Dna is an indicator of a distinct, separate human being, the product of the mother & father. That product can be developed in the mother's womb, or they can rent another. But the DNA is a clear indicator of a distinct, separate human being. 'Blueprint' is a deflection. We are talking about a living, distinct, individual human, not house plans. You know what i mean, & i was very clear. A surrogate mother, who is NOT related at all to the developing baby, can be the womb for its growth & development. That was my clear point, not that partially developed babies can be transplanted to different wombs.. that may come, someday, but afaik, they can't do it yet. no? What do you mean, NO?? I was talking about a FERTILIZED egg, after conception.. that is plainly clear, & you are obfuscating with sperm & eggs. An individual's life is plainly a process that begins at conception.. all the millions of sperm that do NOT fertilize an egg, or all the eggs that drop without being fertilized, have no unique life begun. That is a plain scientific fact. How can you deny that? IT is obfuscation to try to correlate all the sperm or eggs that don't fertilize the same as a fertilized one. No life has begun, in a non fertilized egg, whether there were sperm present or not. But once conceived, the process has begun, & only accidents or violence can stop it. You have a computer in front of you. You have a keyboard. But until you type & put the words on the screen, then hit 'post reply', it remains unseen, unknown, & dead. Once you bring it to life, by your combined actions of typing & posting, you (hopefully!) have something of value for the rest of us to peruse. Wankers produce plenty of useless sperm. Eggs are menstruated every month by billions of women. Occasionally, a wanker & an egg come together, & a life begins, either by plan or by accident.. the egg & sperm do not care, as they have no will or genetic information unique to them, but only are delivery methods to bring them together in a new life. well, duh.. of course. You obviously have your own opinion, & that is why we 'debate' on the forums. We defend & present our opinions as rational & enlightened, & expose the fallacies in other arguments that support other opinions. I have presented my opinion, & you have attempted a rebuttal.. unsuccessfully, imo. The simple points that support my view are still unrebutted.. the side points & deflections do not rebut them. I have not seen your opinion on this topic, or any of your reasons or evidence. If you would present them in a logical manner, the rest of us could critique your reasoning, & examine your conclusions.
The womb is merely room & board. It is certainly attached, & the baby has seized the means of production from the woman. But the growing human is developing, by the nurturing mammalian process of a woman.. only she can do this. After the baby is born, & the cord cut, others can nurture, room, & board the still growing human. It is just as dependent as in the womb, & is NOT viable on its own. The developing human takes nutrients & oxygen from the mother, as it cannot get it on its own. After birth, it can get its own oxygen, but is still dependent on someone to feed & nurture him. What magical event happens when air is introduced in the lungs that suddenly makes everyone want to protect or defend this person, who before the first breath of air, was subject to whimsical death by those around him?
No, it is not. DNA is present in every living cell. DNA is present in a hair follicle, skin, or any organ. It does not indicate a human being. DNA is present in a zef, even though the zef is not separate and is still lacking the characteristics which most people would identify as essential to human beingness. When a woman has an unplanned pregnancy, the pregnancy is not determined until it is too late to reimplant it in another female. Therefore, the zef forming from an unplanned pregnancy is dependent upon that one female only for its existence. If the zef were truly separate or individual, it could be removed from the host at any time, but it is not separate or individual, it is actually attached. Your implication that the pregnancy can be maintained by any woman at all is just another attempt to minimize the contribution of women. Life exists in a nonfertilized egg as well as in sperm. LIFE, human life, already exists. Conception is not, therefore, the beginning of human life, as the formation of that particular egg and sperm precedes conception. This is an odd analogy since computers, posting, and/or words are not living, and never will be living. Whether or not I have successfully rebutted your points is not contingent on your adopting my point of view. I do not expect to change someone's opinion when that opinion is lacking in full understanding of the entire process. I expect to provide an alternate view for the consumption of "lurkers" whose opinions may not be set in stone.
