This looks well on the way to turning into an abortion debate. Personally, I'd support people being able to make their own decision about it up to a point, but only until the foetus is demonstrating brain activity. For me, that would be when it becomes human rather than just an organism. I'll agree with Arnor that the state shouldn't able able to limit people in abortion though.

I had another point to make as well, but have forgotten it during the course of phrasing that - if I remember it I'll be back

<Mizzle> ive been in a jailcel for the first time of my life during this night lol
<Mizzle> new experience

republican party is finished

Carrying the DNA of a homo sapiens doesn't qualify for being a human being.<<

guess you guys should "rehabilitate" some people hanged by the Nurnberg Tribunal

Cool,a mod.
I thought they had been hunted to extinction.

> Wild Flower Soul wrote:

> Congratulations! Obama will be venerated for this by coming generations.

"A fetus is a human being. It has a human genotype that is developing according to those instructions. Any other definition of human is going to be arbitrary."

Carrying the DNA of a homo sapiens doesn't qualify for being a human being. A wart has human DNA, for that matter.. An organism becomes a human being when people want it to be. Some people see it as a human being as soon as they find out they might be pregnant, while others only consider it to be human when it's visible on a echography. In the late 18th century, one wasn't even considered to be a real person (although a human being) till the age of 12!
I don't think it's up to the state to limit people in abortion, as it's a personal thing. The state, however has to distinguish abortion from murder, but that is a whole different discussion.

"I also do not see a problem with universal health care. Some European countries have very efficient systems, and the complaints about long lines in the US etc are pure propaganda. However, while the US is in need of health care reform, this bill is just not satisfactory for me. It still satisfies the greedy insurance and pharmaceutical companies who deserve to be broken up."

True that, but his governmental policy, that was supposed to bring the prices of a private insurance down was shot down. It's a step in the right direction though.
In my opinion, I don't even understand why health care is in the hands of private - money making - compagnies, as they're not in it for the sake of mankind. A non profit organisation or the government (I know americans dread it) would make a far logical choice. Isn't the latter not there to serve its people the best it can?

a wart with human dna is a human wart... a fetus with human dna is a human fetus...

so the question then becomes are fetus's living beings...

if i have a a sample of pond water and look at it through a microscope and see dozens or hundreds of tiny micro-organisms... you're basically claiming, that scientists cant call them individual living beings... they cant objectively say that  whether each microoganism is a living being or if the entire selecting is a living being or if the entire sample is only part of a single living being... and i call bs...

we know how much of life works... we know how human beings generally work. we know for a fact that given a suitable enviroment and nourishment, an embryo will become an adult human. we know an egg or a sperm by itself with the propper enviroment and nutrients wont become a human, we know they are a fraction of what it genetically takes to become a human being, and  we know the embryo is its own separate being...

finally, even though some people dont consider human embryos as human beings... doesnt justify killing them.  if we cant objectively say when a human being is a human being; why would we be justified to kill a group that might be human beings? If theres a group of individuals that considered another group of individuals as not qualifying as a group of human beings... would you support the genocide of the race of individuals that a group of individuals dont consider human beings?

> Einstein wrote:

> I am uninsured via choice, for the whole year, just to take a chance... and voila, I get to join the class action lawsuit when they try to fine my ass!

Come on US Dems, I am an Activist Conservative, lock me up, fine me, and make me stronger!

-> well we cant lock him up in a regular cell. Those are what, 2 x 3 meter?

"if I pop bald eagle eggs in a microwave and put it on youtube, the "eagle DNA dont make it an eagle YET" argument won't save me from federal  prison"

If you do that, you'd have to steal the eggs. It's not that the "parents" involved had anything to say in it. That's the where you seem to miss the ball.
Although, American soldiers didn't seem to bother to throw puppies of cliffs, so what's stopping you?

"finally, even though some people dont consider human embryos as human beings... doesnt justify killing them.  if we cant objectively say when a human being is a human being; why would we be justified to kill a group that might be human beings? If theres a group of individuals that considered another group of individuals as not qualifying as a group of human beings... would you support the genocide of the race of individuals that a group of individuals dont consider human beings?"

You seem to miss the point entirely. An embryo is nothing more but a patch of cells that are evolving into a human being. If the parents (or girl, ultimatly the decision lies with her) decide to opt for an abortion, they chose to not recognise it as a living being. Where this differs from a genocide is that an embryo has no brain and thus no thoughts, no feelings, no personality or anything else. If *the people involved* don't consider it to be a person, then it isn't. The world couldn't have less to say in this.
If you consider that to be murder, than exterminating vermin defenatly is.

There's no quick and easy fix in this matter. The arbitrary case-to-case approach is exactly the upside of it.

hell yeah, I regret the $9700 bill I ran up last July on cardio!  $40,000 is out of the question!

>>There's no quick and easy fix in this matter.<<

sure there is, you ban it! why should arbitrary diktats be limited to the unconscious?

if the embryo doesnt have the rights a human has, then doctors will eventually be able to genetically engineer sex slaves, or coal miners or even geneticially engineer all future babies to have certain political ideology when they mature...

lol, political ideology in teh genes?
well maybe they could engineer babies not to be homosexual then as well, i m sure you wont oppose of that, lol

"where is the scientific basis for defining a living being as something with a brain?  also, fetus's do have brains, thoughts, feelings, ect. nazi's chose not to recognize jews as humans... japanese chose not to consider Chinese as humans and genocide occured. the only difference between supporters of abortion and supporters of past genocide is that its the present so you made different criteria thats convenient for you in the present on what makes things human beings. "

I claim Godwin's law!
But besides that, your argument is besides the question as there seems to be quite a consensus that jews can think and show brain activity. It's not a matter of chosing one qualification and toss the rest away.

"another scenario... people are already manipulating embryonic cells to grow certain organs... it will only be a matter of time before we can genetically engineer people... if the embryo doesnt have the rights a human has, then doctors will eventually be able to genetically engineer sex slaves, or coal miners or even geneticially engineer all future babies to have certain political ideology when they mature... ah, just think how much freedom democracy will provide when the masses are engineered at conception to consider certain parties best..."

It's impossible to grow a particular human organ at this moment, but if it's possible: why the hell not? You'll be regenerating from a certain condition out of your body. A stem cell is not an embryo.
Genitally engineered babies are, to a certain degree, not really a problem either, imo. Although, it must be added that manipulations, apart those made for medical reasons, should not determine the child's future.