, so i included it in my response inorder for it to be thorough.

"Again my points are all evidence based,"

try reading my entire post. your argument is that because adult humans cant live without breath, pules, and neurological functions, means nothing that is alive can. that is not logical. that doesnt make any sense. a scientist would not say that it has to have something that further developed members of that species does inorder for it to be alive or a member of that species. it's not logical to do that with humans either. so arguments saying its not an alive human being because its not breathing or doesnt have a pulse or have neurological functions or isnt outside the mother's body, arent logical.... the humans species isnt scientifically defined by the need to have a pulse, breath, or neurological functions.

cardinarpulmoraly resuscitation ... infact i just had to bring that to you. What does that purtain to? the basic needs of life ... and if you can't understand it it mean in ordinary terms. Bringing your heart, and lungs back to life ...

~ Cloud

sigh. we are talking about two different things. you are talking about the requirments of mature human beings for life. i am talking about of any kind of life. single cell organisms are alive and dont have a heart or lungs just like an embryo. right now, you are acting pretty stupid mentioning things that has nothing to do with my argument. i suggest you sober up before posting again in this thread if when you sober up you dont see the problem with your posts, it speaks very poorly of your class.

if people are so interested in this then study philosophy i say

Who cares if it's a human at fertilization?

I say that if people have to die in order for us to enjoy sex like bunny rabbits, then that's a good thing.

Well it's an irrelevant argument about semantics.

Maybe they think it's relevant, but really it's an argument about semantics and the answer could go either way because it's also a subjective question.

And wtf? I'm a monster?