yes its ok, its not a Uterus. ITs Jane Uterus , or Christy Uterus. NOT yours

^Agreed. I don't need to pay for any more unpaid child support due to women who would otherwise get an abortion because they can't afford it financially, have the baby because it is illegal to abort something inside THEIR body ---- Something that obviously isn't living until it is born.

What part of that do people not understand?

I'm with progressivegirl. Can a doctor take an x-ray of a woman's womb???...@ STEXAN, do you hear YOURSELF? Why should women have to be forced to have additional procedures performed on them against their will? Who is responsible for paying for these unnecessary procedures? How many un-consented procedures do you have performed on you? Why should women be afforded less medical privacy than men in this country?

If you want to stop abortion, instead of yelling at buildings go inside them and help them with their family planning, birth control, and education programs. Planned Parenthood stops more abortions in a day than an anti-choice politician does in a lifetime.

I agree with you 100%. As a man, I can't, and shouldn't do anything to take away the rights of a woman to decide what she does to, or with her body.

Republicans, just think of each fetus as an uninsured child who can not afford the ultrasound. And what do you say about uninsured people who seek medical care? All together now, on the count of three, one two three: "LET... THEM... DIE"

See, abortion doesn't sound so bad now, does it? It actually matches your exact feelings on healthcare.

Alright, now that we are all in agreement, let's move on to something more important than a woman's uterus.

This is the kind of "Come to Jesus" moment we need all of these scary fundamentalists to have.

These laws are the government holding a women's Constitutional right to privacy hostage, to a medically unnecessary procedure. I can not, in any way, understand where people scream about too much government intervention when they mandate we all have health insurance, but mandated unnecessary procedures and stepping into a relationship between a woman and her doctor is okay???

And, why don't you people understand that women are capable of realizing the consequences of an abortion, WITHOUT YOU???

Personhood Amendments, forced vaginal ultrasounds, aspirin between our knees, how about you take all my shoes and chain me to the kitchen sink too???

Everyone is more than entitled to NOT accept abortion. You all are more than entitled to call those who have them names, and pass judgment, and guilt trip them all you want. But you do not get to trample the rights of women because of your BELIEFS. And that's what they are, just BELIEFS. No one, not you or I, or Santorum, or Obama, or the clergy, or the congress can prove when HUMAN life begins, ergo your opinion is based on BELIEF. And BELIEF alone is not enough to justify the trampling of rights.

I know what I believe, but I can not legally or scientifically prove that my belief is correct, so I will never advocate for legislation that infringes on the rights of others, be it for or against abortion, and neither can the pro-life people. That's all we want in return. To be left alone to follow our consciences, and our beliefs. That is the only logical position to take when something is not provable.

And please, you don't come at me with straw man arguments and asking me to prove the fetus ISN'T a human. The burden of proof is on those who are limiting the rights. I would only have to prove to you it ISN'T a human if I was telling you, you HAD to have an abortion.

Oh Indie, now you've done. I was enjoying, slurping down a delicious dinner fetus when I read your post, and I laughed so hard it came out of my nose!

I just shot fetus out my nose!!! Way more painful than milk.

Do you hear yourself? Women are intelligent enough to decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies and the WHY is no one else's concern!! Do you honestly believe the MAJORITY OF WOMEN who choose to abort have not already given a LOT of thought to THEIR CHOICE? The ultrasound bill is an assault on all women and an invasion of a woman's privacy regarding their own health care. Who are you to JUDGE women all over this country - there is NOTHING funny about any of it whether a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or otherwise. No "Political Party" has the right to dictate their own beliefs onto those who do not agree with them. The law is women have the RIGHT to CHOOSE and that is the way it should be! Trying to "shame" women about a serious and difficult decision is preposterous !!

STexan, it is not killing anything. It is removing some cells. Like lipo, or a nose job.

Just because your religion thinks it is a living human, does not make it true.

Abortion should be legal, and left alone. Paid for by the people wanting one.

Same with birth control.

So do I have this right, it's okay for republicans to get between my legs, but not democrats?

STexan

Then Jane and Christy can buy there own damn birth control and leave me out of their recreational sex problems!

Ummmm... if they had birth control then they would NOT be having an abortion. You do know how sex works, right? More birth control means less abortions... that is why it's called "birth control".

You know... birth CONTROL. As in you are "controlling" whether or not you get pregnant. And you can't have an abortion if you are not pregnant.

Jesus Christ, am I really having to explain this? What did you do, drop out of the second grade?

Since when does something that isn't living grow, have a heart beat etc? If you don't want kids, don't have unprotected sex. Ask anyone who's carried a child if they considered their child living while it was inside the female. I've never heard of anyone who lost a child before it was born say it didn't matter because it was never alive. Children can survive long before they are born, that's why the don't allow late term abortions, because the children can survive without the mother at that point. From what you say, the mother should be allowed to kill her child up until the actual birth. Do you believe that a mother should be allowed to kill the child as it's coming out screaming because it hasn't made it all the way out? At what point do you consider it born? When the head is out or the last part of it? How many more hairs do you want to split?

STexan...YOU should listen to yourself and learn the difference between voluntary and forced/imposed. You conservative Repub pukes think it is OK to force your beliefs and ideas onto others. Of course a woman has the choice to take an "X-ray" or ultrasound if they wish...but forcing them to is tantamount to oppression. But you pukes don't give a sh** about individual rights and choices...you want to control and rule people's lives. This law was a stupid waste of taxpayer's money and legislator's time. It doesn't surprise me one bit that it was sponsored by a Re-puke.

Sarah

Five-second rule. Just rinse it off and throw it back on the George Foreman... can't have good fetus go to waste.

Jordan you are an idiot. A fetus is living the moment it is conceived. Honestly I think they should make women have the ultrasound and hear in detail about the fetus. Maybe we would have less women going out getting knocked up then killing the innocent child. Maybe more women will be smart and use birth control and condoms. As for the men maybe you will start using condoms and stop just expecting the woman to be on birth control or expecting that she will just go have an abortion. Men need to be responsible when it comes to sex just like we do.
And to add for women that have to have an abortion because the fetus is already dead or because there is something terribly wrong that it has to be done then No they should not have to go through a ultrasound and hearing about the fetus because that would add more torment to an already upset woman. But these little morons that keep getting knocked up just to abort are very very wrong.

STexan--birth control is going to be paid for by the insurance customer. The requirement that insurance companies provide birth control as part of the package offered to anyone they insure--male or female (men have wives, you know, who are often on their health care plans) does not mean that the birth control is "free." It means that it is no additional cost to the people to whom they offer birth control and that companies can't exclude birth control.

You do realize that it isn't only unmarried and/or promiscuous women who use birth control, right? Males who are single and/or promiscuous use condoms--when they settle down, they stop using it--which I guess means that some men (being completely self-absorbed) abstract into the idea that everyone who settles down stops using birth control. Are you seriously not aware that the situation in which men use birth control is different from that of women? Or are you still under the delusion that a woman who spends more on birth control is having "more sex" than a woman who spends less?

If the "government" is paying for birth control, then that individual is on Medicaid. It would be really silly not to provide birth control for those on Medicaid as we otherwise would wind up paying for child birth, which is just the tiniest bit more expensive (you do realize that this is sarcasm, right).

Insurance companies were refusing to provide birth control as part of the package because this meant that women (and men with wives who were in the child bearing years) would get a different package. It was a way of excluding a large number of people and/or forcing them to pay for their own care.

It kills me that there are actually people out there who think that there is something odd about birth control. Over 80% of Catholic women use birth control. The figure is similar with all other faiths. That is, virtually all women use birth control. One's only other option is to tell one's husband that he is going to have to seek out the favors of a prostitute or do without, because one cannot have any sex until the couple is ready to have children and then have to quit when they are done having children.

Birth control is advantageous because it limits the number of children born, it means that people do not have to earn as much money to provide for those children, it means that women need less health coverage because they will not have their health destroyed by child after child after child, and it means that men don't have to visit prostitutes (who were usually sterile due to STDs or had had themselves sterilized) the way that they did back in the day when women limited their families by refusing to have sex with their own husbands until after they were done with their families, and then the women had their tubes tied (or their husbands did) and they went on having "recreational" sex.

Birth control is a lot less expensive than a vasectomy or a tubal ligation, and it is less expensive than childbirth. Seriously, you do realize that if you are or were married that your wife was using birth control that your insurance company probably covered part of. Or, perhaps, you are being so nasty because you aren't able to get any and don't like the fact that other people are? The only difference now is that there won't be a co-pay and that all insurance companies have to offer it (though they do not have to offer pregnancy coverage). If you don't like it, then get on a plan that doesn't cover pregnancies, and it's also likely that you will be on a plan with few women who will be wanting birth control before and between pregnancies. Have a great day.

guest

Ask anyone who's carried a child if they considered their child living while it was inside the female. I've never heard of anyone who lost a child before it was born say it didn't matter because it was never alive.