But we do, people in a vegetative state are often disconnected from life support and rightly so, because while technically alive they are just empty vessels. The exact definition of death should be built around irreversible loss of higher brain activity. The same with the beginning of human life (or personhood). This excludes foetuses roughly before 5th month and also humans with severe brain damage.
If you see the woman as merely an object, you certainly can't comprehend the concept of reproductive rights, or acknowledge the exteme impact pregnancy has on the woman's body and life. Of course not, but it is no longer dependent on a physical attachment to another person. Right, it becomes socially dependent rather than physically dependent. Of course it is necessary for you to oversimplify what happens at birth. Very complex physiological changes are necessary for the baby to transition to independent life. It has been described as "the miracle of birth." And likewise, it is necessary for you to trivialize a woman's reasons for abortion as "whimsical." As though a woman would suffer through 9 months of pregnancy only to terminate it on a whim. It doesn't happen.
Distorting my point to make it look like i am demeaning women as 'objects' is a dishonest tactic. That was not my point, as you well know. Logically, from the baby's perspective, the womb is merely 'room & board'. The woman does not have to be this willingly, as the baby has seized the means of production. As a mammal, the woman's body has 'willingly' submitted to this process, and it does not require her mental assent to take place. Millions, if not billions of babies have been conceived, born, developed, aged, & died, WITHOUT the active, willful consent of the participants. It matters not if the sperm donor, or the egg donor were willfully attempting to procreate, or if they were just following their instinctive urges. Dependent is dependent. Before birth, a baby is dependent on the birth mother for nutrients, protection, & oxygen, which she provides with her own body. After birth, the same woman, usually, provides nutrients & protection, usually from her own body, to nurture & develop the same baby. He is able to breathe & get oxygen on his own, but is still dependent on nutrition, as a mammal, from the mother's milk. As resourceful, clever beings, we are able to replicate mother's milk, & put it in little bottles, so that anyone can feed the little monsters, & give mom a break. But that does not take away from the mammalian status of the baby, who still is dependent. The only REAL change has been the ability of the person in question to take oxygen on their own. He is still a dependent, helpless creature, unable to feed or defend himself. He is not viable on his own, but must be actively cared for, or he will die. The only real difference is that a woman's mammalian status makes this an undebatable option, instead of a willful one. Her mind is not needed to assent to this process, as her body will do it in spite of any mental objections she might have. Fortunately, for the millions or billions of humans who were 'accidents' or unplanned, this was not a problem. They still were born, & lived lives as if they were planned. Unfortunately, for the millions now of unplanned accidents, who now face death for the convenience of the parental party, they do not have this opportunity.
Pro-lifers intentionally try to simplify and minimize pregnancy in any way they can. Pregnancy is much more complicated than simply providing "room and board" for an entity. The woman's body provides pre-digested nourishment and removes waste. The woman's body maintains a constant temperature. The woman's body provides antibodies to protect from diseases. If it were truly as simply as providing "room and board", the zef could be removed to mature in a test tube. There is a big difference between being dependent upon one physical body (physical dependence), and being dependent upon someone, anyone, in society for help (social dependence). The needs of one who is socially dependent are always provided voluntarily, no one is ever forced to care for someone. When one is forced to care for another by anti-abortion laws, the physically dependent being assumes superiority to the caregiver. You cannot remove a woman's right to determine her own body's actions without taking from her and giving to something else. You do not understand the complexity of changes in the body when a fetus becomes a baby. Here are a couple of sites to help you understand the multitude of changes a baby must make. http://www.birth.com.au/your-baby-s...l-transition-to-independent-life#.VAnZMcJdVGY https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060920021757AA8i6lK
