Of course human life begins at conception, it has to, or else it would never grow and mature into a baby.
But while it may be a human, it is NOT a human being. The fetus is HUMAN but it is a POTENTIAL human being. Until it is born and has taken a breath, it is only a potential human being.

__________________
No More Fate And No More Mystery Even As Time Falls Away I Live My Days Every Moment And Its Memory Not Only To Survive, To Die Alive.

Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

So this professor is flat out lying under oath in front of the Senate? I guess?


The official Senate report reached this conclusion:


Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings

__________________
Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. - Ann Coulter

If you were born after 1972 you are a Survivor of the Abortion Holocaust. 1/3 of your generation has been killed by abortion in America!

This is still a alck of concern for the iving. Its control of people and nothing else.

Tis tyranny..period.

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8Ek...eature=related

Legally, you are incorrect.

__________________
No More Fate And No More Mystery Even As Time Falls Away I Live My Days Every Moment And Its Memory Not Only To Survive, To Die Alive.

IT doesnt matter at a what you think any person says about a fetus. Living breadthing citzzens come first. Anybody in a womb is not a prioority at all.

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8Ek...eature=related

__________________
No More Fate And No More Mystery Even As Time Falls Away I Live My Days Every Moment And Its Memory Not Only To Survive, To Die Alive.

Medical textbooks used to teach the subjects of embryology, fetology, developmental biology, and OB/Gyn in universities around the world is hardly anti choice propaganda not to mention highly respected peer reviewed medical journals.

The fact that you would call such materials propaganda when it is evident that you can find nothing with which to counter them brings the weakness of your argument into very sharp relief.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

The law once stated that black people were not human beings. Do you really believe that while the law said that they were not human, that in reality that they were something other than living human beings or do you believe that the judges who made the decision that blacks were not human but were instead property made a terrible error that had more than terrible consequences for a great many human beings?

The law means nothing with regard to what a thing is in reality. Now, do feel free to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being and thereby prove that the law is right and just rather than a gross miscarriage of justice. Simply saying "its the law" hardly constitutes a rational argument.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Once more, the law doesn't prove anything. The law (in the US) is a decision made by judges that declares that unborns are not living human beings. Clearly they were wrong.

Now as to personhood. I have made this explanation to others so rather than type the whole thing over, I am going to simply cut and paste it here.

It is possible via philosophical reasoning to rationally answer the question of what is a person because we are persons and everyone around us are persons. It is possible to critically examinethe prsons we see every day and determine whether a suggested definition of person adequately describes us.

If you look critically at some of the definitions of person that are advanced by the pro choice side of the argument, it is obviousthat most can be set aside right away without discussion because they simply do not mesh with our own experience of what being a person is or they are simply not applicable to the question of what it is to be a person.

First, we don't "get to be" persons because we become autonomous, or independent, or even viable. These characteristics can be dismissed out of hand as not being essential characteristics of personhood because we all know someone or of someone who lacks some or all of these characteristics to some degree or another. In fact, we all lack them to some degree or another. You may have to be viable to stay alive, for example but viability doesn't tell us anything at all about what it is that is staying alive and if you are going to argue personhood philosopically, it is imperative that any prerequisite you care to demand must speak to the subject of the discussion.

Nearly all of the most popular definitions of personhood suggested by the pro choice side of the argument break down in principle, it must be clear to any critical thinker that it follows that they will also break down in practice. Failure to admit this disqualifies one as a critical thinker and identifies one as an emotionalist. If we try to draw a line and say "beyond this point we are persons" we find rather quickly that there is no bright line in which we can say after this line we have characteristics X, Y, and Z but before this line we didn't. Unless of course, you want to limit yourself to some very arbitrary and superfical physical characteristics at which time, you enter the realm of the biological sciences and you want to argue the philosophy of personhood to avoid the superior scientific argument do you not?

In attempting to set a time in which we "aquire" personhood, the pro choice side immediately enters the realm of logical fallacy. You must "beg the question". You must first assume that this aquisition of personhood happens at a time far enough along in the pregnancy so that abortion becomes a rational action and then try to construct an argument that proves whichever time you have arbitrarily set. This is a terribly flawed form of reasoning in either the scientific or philosophical realms. The failure of the application of this rational tells us that we must first try and find the definition of personhood and then determine whether it is a thing that we aquire or not.

We often hear argument for brain or thinking. OK, lets go there. The potenital for reason and rational thought is a matter of kind. We either have it or we don't. Realization of reason and rational thought is always a matter of degree and we all realize it to different degrees and none of us reach the absolute limit of our potential. Agreed?

