Those who have an extremely lower than average intelligence that they have the mental level of infants.
Except many people have come out of vegetative states after years of being in it.
[QUOTE]
They won’t come back from the dead but fetuses will be born.
I mean the sperm has yet to conceive life yet.
I don’t think so.
So you’re saying if some animal is fed (human) baby formula than it’s a person? Is that right?
I’d wait for the sentence to be clarified before questioning it, myself. I’ve tried to parse it a few times and can’t quite grasp what ZPG is driving at.
Less generously to myself, ZPG’s sentence makes me go ‘bwuh?’
I’ve heard it, lived it, and rejected it. I’m sorry, but it’s all nonsense.
Neither is this fetus after I get it removed.
What she said is IF the animal is the kind of animal that becomes a person after being fed formula or human breast milk; in other words, IF that animal is a human baby THEN it would be wrong to eat it.
Oh dear, how bad has science education gotten in the United States? It’s all because they took Darwin out of the schools. It should be pretty obvious that my point was eating an animal would only be considered murder if that animal if given proper nutrition could develop into a human being.
I read a news article on the New York Times earlier the past year 2011, and it seems to tell a different story from what you imply: that Creationism has already been made illegal to be taught in schools, and that teachers are the ones that are teaching it. I am not sure why these teachers insist that Creationism ought to be taught. Can’t they just accept that Creationism has no scientific backup? So no, legally speaking, the United States has not taken Darwin’s theory out of the schools. Socially speaking, and judging by the alarming statistics that the article provides, it seems as if the United States has, even though teaching Creationism has already been made illegal.
So… what counts as an animal? Does an unborn, unhatched chick count as an animal? It requires proper nutrition and can develop into a hen or a rooster when it’s all grown up. If this has not been cooked and eaten, then the duck egg could hatch, and out comes a duckling who can one day turn into a duck! Do you think eating a balut is immoral or sick? And if you do think that eating a balut is immoral or sick, then do you tolerate others who do eat it?
That’s a nice interpretation there, but I’m not seeing how you got there based on what was typed out.
Very bad, apparently. Since a lot of people around here don’t understand the difference between (1) a sex cell, (2) a somatic cell and the organs they form and (3) the organism of which they are apart.
Yeah, I don’t think that has anything to do with anything.
…Yeah. Who cares? Not you, for one. What happened to all your talk about “current state”? It seems odd to me that in the span of a few hours you’d go from arguing what something currently isn’t to what it has the “potential” to be. If I were to say something like “Abortion should be impermissible because-- even if the unborn aren’t presently human beings (they are)-- it results in the death of that which given proper developmental time and adequate nutrition could develop into a human being”, you’d instantly dismiss said argument based on the fact that the unborn isn’t “independent” of the mother.
Missed window
Anyway, hypothetically speaking, if there were an animal that-- after some period of time-- turned into a human, would it be immoral to eat it before it became a human being? Let’s say that exactly five years after it’s born, a cow would turn into a human (i.e., a cow born today would turn into a human being on January 7, 2017). Would it be permissible to eat the cow based on the fact that it’s presently a cow, or impermissible based on the fact that it will be a human being in the future. Inquiring minds, mainly mine, want to know.
Well, that kind of scenario calls for a degree of scientific advancement that will certainly challenge the legal system, to be sure.
It’s relevance to current abortion regulation is iffy, though.
Um, how does the fetus feed if not on the substance of the mother? Even without the Castle Doctrine, I know of nowhere in the United States that it is not considered justifiable self-defense to kill a trespasser that is eating your flesh. If that applies to what happens within one’s home, it should certainly apply to what happens within one’s body.
I’m pretty sure Trihs was joking; suggesting the simple analogy of a trespasser didn’t go far enough - it would have to be someone that has not only invaded your property but is vampirically leeching off of you.
I don’t feel the need to take it that far, personally. If someone is on your property, you can tell them to get off and call in police to assist you in the trespasser’s removal, even if that puts the trespasser at risk of injury (i.e. the cops show up, they have guns and tasers and batons and whatnot - they’re not going to just shrug and tell the homeowner “well, he won’t leave, and we can’t do anything that might injure him so you’re stuck with him” - they’ll use physical force if necessary, and that puts them and the trespasser to some degree of risk). If I can get a pro-lifer to accept that (and I’ve seen some truly awesomely contortionist efforts to avoid dong so), I point out that control over one’s body is certainly and logically greater than control over mere property.
Then you should have said so, because most people who are mentally handicapped aren’t that severe.
Oh really? Got proof of that? :dubious: Once again, a coma and a vegetative state aren’t the same thing. And you’re not keeping me on life support if I’m in the latter. (I told my family that if they had done to me what Teri Schiavo’s family did to her, when I did die, I’d come back to haunt them into their graves)
Look, I don’t like abortion, but I do believe the woman is in charge of her own body, and she has the final say. SHE is more important, as she has control over what goes on with it.
Comparing it to killing a person, like your mother-in-law, well, if she’s in your house that’s one thing. If she crawls up inside my body, that’s entirely another.
NOt at all, we raised chickens,and if there was no rooster the eggs were not fertile and no matter how long you put the egg in an incubator (or let the hen sit on it) no chicken would grow. No rooster no chicken. The same with any animal no sperm no animal. Even an apple blossom that is not pollinated will produce an apple!But no one would say an apple blossom is an apple!
The term Pro-Life is a crock, everyone is pro-life,it should be called pro-birth because once a child is born, then they do not want to pay taxes or take on the responsibility to raise the child to adulthood,that is more than a diaper bank, it means housing food ,care,educate a child 'till adilthood. And too many are also against birth control except the RCC’s method wich is the most unnatural of all types, and even forbid the morning after pill just in case there was a conception,but allow other un-natural things like surgery,medicines, and keeping a person on life suports for years with no hope of recovery..
I think a person has the right to think for them selves, and no one knows what a woman or family can go through. It is far better than having a child or even children starve to death and die slowly!
Since we have sepration of Church and State, the law cannot be used to spread a religious belief. No one is asking a person to go against their beliefs, nor should one force their beliefs on another. The Abortion issuse is a religious one. Once a person can be recognized as such, the law doesn’t allow abortions except in the case of the mother’s life.
You can’t murder a fertile egg!
Can too!
(okay, your turn)
Ummmm, actually, I believe that there’s at least one species of reptile that’s parthenogenetic, that is, female only. In honeybees (don’t know about other bees) the males (drones) develop from unfertilized eggs. Fertilized eggs develop into females, either workers or queens depending on what they were fed as pupa.
It is your right to say that, so each time you have an egg for breakfast and it is fertilized then you commit the killing of a chicken? You can call an egg a chicken or what ever you choose,but if you ordered 36 chickens for a banquet you were having and the farmer showed uo with 36 fertile eggs the day of the banquet, you would gladly pay $5.00 each for the eggs and tell your guests it was chicken?