It seems quite simple to me. the womb is a place for a new human to grow & develop, depending on the birth mother for nutrients & protection. We are in agreement on this amazing phenomena, but seem to disagree about it's significance. You seem to think that because the womb is providing these services, the owner of the womb has to right to terminate the life of the 'boarder'. My contention is that the mammalian status of the nurturer does not give them the right to terminate the new human's existence, for any reason but self defense. Being a mammal is fraught with inconveniences, as well as percs. We have to live with our specie-ial make up. That is the way we procreate. Again, we agree about the dependency but disagree about the correlation of the new human's rights in it. You seem to think that because the host mother is the sole provider of nutrition & protection, she should have the right to terminate the life of the new human developing inside her. I maintain that the new human has rights, which should NOT be negated for the convenience or 'choice' of the host mother. The child is still COMPLETELY dependent, before & after birth. The only difference is the birth mother is the only one who can do it before birth. Why should that simple fact nullify the new human's right to life? Why is he unprotected as a person one hour before birth, but is a protected person 1 minute after birth? Of course i understand, & your patronizing deflection does not contribute to the discussion. Rebut any real points i made, instead of strawmen. I'll requote this one: The only REAL change has been the ability of the person in question to take oxygen on their own. He is still a dependent, helpless creature, unable to feed or defend himself. He is not viable on his own, but must be actively cared for, or he will die. Why is this person a valid human being 1 minute after birth, but is 'unprotected tissue' 1 hour before? Or one day before? One week? One month? I've asked this of you several times: Why & when is a human a human? This is the topic of the OP, & one i still have not seen your answer to. I see you arguing AGAINST other's views on this, but i have not seen yours presented in a clear, straightforward manner.
Why do you find it necessary to lie about other members here? In no way shape or form did I provide a mixed view, if you cannot distinguish the difference between a persons personal view and that of the legal, medical and scientific one, then the failure is yours and yours alone. I find you posts to be nothing more than opinion pieces, you have no real intent to debate the issue, only to stick your fingers in your ears and sing la la la whenever anyone disagrees with you.
A zef does not have a developed brain or brain stem unlike those who you are trying to compare it with by using brain death as a guide line and a zef at 8-12 weeks shows the same level of "brain waves" as a bowl of jello .. is a bowl of jello alive? Your snippet definition of brain dead does not include the rest of the Act, you have cherry picked the part that you feel best fits your own opinion and in doing so neglect to realise that this act is NOT the final determinator. From your own link - This Act is silent on acceptable diagnostic tests and medical pro(*)cedures. It sets the general legal standard for determining death, but not the medical criteria for doing so. The medical criteria for brain death is as follows - The process for brain death certification includes Identification of history or physical examination findings that provide a clear etiology of brain dysfunction. The determination of brain death requires the identification of the proximate cause and irreversibility of coma. Severe head injury, hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage, aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, hypoxic-ischemic brain insults and fulminant hepatic failure are potential causes of irreversible loss of brain function. The evaluation of a potentially irreversible coma should include, as may be appropriate to the particular case; clinical or neuro-imaging evidence of an acute CNS catastrophe that is compatible with the clinical diagnosis of brain death; Exclusion of any condition that might confound the subsequent examination of cortical or brain stem function. The conditions that may confound clinical diagnosis of brain death are: Shock/ hypotension Hypothermia -temperature < 32°C Drugs known to alter neurologic, neuromuscular function and electroencephalographic testing, like anaesthetic agents, neuroparalytic drugs, methaqualone, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, high dose bretylium, amitryptiline, meprobamate, trichloroethylene, alcohols. Brain stem encephalitis. Guillain- Barre' syndrome. Encephlopathy associated with hepatic failure, uraemia and hyperosmolar coma Severe hypophosphatemia. Performance of a complete neurological examination. Components of a complete neurological examination are: Examination of the patient-absence of spontaneous movement, decerebrate or decorticate posturing, seizures, shivering, response to verbal stimuli, and response to noxious stimuli administered through a cranial nerve path way. During the examination spinal reflexes may be present. Absent pupillary reflex to direct and consensual light; pupils need not be equal or dilated. The pupillary reflex may be selectively altered by eye trauma, cataracts, high dose dopamine, glutethamide, scopolamine, atropine, bretilium or monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Absent corneal, oculocephalic, cough and gag reflexes. The corneal reflex may be altered as a result of facial weakness. Absent oculovestibular reflex when tested with 20 to 50 ml. Of ice water irrigated into an external auditory canal clear of cerumen, and after elevating the patients head 30'. Labyrinthine injury or disease, anticholinergics, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, and some sedatives may alter response. Failure of the heart rate to increase by more than 5 beats per minute after 1- 2 mg. of atropine intravenously. This indicates absent function of the vagus nerve and nuclei. Absent respiratory efforts in the presence of hypercarbia. Generally, the apnoea test is performed after the second examination of brainstem reflexes. The apnoea test need only be performed once when its results are conclusive. Before performing the apnoea test, the physician must determine that the patient meets the following conditions: Core temperature ≥ 36.5°C or 97.7°F Euvolemia. Option: positive fluid balance in the previous 6 hours Normal PCO2. Option: arterial PCO2 ≥ 40 mm Hg Normal PO2. Option: pre-oxygenation to arterial PO2 ≥ 200 mm Hg After determining that the patient meets the above prerequisites, the physician should conduct the apnoea test as follows: Connect a pulse oximeter and disconnect the ventilator. Deliver 100% O2, 6 l/min, into the trachea. Option: place a cannula at the level of the carina. Look closely for any respiratory movements (abdominal or chest excursions that produce adequate tidal volumes). Measure arterial PO2, PCO2, and pH after approximately 8 minutes and reconnect the ventilator. If respiratory movements are absent and arterial PCO2 is ≥ 60 mm Hg (option: 20 mm Hg increase in PCO2 over a baseline normal PCO2), the apnoea test result is positive (i.e. it supports the diagnosis of brain death). If respiratory movements are observed, the apnoea test result is negative (i.e. it does not support the clinical diagnosis of brain death). Connect the ventilator, if during testing the systolic blood pressure becomes < 90 mm Hg (or below age appropriate thresholds in children less than 18 years of age) or the pulse oximeter indicates significant oxygen desaturation, or cardiac arrhythmias develop; Immediately draw an arterial blood sample and analyze arterial blood gas. If PCO2 is ≥ 60 mm Hg or PCO2 increase is ≥ 20 mm Hg over baseline normal PCO2, the apnoea test result is positive (it supports the clinical diagnosis of brain death). if PCO2 is < 60 mm Hg and PCO2 increase is < 20 mm Hg over baseline normal PCO2, the result is indeterminate and a confirmatory test can be considered. When appropriate a 10 min. apnoea test can be performed after preoxygenation for 10 minutes with an Fi02 of 1.0 and normalization of patients PaCO2 to 40 mmHG. Assessment of brainstem reflexes Pupils- no response to bright light Size: midposition (4 mm) to dilated (9 mm) (absent light reflex - cranial nerve II and III) Ocular movement- cranial nerve VIII, III and VI No oculocephalic reflex (testing only when no fracture or instability of the cervical spine or skull base is apparent) No deviation of the eyes to irrigation in each ear with 50 ml of cold water (tympanic membranes intact; allow 1 minute after injection and at least 5 minutes between testing on each side) Facial sensation and facial motor response No corneal reflex (cranial nerve V and VII) No jaw reflex (cranial nerve IX) No grimacing to deep pressure on nail bed, supraorbital ridge, or temporo-mandibular joint (afferent V and efferent VII) Pharyngeal and tracheal reflexes (cranial nerve IX and X) No response after stimulation of the posterior pharynx No cough response to tracheobronchial suctioning Clinical observations compatible with the diagnosis of brain death: The following manifestations are occasionally seen and should not be misinterpreted as evidence for brainstem function: spontaneous movements of limbs other than pathologic flexion or extension response respiratory-like movements (shoulder elevation and adduction, back arching, intercostal expansion without significant tidal volumes) sweating, flushing, tachycardia normal blood pressure without pharmacologic support or sudden increases in blood pressure absence of diabetes insipidus deep tendon reflexes; superficial abdominal reflexes; triple flexion response Babinski reflex - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772257/ Personally I am more than prepared to accept the personhood of a fetus from conception, simply because it in no way changes the legality of abortion. A 8-12 week zef has no more "brain wave" activity than a bowl of jello. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2942/can-brainwaves-be-detected-in-lime-jell-o and if you want to dismiss this article then I suggest you check out the references at the bottom of the page. References Nunez, Paul L. “Electroencephalography.” Encyclopedia of the Human Brain. Ed. V. S. Ramachandran. 4 vols. San Diego: Academic P., 2002. Page, Harriet. “Jello shows ‘lifeÂ’ when subjected to EEGs in an unusual teaching experiment.” Medical Tribune. 3 March 1976: 9. Potts, Michael, Paul A. Byrne, and Richard G. Nilges, eds. "Beyond Brain Death: The Case against Brain Based Criteria for Human Death". Philosophy and Medicine 66. Boston: Kluwer, 2000. Rensberger, Boyce. “Jell-O Test Finds Lifelike Signal.” New York Times 6 March 1976: C6. Silverman, Daniel, et al. "Irreversible coma associated with electrocerebral silence." Neurology 20 (1970): 525-533. Walker, A. Earl. Cerebral Death. 2d ed. Baltimore: Urban, 1981. Wyman, Caroline. Jell-O: A Biography. San Diego: Harcourt, 2001. Younger, Stuart J., et al., eds. The Definition of Death: Contemporary Controversies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP: 1999. So are you advocating that jello is alive?
did you even bother to check the dates on the bowl of jello experiment? it was 50 and 40 years ago don't you think after 50 years EEG devices and doctors/scientist can tell the difference between false readings from a bowl of jello and real brain activity
If it is just "room and board" then the owner of the room has every right to cease the contract and evict the tenant. If as pro-lifers advocate that the zef is a person from conception then it most certainly does, just as every other person has to gain consent to use another persons body. Absolute rubbish, the only reason a woman's body submits is due to the zef forcing it to submit, from the moment of conception the fertilized ovum releases chemicals and hormones that suppress the local immune system of the woman (very similar to the ones used by the nematode worm), if it did not do this the woman's immune system would reject the ovum as a foreign body. It also releases chemicals that have a profound effect on her mental state, they introduce a "feel good" factor to the woman. During implantation, fetally derived cells (trophoblast) invade the maternal endometrium and remodel the endometrial spiral arteries into low-resistance vessels that are unable to constrict. This invasion has three consequences. First, the fetus gains direct access to its mother's arterial blood. Therefore, a mother cannot reduce the nutrient content of blood reaching the placenta without reducing the nutrient supply to her own tissues. Second, the volume of blood reaching the placenta becomes largely independent of control by the local maternal vasculature. Third, the placenta is able to release hormones and other substances directly into the maternal circulation. Placental hormones, including human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and human placental lactogen (hPL), are predicted to manipulate maternal physiology for fetal benefit ( Source - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8115596 ) There are various levels of dependency as you well know, yet in pregnancy the dependency is solely restricted to a single person, not the case in all other dependent states. Upon birth a woman can revoke her consent to supply ANYTHING to the baby, upon doing so that baby is removed and cared for by others .. she has no need to kill it as there are other immediate actions that remove the baby from her, in pregnancy that is not the case. On a legal standpoint any imposition by a person on another person without their consent can be met with self-defence up to and including deadly force. You cannot claim that the zef is a person and then try to state that the woman has given consent for the pregnancy via her consent to sexual intercourse. Consent is not transferable between different people UNLESS the person who gave the original consent agrees. Hence why what the fetus "is" doesn't really matter, what it "does" is the fundamental question. Simply put - Consent to one person (a man) for one act (sexual intercourse) cannot be used as proxy consent for another person (the zef) for a separate act (implantation/pregnancy) Everyday people protect themselves from unconsented injuries, it is one of the few things that over rules another persons right to life, to claim that a fetus is a person and then simply ignore the restrictions placed on that status is dishonest. I suggest you actually find out what the changes are when birth happens, there is more to it than simply the ability to take oxygen on their own. Rubbish, her body is forced to do it by the actions of the fertilized ovum, if the fertilized ovum did not compromise her immune system it would be attacked and killed .. Everything the fertilized ovum does is at the expense of the woman. and that is simply down to the individual choice of the females involved . .something pro-lifers want to remove from them.
and that highlighted part is the main point of the arguments I put forward. The zef, under the pro-life mandate, as a unique, separate person with all the protections that status gives MUST gain independent consent from the woman in order to implant and gestate within her. It cannot be assumed that a woman's consent to sexual intercourse equals her consent to be pregnant, consent to one person (a man) for one act (sexual intercourse) CANNOT be seen as proxy consent for another person (the zef) for another act (implantation/pregnancy). The best that pro-lifers can hope for is implied consent and even that fails - implied consent is only relevant up to the point that a person, by word or action, explicitly says "no", from that point onwards implied consent is moot. So simply put it matters not what the zef "is", it can be a fully fledged voting human being from the moment of conception if you want, none of that changes what it "does". Of course, under the person at conception ideology, the new human has rights .. however, it also has restrictions, the same restrictions that apply to all human beings, to ignore those restrictions is not a case of looking for equal rights but for giving superior rights to a fetus above those that all other people have, and to top that pro-lifers want to then remove those superior rights at the moment of birth. The protection a newborn has 1 minute after birth is no different to the protection any other person has, what pro-lifers want to do is give the fetus greater protection than all other people while it is in the womb, and as such violate the females rights in the process. A 1 minute born baby cannot physically impose itself onto another person causing injury, so why should a fetus be able to? You are the one stating that the only "REAL change has been the ability of the person in question to take oxygen on their own" and that is factually incorrect. Grannie has rightly pointed you in the direction of the other REAL things that happen during and upon birth. This is pure crap, a fetus IS protected from week 24 onwards so your emotional drivel of " 'unprotected tissue' 1 hour before? Or one day before? One week? One month?" is 100% irrelevant. In fact the zef has protections from the end of the first trimester. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165. - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113 Which has been answered numerous times by numerous people, the fact that you choose to ignore those responses says more about you than it does about anything else. You are trying to take a complex issue and render it down to a basic one and that IMHO is being intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. - - - Updated - - - Funny that, when placed on the spot your run away just as you have done numerous times before when asked to provide proof of your accusations. - - - Updated - - - You never make an argument that means anything, let alone a "great" argument, its all fluff or wash, lather, rinse and repeat with you.
WTF does "lather rinse and fluff wash" mean? - - - Updated - - - Dishonest. You do the same exact thing.
did you even bother to check the date on the article? and you are wrong in your assertion that the difference between Alpha wave readings from a bowl of jello and a 8-12 week fetus can be differentiated between. All an ECG does is read the electrical current across cells and ALL living cells produce an electrical current. The brain waves (still nothing more than electrical currents) in a sentient person are distinguished due to the constant nature and higher current value. The experiment was repeated in 1993 and found exactly the same results as the initial experiment in 1959. Also this is just a small part of my whole response, are you going to address the rest of it?
It means you have no argument to offer and the ones you do try to offer are just repeats of things you have said before, even though they have been answered and blown full of holes numerous times. Find a SINGLE dishonest comment of mine .. oh never mind you'll just be to "tired" or can't be "bothered to search through hundreds of posts" as usual.
So to complete your distortion, deception, & deflections, now you call me a liar. Perfect. This is why i avoid these hysterical threads, that the left LOVES to wrangle on & on about. No logic. No 'debate'. No reason, facts, or evidence.. just deflections, ad hominems, & insults. You most certainly did have BOTH of those views in a single post, which i replied to & pointed out. I keep bringing the discussion back to the question in the OP, which you seemed to answer, in a doublespeak kind of way, & now you turn personal, with an attack on me. If you have nothing topical to say, why bother posting? I have provided a premise, defined it, given reasons for it, & defended it. I have not seen any straightforward, clear view of yours, answering the simple question in the OP. Neither have i seen any REASONING for the 'why' that is also asked. So you project your own la la singing onto me, when i have taken on this issue with calm reason.
funny thing the doctors and scientist didn't use EEG measurements to determine brain activity they determined brain activity by 1 the fetus after 8 to 12 weeks has a heart beat, 2 he reacts to touch, 3 he reacts to noise, and 4 he moves 5 he hiccups . all things not possible with out brain activity
I cannot help if your comments show you for what you are. More likely you avoid anything that shows your inability to debate honestly. I have not seen a single piece of logic from you. If your idea of debate is to simply dismiss anything you don't agree with then you really have no idea on how to debate. There is plenty of reason in numerous comments here, you just choose to ignore it. Where are your facts and evidence, so far I have seen nothing but your opinion with not a single thing to back it up. You accused me of "changing my answer" .. a lie, and then compounded that lie by stating I had a "mixed view", which is pure BS, if you cannot distinguish between a personal opinion and a medical, legal and scientific opinion then your comprehension factor is very, very low. Let us recap on the actual exchanges as it points out your deception perfectly. My response My response You asked two different question, one when does a "human" become a human and the other when does a fetus become a baby, add to this that my first response was MY OPINION while my second response was concerning scientific and medical conditions and it is plain to see for anyone who understands English that I am not "changing my answer", the fact that you then followed my responses with this - shows that you either a) do not understand or comprehend English, b) deliberately attempting to misrepresent my comments, or c) flat out lying as I did not say "that it's not until birth." I answered your question fully and also answered your other off topic comments as well, where you delved into political ideology and religious beliefs even though your stated in your OP "I propose this discussion as a scientific one." while later in the same item stated "they thought that human life was sacred & should be protected ... Then the liberals can defend both the criminal & the babies, & have a sanctity of life argument." Everything you have posted I have replied to, you on the other hand have just tried to deflect from those responses with inane comments .. not once have you answered any of the rebuttals given, not once have you posted links to evidence to support your opinion. So the real question should be why do you bother posting, you are not interested in debate in any way, shape or form. and I have answered your premise despite the fact you have given nothing but your own opinion to support the premise in the first place. In my very first response to you I asked you to provide evidence to support the following; so far what have you given .... NOTHING! Then you are blind, the answer is right there in my first response to you, here it is again - There are a number of various ideologies concerning this and so far subject matter experts cannot agree, my personal opinion is when there is consistent brain wave activity. You demand answers from others while ignoring questions asked of you Had you not attempted to demean me and simply asked why I felt that point was the right one you would have got your answers, but no you had to try and make out that I was trying to deflect. I have projected nothing onto you until you misrepresented my comments, I answered everyone of your points in a calm, reasoned manner, you then proceeded to accuse me of various things instead of refuting my points .. since that point all you have done is avoid, squirm and deflect .. just as you are doing now. you seem to be under some illusion that you can post what ever you wish and not have it challenged, if that is the case I suggest you post your opinions on a pro-life site as I'm sure there would be no one there to challenge you.
I am not going to be drawn into some bickering flame war with some troll who wants to deflect from the topic. Answer the question, if you dare, & i'll debate the topic. But find someone else to be a target of your hate stream. When & why does a human become a human? Birth? Brain waves? Conception? Why?