Working within that framework then being a "person" is not an issue of degree but of kind. Do you understand the difference between degree and kind? The sort of person you are is a matter of degree while what you are is a matter of kind. It is quite possible for you to be a better or worse person than someone else. You can be more or less ethical, or honest, but you simply can not be more of a person than someone else. To suggest so is nonsense.

The demand for some sort of actualization that the pro choice side argues for is based on the acknowledgement that the potenital for reason and rational thought is already there in each individual regardless of age. The pro choice side attempts to treat this as irrelavent, but if one is attempting to make a rational argument, then it simply must be acknowledged that we are all the same kind of entity as the unborn and that the adult is no more and no less than a grown up unborn. The pro choice side may argue that they are only asking that we all agree on some "reasonable" minimum qualification for personhood, but once again, in principle this demand breaks down.

The first sign of breakdown in principle is obvious on its face. The problem of having to name the degree of potential that must be achieved in order to be a person. Look about you among the various pro choicers. There simply is no agreement even among those on your side. The passion with which you hold your conviction is not a substitute for a rational explanation of why you may choose one point and another pro choicer may choose another. It also fails as reasonable substitute for a rational argument that higher and higher standards for personhood be met, even among post natals.

Then there are those who attempt to avoid the inevetable arguments by engaging the question of realizing potential as a sort of ticket to personhood. That is to say that they argue that we must reach a certain level in order to be considered a person, but once we are there, injury or illness that might bring us below that level will not "un-person" us. In this manner, they attempt to restrict the debate to those who are yet to be born. Again, to a critical thinker, this line of reasoning fails in that it attempts to change degree into kind but doesn't allow kind to be changed back to degree.

This line of thinking ignores what is required to be a person and focuses instead on what is required to "get to be" a person. This is a dead end because even if you conceed that more is required to get to be a person than is required to remain a person then we are necessarily brought back to what is to be required to remain a person after one has achieved personhood. Such arguments would fail to oppose infantacide in a great many cases and would fail to oppose killing of older individuals in just as many cases.

The logic in introducing degree into the definition of person rather than kind is simply flawed. Our rights are founded on the kind of being that we are, not the degree to which we achieve our potential. The extent to which we are different from each other in degree is not the source of our rights. It is nothing more than evidence of differences in our ability to exercise our rights and we all know that there is no requirement to exercise a right in order to have it none the less.

If the philosophical concept of what is a person refers to anything at all, it refers to something that doesn't need to be proven over and over. The essence of the person is something that is inbred. It is not something that we aquire somewhere along the line. Things that are aquired can be lost and may or may not be regained again. The fact that you are a person and can not lose that personhood no matter what may befall you is evidence that it is not an aquisition that you can lose. It is simply what you are.

It simply isn't rational to argue that non persons change into persons. To make such an argument is to argue that we undergo a radical and essential change in our natures during the span of our lives.

The problem with that thinking is that if the change is inevetable from the time we are concieved if given time then the change is not a change in our essential nature. If we initiate the change from within ourselves then it must be in our nature from the beginning and any changes in characteristics like independence, or where we live, or the amount of physical development we have achieved or how much mental capacity we have later in our lives is nothing more than a manifestation of what we were at the beginning of our life.

Now explain in some detail where and why my logic is flawed.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

OK. You are caught in this irrational loop and don't seem to be able to see the flaw in your thinking so let me see if I can help.

First, the debate isn't about whether abortion is presently legal. Obviously it is so simply repeating ad nausem that it is legal or that the law says this or that does not constitute a debate. We could hire a trained parrot to repeat over and over that this is legal or that is legal or that the law says this or that.

The purpose of the debate is for me to prove that the laws regarding abortion are wrong when compared and contrasted to the principles laid out in our founding documents, the Constitution, and the rest of our laws.

You make the claim that funktacular is "legally incorrect" It is interesting that you frame your response in that manner. Imagine that we are living 160 years ago and are having this debate over a watering trough or some such thing but the subject is slightly different. I am anti slavery and you are pro slavery. I say emphatically that blacks are human beings and deserve to be free as much as you or I. You answer that I am "legally incorrect". Well clearly the law presently says that blacks are not human beings and entitled to no sort of human rights, so obviously under the present law, I am legally incorrect.

But am I incorrect factually? Obviously the law says that blacks aren't human beings and are entitled to no rights but are blacks IN FACT not human beings simply because the law says that they aren't? Do they become something other than what they are because the law doesn't recognize what they are and protect the rights that they are entitled to simply because it chooses to deny what they are?

The law says blacks are non human. Are they IN FACT non human?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma