Golly gee whiz. How fortuitous you are a sk**led cell person to set him straight. Personally I did not think him too far off at all. The gist of the thread is a******n of human babies rather than cell growth in general isn't it?

I can't help but wonder how many people, yes on both sides of the aisle, have even considered the actual cut off point. I believe many, again, on both sides of the argument have no idea and are simply drawing a line in the sand to support their party without having a clue as to the development status of the fetus. Sixteen weeks is four months and it would seem in that time period a woman SHOULD be able to make a decision of whether or not to abort the baby or not. It would seem the Left wants to give the woman the responsibility of everything because it is of course HER body. But the Left refuses to give the woman the responsibility of not being pregnant in the first place.

Sorry but in my mind, except for cases of rape or incest a******n is EXACTLY a form of birth control. A woman gets pregnant and then decides to not have the baby for maybe many reasons but some must be, she did not want to get pregnant, she wanted a boy but found out she is having a girl instead. Perhaps she is married to Tom but decided to have sex with Bob. Whoops, now she is having Bobs baby. Can you agree, most on Left Wing side of The Attic cannot agree at all, the woman should bear the responsibility of having the child or not. I used to firmly believe the woman and the man decided what to do with the baby. But then the Left said the man had no say-so in whether or not the baby was aborted or kept. According to the Left it is all about the woman simply because it is her body.

If you feel as if you have no say on the issue of a******n then why are you joining the fray, making any comments at all? Do you feel a******n is a good thing and the woman has a right to abort the baby whenever she wants? Doesn't the baby/fetus have any rights morally? By your way of thinking not one man on the planet has any say so in the issue.

Dennis

His definition of alive seems correct enough when talking about human fetuses/babies being aborted. Seems you are back in the amoeba and protozoa thought process. Human babies are far beyond that as you should know. Sorry you don't.

What is the Canadian statute on a******ns? Can any woman who wants one simply walk into a doctor/hospital and ask for an a******n no matter how far along she is? Is there any official cut off time when a woman could no longer receive an a******n on demand?

What are your personal views on a time period for a woman to receive an a******n? Barring medical emergencies etc. when in your personal view should a woman no longer be entitled to receive an a******n because the the clump of cells, the fetus, is now a real life human baby still inside the womb?

Dennis

I acknowledge that sperm and eggs are alive. I disagree with you about the rest of your statement. The constitution protects life first and foremost. Thus a definition of life is vitally important to the discussion.

A******n takes a life. Life is the first of tje rigjts mentjoned in the Declaration of Independance strongly suggesting that life is the most important of all rights.

Thus a definition of life is all that is relevant regarding when or if a******n should be allowed. It is not a religious issue. It is a constitutional issue

Neither a sperm cell nor an egg meet the traditional biology definition of alive. A zygot does. If those who favor allowing a******n to continue would at least be honest and acknowledge that it takes a human life we might get somewhere in the discussion of if and under what circumstances an a******n should be legal. Because I doubt if even you believes that an a******n should be allowed up to birth, which is currently legal in some states.

You are nit picking, and it is not really constructive. Neither a sperm nor an egg by itself will make a human life. The two combined during conception will. It is only after that combination that the discussion is even relevant. Without an egg the sperm will die in a matter of hours. Likewise without sperm the egg will never develop. I realize that there are a few zealots who consider even birth control as taking a life, but that is not the norm. However, once conception has occurred in nine months outside of human intervention or some issue that causes a miscarriage a human being will be born, and that zygote, embryo, and fetus is clearly human.

Thus an a******n takes a human life. That is just a fact. You can parse words all you like, but that is the t***h.

Im glad you recognize that a fetus is alive thats a start. Beyond that you are being ridiculous. Sperm by itself will not create another being. On the other hand once you have conception barring a miscarraige you will have a human being in nine months.

Birth control prevents conception and neither an egg or sperm will remain alive on its own under any circumstances. The same is not true of a fetus. A fetus is alive and an a******n k**ls it. That is a simple fact that you can not refute. If you really think its ok to end a human life just own it. Dont try to make some disingenuous claim about life to justify the taking of that life.

You need to try to read for comprehension. When I got my biology degree there was a disagreement. Some biologists said that life begins at conception. Some said it begins with cell division. That is the only point where biologists disagreed. All agreed that when you have cell division there is life. Are you seriously trying to claim that cell division is not proof of life?

In actuality there is very little difference in the two positions as cell division happens very rapidly following conception. I realize that you have a preconceived notion that women have a "right to control their bodies." You can believe that if you like, but that has nothing to do with what life is.

Here is the current definition of life. Any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing and responding to external stimuli. Once you have cell division you have many of those criteria. Note the definition does not say that performs all of those functions. When you have cell division you have growth, you have metabolizing, you have moving, and it is a matter of days, not weeks before you have excreting and responding to external stimuli as well.

There is no way to claim that a fetus is not life. There is also no way to claim that it is not human as species do not change as they develop during gestation. So, the only thing you can claim scientifically is that it is OK to take that life. There we can disagree, but if you try to claim a fetus is not life, you are not following basic science.