So we should let hormone-fueled "expecting" adults, who are emotionally attached to a glob of cells they incorrectly describe as a fully developed child, determine when life starts? Emotional adults who are having a child to validate their own existence, and fill an emotional void within their own self esteem... or lack thereof?

That is who we should have determine when life starts? Overly emotional, hormone driven adults who can't see past their own selfish desires to feel the "love of a child" and desperately attempt to validate their own existence through procreation? THAT is who should make the decision?

Oh my God, I'm only posting this once, I swear I'm not going to repeat this 1000 times...

THE HYDE AMENDMENT PROHIBITS ANY AND ALL PUBLIC FUNDING FROM BEING USED ON ABORTIONS!

Now, before you go on about how they "shuffle" money around or some such nonsense, think of this...

When you go to a bank, and deposit $20 bucks, and then go back the next day and withdraw $20, you're not given the same $20 dollar bill back, but the loss to the bank is the equivalent.

Tami,

Can you provide anything credible to back up your claim that a fetus is a human being. Basically, you have to prove to us when human life begins. Now I'm sure you can prove when LIFE begins, but until you have credible, scientific, widely accepted evidence of when HUMANITY begins, I'd refrain from calling people idiots. How presumptuous that you think you can decide who is an idiot when you can't even credibly prove the basis of your claim.

And, pssst, none of the following are accepted by the world as credible...

The Bible, Jesus, God's word, your beliefs, your morals, your assumptions, your religion, your church.

stexan, the way you moving in position, be warned. The state may outlaw your masturbation ejactulations illegal since you killing live cells meant to become a human. Be warned, your religious fanatic friends are doing this attempting to ban even birth control.

@Sarah,

So you're saying a woman conceives an inhuman offspring? So the Hyde amendment prohibits direct federal funding of abortion, that still doesn't stop federal funding to an organization such as Planned parenting, which has been linked to abortion.

Ask anyone who's carried a child if they considered their child living while it was inside the female. I've never heard of anyone who lost a child before it was born say it didn't matter because it was never alive.

guest-2010895... Actually, I'm a female and I'll go ahead and say that a fetus that was growing in me was not alive. I had a miscarriage a few weeks into a pregnancy and it really didn't matter. I mean, I was annoyed because it threw off an exceptionally tight conception timetable, but in no way did I feel I lost a child. That pregnancy just didn't work.

ItIsWhatItIs

So you're saying a woman conceives an inhuman offspring?

No, she is saying that there is no scientific evidence that life begins at conception, or that a mass of cells is the same as a fully developed human.

Learn to read.

ItIsWhatItIs,

Go reread my prior posts. It answers both those questions. Come back when you have credible evidence of when humanity begins.

Although I am a pro life Democrat, the SCOTUS ruled that abortion is legal and DID NOT give states leeway in the interpretation of said decision. No person or persons (legislatures) have the right to force ANY woman, or man for that matter, to have ANY medical procedure.So regardless of my or your views on abortion, it is a legal medical procedure.

@Indie,

How does a human conceive something non-human?

@Sarah,

Speaking of credible evidence:

“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George

I think Sarah is confusing when life begins with how we legally define when life begins to assign rights.

I'm not sure why it's confusing...it's really a simple concept. Human life begins when the egg is fertilized and cellular reproduction begins. It's basic biology.

We don't legally recognize a fetus as a "person" until it's born; unless, of course, someone other than the mother decides to kill it...then it's a "feticide" or 'fetal homocide" and a criminal charge just as if someone had killed a person who was already birthed. Which makes no rational sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then causing it to "die" isn't a crime. Oh, wait....yes it is a crime.

So, I guess the reality is that a fetus IS a person unless its mother decides she wants it chopped into pieces and sucked out of her vagina with a shop-vac. Then, it's a "medical procedure" to remove unwanted tissue.

lol.

Of course....I really don't expect women to be very rational so it's not that dissapointing when they are so cluelessly conflicted.

@Jak,

Although I am a pro life Democrat, the SCOTUS ruled that abortion is legal and DID NOT give states leeway in the interpretation of said decision.

In Casey vs Planned Parenting, the Supreme court ruled that states could place restrictions on abortion provided it didn't place a substantial obstacle. If a woman really wants to get an abortion an ultrasound isn't going to stop her.

@ ItIsWhatItIs

How does a human conceive something non-human?

I said "fully developed human"... once again, LEARN TO READ

@ J R

Human life begins when the egg is fertilized and cellular reproduction begins. It's basic biology.

Actually, according to "biology", a fertilized egg in the development stages has more in common with a parasite than a self-sustaining human life form. It feeds off the nutrients of the host organism, which you delicately call a "mother", and uses these nutrients to sustain and grow. If you remove said parasite, it is unable to live as a self-sustaining life form.

Of course....I really don't expect an overly-emotional person like you (who develops an emotional attachment to a parasite) to be very rational so it's not that "dissapointing" when they are so cluelessly conflicted.

@IndieParty,

So in essence, you're still saying that a woman's unborn offspring is still human. Also:

a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).

Sarah-3043284

These laws are the government holding a women's Constitutional right to privacy hostage, to a medically unnecessary procedure.

Good grief, you're acting as if an ultrasound is comparable with major surgery. Yes, it is classified as a "medical procedure" and since we're all adults here I think we can admit it is a harmless "non-invasive" medical procedure. The exception would be a trans-vaginal ultrasound. Invasive yes, but still of extreme minimal risk.

No one, not you or I, or Santorum, or Obama, or the clergy, or the congress can prove when HUMAN life begins, ergo your opinion is based on BELIEF. And BELIEF alone is not enough to justify the trampling of rights.

What a cop out argument. Let's see, we may not know when human life begins exactly, but I can guaran-damn-tee you if it has a heart beat it is alive and it can feel pain.

If you want to have an abortion, it's legal go right on ahead with it. I would never stand in your way because it's your body, your life, and your decision, not mine. However, since having the unique opportunity to witness an aspect of abortion no one seems to realize or even acknowledge exists I will enlighten you.

There are hundreds of thousands of women walking this earth dealing with life after an abortion and many do not handle it well at all. A large percentage suffer with lingering doubts, feelings of regret, and even guilt. Some carry these feelings for the rest of their lives. Many end up with some form of depression or depressive disorder. I personally know 52 women who think about, wonder about, and even grieve for their aborted child every year. Either on the anniversary of their abortion or around the time when the child's birthday would have been.

While it is painful for me to watch these women go through this process over and over again year after year, it is substantially more painful for them to have to live it. Abortion can and does have serious side effects most people will never see and never even know about because it's never talked about in the public arena. I call it abortion's dirty little secret.

Realist,

Oh, so you can guarentee it, well that's all the evidence I need. Science, schmience. REALIST, knows and we all know that's the evidence we've been waiting for.

Indie,

You know better than to quote "science". They don't believe in science, it has too much of a "liberal bias". Unless of course you know, they're flying, or driving, or seeing a doctor. Than science is a-okay!

And is it just me, or does JR sound a bit intimidated by intelligent women???

JR,

Come on, do you really think condescending to me because I'm a female is unique or creative??? At least come up with something I DON'T deal with everyday. Give me a challenge, you know.

Toodles, I'm off to bed.

@Sarah,

We don't call the confirmation bias liberals often label science. No.

We were all that parasite once. I'm glad my mother wasn't as cavalier as some of the people here.

So Sarah are you denying that having a heart beat is an indication of life? If so what would you call the absence of a heart beat?

The medical community considers a human being to be alive if it has a heart beat, as in not dead. If a human being ceases to have a heart beat the medical community considers it to be dead, as in not alive.

The only exception would be a zombie and we know that is fiction and not reality.

@ Sarah- the FIRST right mentioned in the Constitution is the Right to LIFE, then Liberty, finally the Pursuit of Happiness. Without the Right to Life, no other rights are possible for anyone,whether it is a grown female or male, or an unborn female or male. If you want to base your arguments on the legal aspect alone, how do you answer that the first "guaranteed right is that of Life?

If women want 100% say in the matter of abortion, so be it, as long as they're also willing to be 100% responsible along with whoever helped make that child that they bring into this world. That means no state or federal aid of any sort to help raise ,feed,clothe,or house the child or children.Yes,technically the federal or state government does not fund directly to abortion, however the rest of us taxpayers do fund for this irresponsible behavior in various ways :ie welfare,food stamps,HUD,AFDC,education,school lunches, etc. It sounds like the women and possibly the so called "fathers" are trying to have their cake and eat it to.If we as a society would live up to this 100% "rule",the abortion and unwanted pregnancy debate and rate would virtually disappear.

@Dorothy....the argument being made is: It's not OK for ANY POLITICIAN to get between anyone's legs for ANY reason. Now that you're up to speed.........

Then Jane and Christy can buy there own damn birth control and leave me out of their recreational sex problems!

@STexan: then when the time comes when you need Viagra, or Cialis, or some other impotency drug, I expect YOU to pay for it yourself. Leave ME out of YOUR recreational sex problems!

@ JR: "Of course....I really don't expect women to be very rational so it's not that dissapointing when they are so cluelessly conflicted."

Thank you for so CLEARLY illustrating why I and so many others believe that people who are anti-choice are misogynists.

If it is not a living human yet then it should not be a crime when a unborn child is killed by someoe other then the mother in a case of accident, cause hey you cant have it both ways it's either a living growning developing child or it isn't, I do think the Man who also created this child must have say over it also, no way a woman can decide to have it or not and then sue for child support or just get an abortion when the father would want and be able to raise it. And since it is suposedly a right to privacy you have no right to ? weather i choose to smoke, drink or anything else I CHOSE TO INJEST, SMOKE , DRINK OR OTHERWISE PUT INTO MY BODY, A woman should have no right to welfare, WIC or foodstamps, I took no part in creating your child i should not have to help support you. You spread your legs YOU DEAL WITH THE COSTS AND BURDEN.

Of course, bluthunder. Children are punishment for women having sex. I'm sure all of those punishment babies will have incredibly happy childhoods that make them happy, productive, well-adjusted adults as well.

Diva-3747083

I'm with progressivegirl. Can a doctor take an x-ray of a woman's womb???...@ STEXAN, do you hear YOURSELF? Why should women have to be forced to have additional procedures performed on them against their will? Who is responsible for paying for these unnecessary procedures? How many un-consented procedures do you have performed on you? Why should women be afforded less medical privacy than men in this country?

No one is asking for the woman to stop the abortion, if a woman wants to get it done then so be it. With that being said I think its a doctors duty to let a woman know the severe negative reprecussions of having an abortion. Even if you dont believe in the moral part of it, then how about a womans right to know how its going to affect her mentally, physically and socially.

You also know why so many of you women are against it, the statistics are staggering, so many women change their mind after seeing their unborn child in their womb. So instead of being brain fed the , " its just a pile of cells nothing more Dogma " they get to see its tiny little limbs growing, and then most women, not all, but so many feel that compassion to want to have their little baby born. I dont want to take away a womans right to chose, but I am strongly for a woman to get informed of the negative reprecussions. When a person gets a surgery or other major thing done to their body the doctor lets them know the pros and cons , benefits and the risks. What makes this any different ?

No they are not a punishment but they are a consequence of haveing sex, is this really not understood with all the wasted tax dollars for social and sex education in the schools?? Maybe after wasting all this money on so called education in schools if a woman cannot afford to have the child, doesn't want to have it adopted, or must have an abortion cause of financial reasons, maybe we should start charging them with a crime such as endangerment or something along those lines, Hey they pass laws all the time that supossedly protect us from ourselves, laws against smoking, drinking laws, drug laws, maybe we should have a law to protect stupid, concieted, EASY women from themselves also.

Even if you dont believe in the moral part of it, then how about a womans right to know how its going to affect her mentally, physically and socially.

Based on the responses here, many people have no idea how if affects a woman mentally or socially. Doctors are already required to address the physical result.

The image of the fetus does nothing, but provide an opportunity to inflame the emotional trauma already occurring. It does nothing, but increase the cost and emotional toll for the whole process.

Fetacide -Thirty-five (35) states currently recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and 25 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.^[2] These laws do not apply to legal induced abortions, THIS IS SUCH HYPOCRISY FROM WOMEN

i've got to add something here. for all the right wing conservatives out there, if you don't want abortions, then keep your pants zipped and your panties on. then YOU don't have to worry. until MEN are held EQUALLY responsible for the babies that are being created then women must retain the right to decide what they can do with their own bodies. but, we live in a society where men who have sex outside of marriage are MEN! that's what men do. GOD gave them to right to screw anything with a crack between its legs! but a woman who has sex outside of marriage is a whore! NO!NO! we will not be held by double standards and that's where the dialogue about abortion needs to start. Equal responsibility. fyi-as far as i know, 12 weeks is the limit for abortions. once a fetus can be born alive, no self-respecting doctor would destroy it. that's the litmus test. can the fetus survive outside of the womb? at 12 weeks probably not, but it does have a heartbeat by then. the late term abortions are for women whose fetus is not sustainable AND her life is in jeopardy. do just a little research...please. find me ONE case where any doctor killed a healthy baby that could have been born alive just because the woman didn't want it. SHOW ME! you make all kinds of accusations, but where is your evidence? even in the case of a woman's life, doctors always deliver a child is at all possible. use your heads for something other than a hat rack.

if you want to end abortion, then quit trying to close the gate after the horse has escaped. in 10,000 years of human history the threat of burning in hell hasn't work! let's try something different. something radical! let's try, i don't know, knowledge! first sex is NOT some dirty little thing that you only talk about in whispers and God condems! IF you believe in God as omnipotent, then you have to understand that everything we do, everything we feel, everything we experience is here for a reason and it isn't to punish us. that's archaic, backwards and dangerous thinking. Sex is normal. sexual feelings are normal. the problem is what we do with those urges. we need to educate our children to understand EXACTLY what sex is, not try to shame them. that tactic isn't working, people. if we spent half as much time giving our children dreams big enough for fight for, they wouldn't be looking to each other for 'entertainment.' i used to be a kid, i remember. what do bored, uninspired kids do? they drink, smoke and have sex! let's make it our mission to raise the consciousness of our children, to raise their self esteem and give them dreams. let's make it our mission to make our children understand exactly what having sex too early can do to their dreams. it won't end all abortions, but it would certainly be something to do that is positive.

How about we allow abortions up until the time when the "child" would be able to survive off of life support outside of the womb? Is that really so hard to agree on?

If a woman decides to have unprotected sex, she is taking a risk that could cost your insurance provider money - just like when you drive your car, or smoke, or do anything that would require being outside of a nutrient-enriched gelatinous goop. So how about this: when a doctor asks a woman if they have frequent unprotected sex and the woman says yes, that goes on their medical record. As such, their health insurance provider will decide based on that information whether or not to charge extra on the premium, and whether or not (or how much) to cover abortions under that policy. Similarly, said woman should be able to review her insurance policy and decide to remain with that insurance provider or switch to a different one.

The above description may sound familiar - it describes the free market, something that both establishment Democrats and Republicans alike are trying desperately to destroy. It is an excellent system, and unfortunately November will not give us any options to retain it.

ALESSA why dont you go back and reread the article IT STATES IN ARIZONIA The bill, which would still allow abortions after 20 weeks in the case of medical emergency, was passed by a mostly party-line 20-10 vote in the Senate on Tuesday. Only a small number of abortions are performed in Arizona after 20 weeks. they allow abortions up to 20 weeks for any reason,

here are some examples for you also of healthy viable babies aborted.

lifenews.com/2011/01/19/abortion-practitioner-killed-seven-babies-with-scissors/

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591762,00.html

Obama voted for a law allowing what is in the previous post.

This woman SURVIVED AN ABORTION

tauneshope.org/

these are 3 cases, there are more, why not make sure you know what you are saying before asking someone to prove something to you

Obama voted TWICE against the Ill child born alive bill, go read his own words, he voted that a child born alive from an abortion attempt should NOT get medical care cause it had been determined that it was non viable BEFORE BEING BORN ALIVE.

J R Browenstein

I think Sarah is confusing when life begins with how we legally define when life begins to assign rights.

I'm not sure why it's confusing...it's really a simple concept. Human life begins when the egg is fertilized and cellular reproduction begins. It's basic biology.

We don't legally recognize a fetus as a "person" until it's born; unless, of course, someone other than the mother decides to kill it...then it's a "feticide" or 'fetal homocide" and a criminal charge just as if someone had killed a person who was already birthed. Which makes no rational sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then causing it to "die" isn't a crime. Oh, wait....yes it is a crime.

So, I guess the reality is that a fetus IS a person unless its mother decides she wants it chopped into pieces and sucked out of her vagina with a shop-vac. Then, it's a "medical procedure" to remove unwanted tissue.

lol.

Of course....I really don't expect women to be very rational so it's not that dissapointing when they are so cluelessly conflicted.

So true .

Also dont forget the double standard they live by. Woman murders her unborn child, its ok to kill your own. Now woman is pregnant someone shoots her, she dies, baby dies, now that person is charged with DOUBLE HOMOCIDE. Where is the sense in that ? If people are so insensitive and have been dummied down to believe its nothing more then a glob of cells, then double homocide can not stand up in a trial.

What if a woman is pregnant and someone just decides to punch her in her stomach, baby dies.. SHould the person be charged with homocide , or just assault and battery.

Lets see how they think about their double standard they set themselves up for. Parasites, globs of cells, you know this society we live in now a days disgusts me. Im almost ashamed to be called an american , or even human.

Yes, see what you all are forgetting is that none of your assumptions, beliefs, or logical fails are considered credible evidence.

If a heart beat equals humanity to you, great, but lot's of things have heart beats and aren't HUMAN.

If human DNA equals humanity to you, great, but fingernails also contain human DNA and I snip those off all the time.

But just because those things mean humanity TO YOU, doesn't mean they actually equal humanity. That has to be proven through credible science, not through your assertions. Can you really not see past your own beliefs to the bigger picture and separate your personal freedom to have your unproven beliefs from my personal freedom to NOT have them???

Can any of you find me anything CREDIBLE, not just your sanctimonious assertions, that proves when HUMANITY begins????

Save your time, you can't. But please feel free to continue with your presumptuous and holier than thou diatribes. All I have to say is...

Neener, neener, neener, your beliefs don't matter.

When the human embryo is extremely young, such as the moment it is conceived to a couple weeks of age, it is extremely similar to the embryos of other mammals, birds, reptiles and other species. At the early stages, many of the genes within the embryo are dormant. This means they are not being expressed. Only after the embryo grows and ages do these genes begin to express and the human fetus becomes different from other species. Only in concept or your mind is the embryo human from the moment of conception. Fact is, at this beginning stage the human embryo is nearly identical to any other species'. It is incredibly absurd how some of you define the embryo as a "human" from the moment of conception, and decide to give it rights. At the moment of conception you can just as easily define a cow's embryo as "human". A human's embryo has the potential to become a human, but it is still a long ways away from legitimately being defined as one.

I agree Sarah. Beliefs, religion, faith, or personal preference have NO say in defining an embryo as human, and deciding laws on abortion. If the government banned abortion, it would be asserting an incredible amount of control over what should be and is the woman's choice. They would be deciding what a woman can or can not do with her own body! Can you imagine a government that has that much control over all aspects of your life? It is incredible.

Well sarah, a fingernail wont grow up to be the next president of the united states will it ? That fingernail wont crawl into your arms and tell you how much it loves you some day, or thank you for not destroying its life. That fingernail will never be a person. I would scoff at any notion of someone saying DNA is what determines life.

The real question Sarah is can you prove when humanity starts? If not then you cannot say if it happens at conception, at the start of the heart beat, the development of the brain, the first time it moves. Is your definition of humanity when a baby, or fetus - parasite as you refer to it - exits the womb?

Jason,

I don't have to prove Jack, I'm not telling you what to do. That's the point. You can't prove it, I can't prove it, science can't prove it, ergo nobody gets to tell people what to do in regards to it.

You'll have a point about me proving something when I tried to force you to have an abortion.

Damon,

Your argument isn't credible evidence. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK OR HOW YOU ARGUE THIS. It's nothing but your belief.

You can scoff at whatever notion you want and be as sanctimonious as you want. It's still just your belief.

You sure have a lot of hate and hostility brewing there. Your beyond logical , rational talking to.

Damon,

What's hateful or hostile about telling you your BELIEF doesn't constitute credible evidence? Perhaps you just don't want to admitt that so you're deflecting.

Do you wanna know what is hostile...

Forcing your unproven beliefs on people, judging them, and being sanctimonious.

It's not hateful or hostile, if it's the truth.

Im not forcing beliefs on anyone sarah.. Im supporting the life of an unborn child. Since soon to be irresponisble moms dont want to be held accountable , who else is willing to fight for human life. Sorry if it makes you mad that I dont support murder of children or butchering of women, or getting excited that a woman will be marred for the rest of her life , mentally, physically, socially. I still want a woman to have the right to choose what she wants, BUT i also want that woman to know exactly what is going to happen when she chooses to abort her baby. Society has been so desensitized , to the brutality of abortion. They need to be informed of their choice is all im saying.

Interesting Damon. "They need to be informed of their choice is all I'm saying". Hmmm, you don't think a woman knows as much as possible about the procedure beforehand? Of course they know the effects of their decision, and as much as possible about their choice. Forcing them to listen to the embryo and see an ultrasound is cruel and desperate measure for pro-lifers to bully women out of having an abortion. Besides, it is not your place or the government's place to decide that the woman needs to be informed about her choice. If she doesn't want to know anything about the procedure and simply decides not to have the baby, then that is her prerogative.

The woman may get some general idea that her Glob of cells will be ripped form her body, but I guarantee there is no counciling of all the severe negatives. When you get a surgery, do they just do it and never tell you the pros and cons about it ? Hey here is a gastric bypass we can do for you to lose weight... and thats the end of it ? Doctors do have a duty to inform the ill side effects from such a procedure. Why shouldnt they be obligated to state such dangers of abortion ? So many mothers choose to keep their baby after seeing it really is more then just a little glob of cells. Call me crazy if you want, but thank God for the doctors and nurses who do get to show a sonogram, and a mother changes her mind to keep the life with in her.

It isnt cruel and a desperate measure, its called reality magicman. There is no bullying, its allowing the woman to really weigh her choices. Your just as bad as the main stream world, its their view only , and any other view is wrong regardless of reason someone can think of. You have a sick twist on words magic man to suggest its a bullying of women. How about getting your self centered , hardened , desensitized heart to realize people with compassion for life, and the well being of a woman to let her know what she will or could experience as a result of her actions.

I don't know what's more ignorant...comparing a fetus to a parasite or thinking that, because I understand the difference between when life begins biologically and when we legally consider a fetus life, that it's due to my "beliefs".

A fetus is not, nor can be rationally considered a parasite. To postulate this demonstrates a CLEAR lack of understanding of basic biology, reproductive cycles and how we categorize organisms. It is a CLEAR indication of the posters perpensity for pandering non-sensical rhetoric. A fetus is the product of reproduction in gestation...a parasite is an organism whose life cycle is entirely dependant upon subsisting upon another. I suggest you learn the difference between what a parasite is biologically and what it is rhetorically.

As for Sarah's idea that my "beliefs" are in play...I'm an atheist. I have no religious beliefs. I'm fairly amused at your indignation though. I'd theorize that your perpetual complaint of everyone being "condescending" toward you might warrant you to try to understand why so many people you encounter think you're dumber than they are....

Sarah-3043284

Yes, see what you all are forgetting is that none of your assumptions, beliefs, or logical fails are considered credible evidence.

If a heart beat equals humanity to you, great, but lot's of things have heart beats and aren't HUMAN.

If human DNA equals humanity to you, great, but fingernails also contain human DNA and I snip those off all the time.

But just because those things mean humanity TO YOU, doesn't mean they actually equal humanity. That has to be proven through credible science, not through your assertions. Can you really not see past your own beliefs to the bigger picture and separate your personal freedom to have your unproven beliefs from my personal freedom to NOT have them???

Can any of you find me anything CREDIBLE, not just your sanctimonious assertions, that proves when HUMANITY begins????

Save your time, you can't. But please feel free to continue with your presumptuous and holier than thou diatribes. All I have to say is...

Neener, neener, neener, your beliefs don't matter.

I'd suggest starting with this post. Just because you can learn big words doesn't mean you know how to use them or even understand larger concepts.

If you can't understand that the product of human reproduction is human or 'humanity', there's not really much point in talking with you at all. I think you'd make an excellent poster girl for women duped into feminism that really don't grasp the concepts but just like to use big words 'cause it makes 'em feel smart.

Damon: "Doctors do have a duty to inform the ill side effects from such a procedure."

Yes, and they do. When you get an abortion they tell the patient how the procedure works, and the dangers of the procedure. But this law would force the doctor to show the patient a picture and recording of the embryo. That is unnecessary information, and only an effort to disuade the woman from undergoing the procedure. What ill effects? Should the doctor say, "You have a little sentient human inside of you, and if you have an abortion you will be murdering this child." Are those the ill effects you are hinting?

"Why shouldnt they be obligated to state such dangers of abortion?"

They do. Before every procedure the doctor or medical practitioner is obligated to inform the patient of any potential dangers or side effects.

The embryo at the stage when it would be aborted is just a little glob of cells. It has no conscience, developed brain, or even a definite form. You can not compare aborting an embryo to killing a child, or murdering a human. And, yes, it is "bullying". If the woman is forced to see and hear these things against her will, then she has been forced or bullied.

Browenstein:

I don't see where she mentioned a fetus is like a parasite in her post. Maybe you can direct me to where she stated that? Your beliefs certainly are in play if you declare that at the moment of conception, a cluster of cells which has no conscience or maturation is a human that deserves its own rights.

You said this to Sarah: "I think you'd make an excellent poster girl for women duped into feminism that really don't grasp the concepts but just like to use big words 'cause it makes 'em feel smart."

I think it is pretty clear that she has a very good understanding of the concepts she is discussion. She has better support for her points than you do, and she is keeping a view on the concepts that does not involve her beliefs. I'm an atheist as well, Browenstein.

What ill effects ? My Gosh man, do yourself a favor and google long term and short term effect after having abortion. I have read the data from both sides ( as in people who agree and disagree with abortion. ) The effects are the same, but what is different between the views, is that one side says its because a woman is relieved to begone of her unwanted burden baby, the other view is that the mother is in despair of no longer having her child. There is always some agenda in the science and data , both sides.. But one thing is for sure, there are ill effects, short and long term.

Those who perform abortions are not psychologists. Your post is slightly incoherent, so it is difficult to understand the point you are trying to convey. Many women have different reasons for getting an abortion. It is no just because it is an "unwanted burden child". But, if it is the woman's choice to have an abortion, then it is her right to undergo the procedure. If she accepts the "ill effects" and still wants to have an abortion, then that is her choice.

Magicman you are only thinking it half way through, maybe the man that helped creat the child doesnt want it aborted, but he is given no say in it! why not he did help create it also. Another arguement if a women can chose to abort it cause it is in your words "The embryo at the stage when it would be aborted is just a little glob of cells. It has no conscience, developed brain, or even a definite form" then how can a person be charged with a crime if that glob of cells (in your words) is injured or otherwise killed when something, (car accident etc.) happens. and what if the man decides he dont want the child to be born yet he cannot choose, why should he be force to pay child support, he wanted the abortion, she refused. There is a big double standard on how that child is viewed all based on what a WOMAN wants to think at that time. and FYI it is not just a glob of cells when aborted in quiet a few cases it is a fully develpoed person viable and able to survive, go back and check one of my previous posts for links. babies that were BORN alive and allowed to die, babies that were forced to be born,( they were also alive) and then killed.

And the height of idiocy in comments- Sarah keeps commenting " Your argument isn't credible evidence. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK OR HOW YOU ARGUE THIS. It's nothing but your belief." and this third grade attitude "Neener, neener, neener, your beliefs don't matter."

yet earlier want "To be left alone to follow our consciences, and our beliefs. That is the only logical position to take when something is not provable."

Now tell me why we should care about YOUR beliefs????

magicman in the sky

The studies are not done just by some yahoo doctor. It is psychologists and other doctors who have done the studies. There is plenty of data showing the negative effect, physical, mental, social from doctors who are qualified to do so.

magicman in the sky

Browenstein:

I don't see where she mentioned a fetus is like a parasite in her post. Maybe you can direct me to where she stated that? Your beliefs certainly are in play if you declare that at the moment of conception, a cluster of cells which has no conscience or maturation is a human that deserves its own rights.

You said this to Sarah: "I think you'd make an excellent poster girl for women duped into feminism that really don't grasp the concepts but just like to use big words 'cause it makes 'em feel smart."

I think it is pretty clear that she has a very good understanding of the concepts she is discussion. She has better support for her points than you do, and she is keeping a view on the concepts that does not involve her beliefs. I'm an atheist as well, Browenstein.

Your problem is, clearly, a matter of reading comprehension. No where did I argue about abortion. No where did I declare anything about a fetus having human rights. As you, apparently, can't be bothered to actually read a comment that you decide to respond to then I'd suggest your intelligence is clearly in doubt. What I stated is that Sarah does not appear to differentiate between when human life begins biologically and when human life begins LEGALLY. I see you both seem to share the trait of being so busy retorting that you don't actually comprehend what's being said (or written) in the first place.

Biologically, the product of human reproduction begins life when cellular division begins. Viability or the ability to survive outside the womb is irrelevant as to when life BEGINS biologically. Issues of the morality of abortion or legality of human rights have ZERO relevance as to the fact that a human life begins upon the fertilization of the egg.

I'll take your appraisal of Sarah's ability to make her arguments with a grain of salt...

Blunt,

Because I'm not forcing my beliefs on you. I'm not trying to dictate what you can do with your body and using my beliefs as reasoning. You know, like pro-lifers try to tell us what we can do with our bodies, or must do before making a private decision regarding our bodies, based on their belief.

When I try to advocate for forced abortions, we'll be equal. Until then, believe what you will and make decisions based on that all you want, and leave us alone to believe what we will and make decisions based on that.

And again, all of you can argue all you want about when life begins, your arguments will never be enough to justify infringing on our rights.

JR,

as to the fact that a human life begins upon the fertilization of the egg.

That's a fact, really? Please site your sources as to how we know this is a fact.

Damon,

You too. Your sources for that claim??? Which doctors? Sites?

JR,

as to the fact that a human life begins upon the fertilization of the egg.

That's a fact, really? Please site your sources as to how we know this is a fact.

Damon,

You too. Your sources for that claim??? Which doctors? Sites?

I suppose that if I said that the sky looks blue, you'd claim that unless I have a source for you then it's not blue....

I'm sorry you're not versed in biology...you certainly appear well versed in rhetoric. It's not my job to educate you. Or do you need a source if I claim that "water's wet" or that "fire is hot"...? If you were even remotely as knowledgeable about science and biology as you are feminist rhetoric, then I wouldn't be having to explain to you the difference between life cycles and legal rights.

Sarah if you just google Abortion long term, short term negative effects there are mounds of websites from doctors and research. Im not digging through it all again. People need to go find truth on their own and stop taking it from others on here. Thats why people on the internet are so goofed up now a days with so much information. They just read these forums and try to get knowledged and educated from others peoples non sense.

Browenstein, Damon, and whoever else responded to me. I will be responding to you soon. Perhaps later today, or on Monday. Depending on when I have the time to structure a response around your weak arguments. But, be sure to check back soon. I am busy with family this week.

Ill be waiting with rebuttal :D hehe

magicman in the sky

Browenstein, Damon, and whoever else responded to me. I will be responding to you soon. Perhaps later today, or on Monday. Depending on when I have the time to structure a response around your weak arguments. But, be sure to check back soon. I am busy with family this week.

Good luck finding a biology textbook that says life begins only after birth...

Liberals think that there is no difference between when a life begins and when a life becomes self-sustaining...lol.

Your problem is, clearly, a matter of reading comprehension. No where did I argue about abortion. No where did I declare anything about a fetus having human rights. As you, apparently, can't be bothered to actually read a comment that you decide to respond to then I'd suggest your intelligence is clearly in doubt. What I stated is that Sarah does not appear to differentiate between when human life begins biologically and when human life begins LEGALLY. I see you both seem to share the trait of being so busy retorting that you don't actually comprehend what's being said (or written) in the first place.

Biologically, the product of human reproduction begins life when cellular division begins. Viability or the ability to survive outside the womb is irrelevant as to when life BEGINS biologically. Issues of the morality of abortion or legality of human rights have ZERO relevance as to the fact that a human life begins upon the fertilization of the egg.

I'll take your appraisal of Sarah's ability to make her arguments with a grain of salt...

Browenstein,

You appear to have difficulty with reading comprehension as well. "No where did I argue about abortion." This statement seems to state that I implied that you were arguing about abortion. Maybe you can point this out to me in my previous comment? Fact is, my comment does not argue about abortion either. I suggest you re-read my comment, in order to garner a greater understanding of the subject matter therein. Perhaps if post it again you will be capable of understanding the content of my comment:

"I don't see where she mentioned a fetus is like a parasite in her post. Maybe you can direct me to where she stated that? Your beliefs certainly are in play if you declare that at the moment of conception, a cluster of cells which has no conscience or maturation is a human that deserves its own rights."

"No where did I declare anything about a fetus having human rights." You indirectly implied that a human fetus would be entitled to having human rights. Every human is entitled to rights. If you believe that, at the moment of conception, the fetus is a human, then it is entitled to human rights.

"What I stated is that Sarah does not appear to differentiate between when human life begins biologically and when human life begins LEGALLY."

Her entire argument is about when human life begins biologically and when it is qualified as such legally. Perhaps you need go over her posts again. She presents her view of when a human fetus can be defined as human, which would be entitled to certain rights, (one of which is the right to life). Biologically the human fetus, even at the moment of conception, is human. It is created by two humans, and has the potential to develop into a human. However, it is a far cry away from being a human at the moment of conception.

"Biologically, the product of human reproduction begins life when cellular division begins. Viability or the ability to survive outside the womb is irrelevant as to when life BEGINS biologically."

Correct, the process of life begins at conception and through cellular division. However, the mere fact that a group of cells is maturing and will mature into a human does not define the life as human. That is why there is a debate over when to qualify a cluster of cells as a human. The cells at conception are a product of two humans, and will develop into a human. However, they are not human until they are develop into one. It is ridiculous to define a couple cells as a human! However, there is no way to definitely prove that the egg and sperm are or are not a human from the moment of conception. This is because it depends on the individual's personal definition of human, and what qualifies something as a human. Science is not philosophy, and can not solve this question. However, we can use our own good judgment to make our own opinions on this issue. And, we can do our best to prevent laws that infringe upon a woman's rights in favor for a cluster of cell's rights to life. There is no body of research that provides that cells from the moment of conception are human, and thus entitled to human rights. So, it is preposterous that laws can be passed based on the arguments that these cells are entitled to human rights and the right to life.

I sincerely hope that you are capable of understanding this comment better than the previous one.

Damon, there are indeed physical and psychological effects of abortion. The following website is a good source for research on this topic: http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_abortion_psychological_rea.asp

However, the point of your argument is unclear to me. Are you suggesting that a law should be passed that forces doctors to force patients to read all about these effects before they undergo the procedure? This is the patient's choice. If she wants to understand more about the psychological effects of her desired procedure beforehand, that is her choice. If she doesn't, who are we to make this choice for her? Perhaps you are suggesting that a law should force doctors to force patients to listen to recordings of their unborn fetus, or view an ultrasound of their fetus before they undergo the procedure? Once again, who are we or the government to force a patient to do so even if it is against her will? This law would strip the patient's right to choice, with no research or evidence to support such a contradiction of her guaranteed rights.

I want to edit my first comment, (2 posts above). I said, "Biologically the human fetus, even at the moment of conception, is human. It is created by two humans, and has the potential to develop into a human. However, it is a far cry away from being a human at the moment of conception."

My revision is, "Biologically the human fetus, at the moment of conception, is of human matter with the DNA and necessary ingredients to develop into a human. The mere fact that these cells will develop into a human does not constitute sufficient qualification to define this cluster of cells as a human. This is where your own philosophy comes into play in when to define something as human. Your own philosophy on this subject does not comprise sufficient base for a law to be passed that inhibits a woman's rights, or provides human rights to this cluster of cells."

Okay, that's better.

@Sarah and @MagicManintheSky- It has been about two and one half weeks since I pointed out to Sarah that the first right guarenteed is the Right to Life. She and you have made many replies to others about the "scientific" aspects of when Life begins, but I have yet to see any reponse to my reply #1.40 on March 28.

Bob:

These are rights guaranteed to humans in the United States of America. The debate is when to classify something as human. Currently, a fetus from the moment of conception is NOT classified as a human. So, it is not entitled to human rights. That is why there are abortions. So, this is a flawed and weak argument, because these rights are irrelevant to an undeveloped fetus. But, they are relevant to the patient who wishes to undergo the procedure.

magicman in the sky

Damon, there are indeed physical and psychological effects of abortion. The following website is a good source for research on this topic: http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_abortion_psychological_rea.asp

However, the point of your argument is unclear to me. Are you suggesting that a law should be passed that forces doctors to force patients to read all about these effects before they undergo the procedure? This is the patient's choice. If she wants to understand more about the psychological effects of her desired procedure beforehand, that is her choice. If she doesn't, who are we to make this choice for her? Perhaps you are suggesting that a law should force doctors to force patients to listen to recordings of their unborn fetus, or view an ultrasound of their fetus before they undergo the procedure? Once again, who are we or the government to force a patient to do so even if it is against her will? This law would strip the patient's right to choice, with no research or evidence to support such a contradiction of her guaranteed rights.

Magic man what im suggesting is that the doctor informs the patient that there are negative effects from having the abortion. I think its the patients right to know. Just as if i went in for any other procedure , say for liposuction, or laser eye surgery, the doctor needs to inform me of the risks that go along with the procedure. What makes this is even more delicate natural process of a woman who's body is ready to have a baby, then that baby is torn from her body.. She will go through some type of emotional and physical issues.

Damon:

They do. Do you have any idea what happens in the meetings between the patient and the doctor before the surgery. Do you have any knowledge of the procedure and the information given to the patient pre-op? You really don't know the current standard in which abortions are organized, or the steps leading up to the procedure. Any accepted, bona fide practice that performs abortions will ensure patients are presented with information on the effects of her upcoming procedure. So, I do not know why you are suggesting this is not the case.

Wow Browenstein. I took the time to look at some of your previous posts on other articles.. I am appaled at you racist attitude, and incredible stereotyping. This revelation to your personal views really makes me doubt your level of intelligence, and your qualification to be posting on a board such as this. Disgusting. I'll just quote some of your comments below:

"I, too, grew up in Detroit. My opinions of black folks are not stereotypes I "learned" from propaganda...they are the culmination of a childhood being a white kid in Detroit. Blacks, generally, are the most racist people on the planet...in my experience. They are also pretty damn ignorant...just look at Detroit now. It's the epitome of what happens when black folks are "in charge". Detroit was once one of the most populous and beautiful cities in the country...when white folks were running things. Now, it looks like a city sized ghetto...the only remnants of its former glory are the delipadated and collapsing neighborhoods left in disrepair and decay. It's been my experience that black folks are just "takers"...that is to say, they take so much more than they put in. Detroit is on it's last legs...the mayor and city council are fighting emergency managers from the State with evey last ounce of breath. Yet, they want hundreds of millions of dollars in funds to "help them out". Its clear that they don't want the "white man" telling them what to do but they sure want his money to bail them out of their own stupidity and ignorance. I hope Gov Snyder tells them to stuff it...let those hardheads learn the hard way. Detroit will be nothing more than a shantytown when the blacks are done "managing" it...let them live in their own squalor.

On the other hand, I've met absolutely wonderful black folks who are surely the salt of the earth. The problem is they are so few that it's like finding chicken teeth."

and

"Sadly, I believe Trayvon was a victim of a disfunctional home life more than anything. Children of divorce often find ways of dealing with their feelings of betrayal, etc by acting out. If his parents were inattentive, then he might have been trying to establish some odd sense of self-worth by latching onto a ganster type mentality. It's possible that this mentality drove him to confront Zimmerman rather than just let the matter go...after all, he was on the phone with his girlfriend and, more than likely, didn't want to look "soft". If he did go back and confront Zimmerman after Zimmerman lost track of him, then I'd say he contributed to his own demise because he did have the option of just walking away and returning to the home of his father's girlfriend where he was a guest."

You are making incredible generalizations with very little evidence in the Trayvon-Zimmerman case. You do not know if Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. There is no conclusive evidence of this, other than the "claim" that Zimmerman made. But, Zimmerman is just trying to save his own butt, and he would say anything to justify his murdering of Trayvon. We can hear from tapes that Trayvon was calling for help, and he was stalked and chased down by Zimmerman. Zimmerman caused the confrontation, Zimmerman continued his confrontation with Martin, and Zimmerman ended up killing an unarmed Martin. From all appearances and current evidence, Zimmerman had no justifiable grounds to use deadly force against and unarmed man/boy. Anyways, Keep your racist mouth and attitude out of the public eye. It is extremely distasteful and pathetic. I hope you can see these qualities in yourself and work to reform yourself.

Magic:

Your post number 1.90 is what's known as an ad hominem attack. If you're unfamiliar with this concept, I'd suggest Googling it.

magicman in the sky

Bob:

These are rights guaranteed to humans in the United States of America. The debate is when to classify something as human. Currently, a fetus from the moment of conception is NOT classified as a human. So, it is not entitled to human rights. That is why there are abortions. So, this is a flawed and weak argument, because these rights are irrelevant to an undeveloped fetus. But, they are relevant to the patient who wishes to undergo the procedure.

Your preceeding posts as well as this one only demonstrate the flip-flopping nature of leftists regarding the nature of "human" life. You post on one hand that, of course a fetus is human as it is the product of two humans" but then take two-steps back from that position and say a fetus is not "human" nor entitled to human rights.

This very hypocrisy is the point I made about Sarah's post and you proceed to regurgitate it in an effort do debunk my post....that liberals and leftists fail to make the distinction between when human life begins biologically and when we, as Americans, consider it to be a "human life" and afforded legal rights. A human fetus is "human" and "life" biologically from the moment cellular division begins and an organism with unique DNA starts it's gestational process toward becoming a mature life form. This is BIOLOGICAL truth. You even reference it before you backtrack and reword your own posts so they appear to be more in line with liberal dogma...that a fetus is neither "human" nor "life" until it's birthed. The simple truth is even our laws refute that idea...because if anyone causes the death of a fetus BESIDES the mother, it's a crime called feticide or fetal homocide treated just as if someone had murdered a "birthed" person. The simple truth is that liberals are patently pathological in their denial of simply biology in preserving the idea that a fetus is "tissue" or part of a woman's body that may be excised at will. I don't know what's more pathetic...that they think they need to convice others of this irrational nonsense or themselves so they can live with it. Some lunatics on the left even state outrageously assinine comments like "a fetus is a parasite"...?

The product of human reproduction is most defintely human at EVERY state of development, as it most assuredly can be nothing else. Human life begins at conception, as does ALL mammalian life. This is biological truth. The problem is that liberals need to deny this so that they can rationalize killing fetuses as "tissue" like they're having a cancerous lesion removed. And that's what makes them pathetic...even psychotic. There is, most assuredly, a difference between when a human life begins and when we, as Americans, recognize that life as meriting human rights. Liberals can't seem to make the connection between when life begins biologically and when life "begins" legally because it would undermine their dogma.

As to your charges that I am a racist, I'd say....so what. Even if I were a racist, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion at hand and is merely an attempt on your part to discredit me rather than refute my argument. It's what's know as an ad hominem attack and is the last refuge of a defeated debater....or the first refuge of a poor one.

On a personal note, I am not so ridiculous as to think that racism can nor should be stomped out or repudiated. Racism has driven human evolution for millenia and is engrained into our DNA. I'm not advocating it...I'm just being a pragmatic realist. As for the issue of rasicm in America, it's become such a con game that it's almost a caricature of the real inequalities of racism.

Browensein:

“A human fetus is “human” and “life” biologically from the moment cellular division begins and an organism with unique DNA starts it’s gestational process toward becoming a mature life form.”

A few cells that have begun the process of cellular division and development, is very different from a human. Did you know that every cell in our body could, with the right technology, develop into a human? Not just stem cells. Every cell. Every cell possesses the full set of chromosomes and genetic material necessary to develop into a full grown human. However, the technology capable of turning a non-stem cell into a developing human is not currently available. Perhaps we should start giving human rights to each of our cells? No, I never said that a fetus was not life before it was birthed. That would be ridiculous.

“The product of human reproduction is most defintely human at EVERY state of development, as it most assuredly can be nothing else.”

That is a fallacy. At conception, the cells are indeed a developing life form. However, to define it as a human is absurd. It will develop into a human in the future, however at conception it is a mass of cells with the chromosomes and genetic material that may someday result in a human. In the right conditions, every one of our cells has this potential, as they contain the same genetic material and chromosomes necessary to develop into a human. So, sorry if I do not define bits of genetic material and chromosomes as a human. It does not possess any human attributes, intelligence, self-awareness, or anything other than the potential to become a human being. It is not a human being. It is a long ways away from being one.

“Liberals can’t seem to make the connection between when life begins biologically and when life “begins” legally because it would undermine their liberal dogma.”

You seem to have some confusion on this point. “Liberals” acknowledge and understand when the process of life begins. When life “begins” legally has nothing to do with it. When life is defined as “human” has everything to do with it. So, don’t try to claim that liberals are trying to make any kind of legal definition of life that opposes the “biological truth”. You are using a patently false claim in order to draw a favorable conclusion for your argument. This is known as “hasty generalization”, and it is best to stay away from in a debate.

As for racism, who said we had to stay on only one topic? However, I can see how my referral to your seemingly racist stance could be confused with an “ad hominem” attack.

“Racism has driven human evolution for millenia and is engrained into our DNA.”

Interesting that you could make such a claim. However, this is a weak argument to justify racial prejudices. Indeed, appearance has played a major role throughout our evolution. Nevertheless, racial prejudice is not something that is ingrained on our DNA. Perhaps we feel primal fear of someone who is extremely tall, or have developed other instincts. Yet, racism in the sense of racial prejudice, discrimination, or a feeling of superiority of a different colored person is a product of nurture, not nature. These feelings are a product of what you have experienced during your lifetime. I can tell you personally, that I am being raised in a household that harbors no racist attitudes, and as a result I have no such attitudes. Perhaps we are guided by instinct to a certain extent, but as a logical being, this is no excuse to justify racism. As logical beings we can recognize the irrationality of racial prejudice, and as we can see from our nation’s history, racial attitudes change over time.

"The product of human reproduction is most defintely human at EVERY state of development, as it most assuredly can be nothing else."

That is a fallacy. At conception, the cells are indeed a developing life form. However, to define it as a human is absurd. It will develop into a human in the future, however at conception it is a mass of cells with the chromosomes and genetic material that may someday result in a human. In the right conditions, every one of our cells has this potential, as they contain the same genetic material and chromosomes necessary to develop into a human. So, sorry if I do not define bits of genetic material and chromosomes as a human. It does not possess any human attributes, intelligence, self-awareness, or anything other than the potential to become a human being. It is not a human being. It is a long ways away from being one.

This is the most absurd statement I've ever read...and I've read quite a few of them. You're truly stating that the product of human reproduction is not human? You're truly stating that the product of human reproduction is just cells that may or may not be human and we have to let them grow to see how it turns out? Are you expecting a dog? Maybe a cat?

My god, is this the psychosis of liberalism? The deny that the product of human reproduction is human...? Really? Are you insane? You are actually stating that a human zygote is not "human"?

I understand that liberals don't consider a fetus to be a "human being" until birthed and all that (which is wrong, by the way...as a matter of law, a fetus can be considered to have been murdered so that gives it status as a "human being" as one can't murder a "mass of tissue") but to make the statement that "the product of human reproduction is human is a fallacy" is just insane. Like, "completely disconnected from reality" insane. Liberalism must be a brain disease.

Oh, by the way...to state a fetus is bereft of "human attributes" is ludicrous to the point of hysterics. I suppose you don't believe that unique human DNA is not a "human attribute"...?

You sir...are an idiot. And those like you are as well.

Ahh, I can see that your strength in this discussion is waning. Simply resorting to name-calling, or to using derogatory terms in a debate is poor form and the sign of a losing debater. You should know that this tactic certainly does not give strength to your argument. If anything, it damages your comment considerably. I will post my response tomorrow, as it is quite late at the moment. I find it interesting that you would even consider liberal views as "idiotic". With this statement you are labeling thousands of physicians, scientists, and others who have much greater intellect than yourself, as idiots. Once again, poor form.

“You’re truly stating that the product of human reproduction is not human? You’re truly stating that the product of human reproduction is just cells that may or may not be human and we have to let them grow to see how it turns out?”

It is incredible how literally you take the word “human”.. Sure, the few cells that are present soon after conception are composed completely of “human” material, and have “human” genetic material. So, simply because these cells are composed of human material and human genetic material you define them as a complete and absolute human, entitled to the same rights as adult humans? It is defined in the same exact category as we are? I am not denying that the human fetus is composed of human material. I am disputing whether to define a mass of human cells as a complete and entitled human being at such an early stage.

Did I state that the product of human reproduction had the potential to become a dog or a cat? No. If this point is not clear to you, I encourage you to re-read my comment.

Hmmm, am I insane? No. I am not the one trying to define undeveloped human material as a full human being and give them human rights. That, sir, is preposterous. By your definition, we should be giving human rights to the cells on my finger! It is composed of human material and human genetic material, and has a full suite of human DNA, just like a human zygote. Given enough time, we could pop out a full human from that cell! All my cells could turn into humans! Interesting.. So, I guess we should be giving my cells human rights. Those cells at the moment of conception shouldn’t be given human rights if you are not willing to assign human rights to all the cells in my body, because they have the potential to develop into a human as well. Oops, I just scraped myself… You better lock me away for murdering hundreds of would-be humans…

“but to make the statement that "the product of human reproduction is human is a fallacy" is just insane.”

My response was directed towards “defining” the immediate product of human reproduction as a human being. I was not disputing that it is composed of human material, etc… Since you seem to take everything in its absolute literal sense, I will rephrase it for you. I am saying: the product of human reproduction is composed of human material, however to define this material at the moment of conception as a human being and assign it human rights is incongruous.

“I suppose you don't believe that unique human DNA is not a "human attribute"...?”

I was referring more to traits or qualities. However, DNA is an “attribute” in a different definition of the word I used. Also, I said that the undeveloped fetus possesses none of those traits “other than the potential to become a human being.” DNA gives it that potential, as do human genes and chromosomes. So, I did mention DNA in an indirect sense.

I will ignore your final line, since I have already addressed it in the previous comment, and I will resist the temptation to label you with a negative definition as well, although I can think a few fitting ones.

By the way, I have a fitting scenario for you to address.. It pertains to this discussion in an interesting way. Suppose you have a headless "human". The "human" has no brain, no eyes, no senses, nor any ability to respond to its surroundings. The only way this living being survives is through constant medical attention, and it is always hooked up to a respirator and a feeding tube. Should this living organism be entitled to human rights? Would you define it as a human being? If so, what criteria must a mass of living organic material meet in order for you to define it as a human being? Must it simply contain human material, genetic material, and DNA? I suppose that you will have to say yes to these questions, otherwise you will be contradicting your own argument.

Im sorry magic man , but brownstein makes perfect sense. I know name calling is a weak tactic, but man sometimes you have to revert to it, because people just tick you off when they are so narrow minded and cant see any other logical view but their own.

Ill answer your question you posed for him with your scenario. Is that headless , brainless , no eyes, sensed, a human being ?

Asnwers can be simple. Was it born from a human being ? Did a human being make it , or did it randomly poof into existence ? If a baby is born with no spine, or no arms, or what ever deformity , or absence of certain attributes, if it came from its mother, then yes it is a human being, with human rights.

We have to go back to the basics ? It took a sperm and an egg to start this new life. With out either one, life would never existed for the deformed mutilated human. Since an egg and sperm did combine, the inevitable outcome will be a child. Thats nature, thats science, thats law of reality.

Damon: "Im sorry magic man, but brownstein makes perfect sense. . . . but man sometimes you have to revert to it, because people just tick you off when they are so narrow minded and cant see any other logical view but their own."

I take your assessment of this debate with a grain of salt. You are missing the point of my scenario, and you are making assumptions in your final paragraph. The last part of your final sentence in the quote above applies to you as well. Anyway, I will get started.

I will reduce my post even further. What if you have a human arm. (We could even say it is just a finger). Produced through amputation, reproduction or cloning, this arm is being sustained through a constant pump of fresh blood. It has all the genetic material, DNA, et cetra as a full human, however it is just an arm. Would you define it as a human being? Is it entitled to human rights? If so, what criteria must a mass of living organic material meet in order for you to define it as a human being? By your definition, any mass of human tissue that contains human genetic material should be defined as a human being. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding, and you are saying that it is human only if it "came from its mother." So, it is not human if it is cloned? A human clone is not a human being? If this is your opinion, then you have a peculiar double-standard.

"We have to go back to the basics ? It took a sperm and an egg to start this new life. Without either one, life would never existed for the deformed mutilated human."

Hmm, is that so? What if this mass of flesh was derived from one of the cells in my body? A sperm and an egg is not necessary to produce a living organism. You are defining it as a human because it was birthed from a mother. So, if this being was produced from a cloning process of one of my cells, would you still define it as human? It has the same genetic material as a human, and everything else necessary to produce this arm. If you still qualify it as a human being when it is produced through a cloning process, than it does not matter if it "came from its mother," as you said in your post. So, I come to the conclusion that you define it as a human being simply if it contains human genetic material and DNA. Therefore, you must define each of my cells as a human being, by your definition.

I am interested to hear what Browenstein will come up with in response to my previous comments.

Magic your good and mincing words here.

I think its irrational to claim that a finger is life. Although that finger would never be a finger, if it was never born as a baby first. And thats my main point, the finger, any body part you can think of had to come from the mother who carried the baby. The baby wouldnt have existed if it was for the 2 essentials to make it happen, a sperm and an egg. And yes I get your point about talking about cells. but there is a big difference in cells in our body that have many functions, and then cells that are a baby. We can watch our white blood cells growing and producing new white blood cells, but they will always be just that. They will never be given birth to. The entire process of an egg and sperm and what it goes through to what it becomes eventually is a good definition of what human life is or atleast it will be .

The entire process starting with egg and sperm equals the outcome of a human being. All of the other cells in our body will never do such a thing. They have their own duties and mechanics but will never be a life outside of the body known as a human being.

Hmmm.. You have an apparent lack of understanding about biology and how cells function. You can, in fact, artificially grow a finger, and you can in fact, clone a human from a white blood cell. Currently we only have the technology to do so from a stem cell. However, we will eventually unlock the ability to do so with any cell. They have same genetic material and chromosomes as a stem cell, they just have divided a few times into a more specialized cell.

"The baby wouldnt have existed if it was for the 2 essentials to make it happen, a sperm and an egg."

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this.. All you need is a cell and science to clone a human.

"All of the other cells in our body will never do such a thing. They have their own duties and mechanics but will never be a life outside of the body known as a human being."

You have once again confirmed my point that you lack understanding of the basic mechanics and function of a cell. All of your cells came from the fused sperm and egg. They were all divided from the SAME thing. They are all fundamentally the same. They simply have expressed different parts of the genetic code which allows the cell to specialize. However, they all have the complete genetic code and set of DNA. With the correct technology and process, it will be possible to reverse this cycle and turn a specialized cell back into a clone-able form. We can already clone a human from a stem cell. But, it will be possible to do this with every cell. So, yes, these cells can "be a life outside of the body" and it will grow into a human in every sense of the definition. So, are you saying that a cloned human is not a human being? How about a cloned sheep? They've already cloned a sheep and 21 other species including a monkey.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this.. All you need is a cell and science to clone a human.

Oh ya ? they have a machine like on the Movie the 6th Day , where they can make clone beings from a cell, and never have to use anyone to birth a baby ?

You can twist it how ever you want, but you can call it a glob of cells. I understand that you have been desensitized and have had your rational thought taken away because you will be ousted by your peers if you think anything different from main stream view.

Ill get back to the basic, God says its wrong to murder. You want to think its cells, thats fine, but you get to explain to God one day your view

Oh btw , Dolly didnt do to well did she ? How sad ..

I have never watched the "6th Day", so I can not vouch for the accuracy of the process within that movie. I suggest you google "cloning" and you will find plenty of information on how this process is carried out. It is quite complex, and there is no "machine" that pops out clones. At least, there isn't one at the moment.

I am merely using a rational process to determine your definition of human. By listening to your definition, I can locate the flaws and discrepancies in your logic in order to use your own definition against you. As far as my views being irrational, I have effectively proven that my views are, in fact, the opposite. I have presented clear and solid arguments why it is irrational to define the fused sperm and egg as a human from the moment of conception. Furthermore, it is odd to say that Pro-choice views are mainstream. They are the opposing view to Pro-life, and Pro-life views rest upon defining cells as human from the moment of conception. Therefore, to combat Pro-life views, you need to attack this all-important definition.

You should know by now that I arrive at my conclusions in a rational and logical process. My "rational and logical" process does not lead me to the conclusion that there is a magical being that created the world in a couple days 6000 years ago. It leads me to science, where rational, evidence-based thought is accepted, and conclusions are derived in a logical method. So, it is nice that a story says it is wrong to murder, but I do not take that as a life rule. Finally, if it were "murder" to abort a pregnancy, then this would be a criminal act. Abortions are legal. The fetus would have to be defined as a human in order for an abortion to be an act of murder.

For a final clarification, I do not condone abortions after a certain stage of fetal development. It is much more appropriate when the abortion is performed early in its development. After the 3rd trimester, getting an abortion is ridiculous..

A few edits to my post above.

I said, "So, it is nice that a story says it is wrong to murder, but I do not take that as a life rule."

I meant to say that I do not take the lessons in the Bible as life rules.

And, in response to Dolly the sheep. All cloned beings are slightly less perfect than their predecessor. The same degradation can be seen in inbreeding and when certain species asexually reproduce.

I might add that Dolly the sheep was the first organism ever successfully cloned. That was decades ago. Now, the technique has been "perfected" to a much greater extent. A cloned being should be exactly the same as the preceding organism. The clone is genetically identical, so it has the same relationship to its predecessor as an identical twin has to its twin.

It leads me to science, where rational, evidence-based thought is accepted, and conclusions are derived in a logical method

I am lead to science as well, with scientists who use evidence and base their conclusions in a logical method as well. The views become conflicted because so much science is going off of assumptions made. There are some things that just cant be measured or tested. You can measure and test what you have no in the present, but anything in the past is nothing more then assumptions. This is where science has its conflicts. This just isnt between some one who can show a world of 10000 years, or a world of 15 billions years. Even scientists who are atheists still see issues with current theories, just as people who believe in God have their conflict of evidence and theories as well. It always comes down to what glasses your wearing to view the evidence with. Its not the evidence that changes, its the presumptions and interpretations that make the difference.

As for life, since I do indeed believe in a creator, and his word is my absolute truth and authority that I base my morals and life after then I see a woman who is pregnant , she is carrying a human being, that has rights, and has a right to be born. Sorry if im not cold hearted and have been desensitized , but i refuse to let main stream world views tell me how I should think.

Absolutely incorrect. Science is NOT based on assumptions. Hypotheses are made, and these hypotheses are tested, and solved and if it continues to be true, it becomes a solid theory. Perhaps it is assumed that the universe consists of fundamental laws and rules, however these laws can be tested and proven through mathematics and experimentation.

"but anything in the past is nothing more then assumptions."

Perhaps you can support this statement with credible research? This statement is ridiculous. So, we can't measure the state of degradation of an isotope within a rock to determine the age of the substance? We can measure back billions of years this way. The fact that something happened in the past is IRRELEVANT. We can observe things in the present to understand and calculate what happened in the past. Also, we can use experiments to test hypotheses about what happened in the past. Perhaps you have heard of particle accelerators? Have you ever heard of the Large Hadron Collider where particles are smashed at incredible rates using vast amounts of energy to solve "fundamental open questions in physics, concerning the basic laws governing the interactions and forces among the elementary objects, the deep structure of space and time, and in particular the intersection of quantum mechanics and general relativity"? For example, scientists are using a massive particle accelerator to recreate the Big Bang, which is an incredible feat. So, science is much more complex than you can imagine. The only thing that limits us from understanding everything is our current level of sophistication, and technological advancement. The universe follows fundamental laws, which allows us to solve and understand the universe.

Evidence is valid and solid data. If this is not the case, then it is not quantifiable as evidence. No matter what glasses you look through, mathematical proof or laws can not be refuted unless there is a flaw in reasoning. However, you can't make flaws in math. And, data is data. So, if you felt the evidence was wrong, then you would be disputing whether the evidence was collected through a valid and reproducible process.

Yes, theories and current understandings of science can change. As our methods of deduction, and level of sophistication improves, there will always be new discoveries made. As a result, some discoveries may alter our perceptions. For example, atoms were once thought to be solid little spheres, and that there was nothing smaller than an atom. Then we discovered that atoms are composed of even smaller particles, and the model of the atom changed.

You continue to define the product of reproduction as a human from the moment of conception. I didn't expect to change your opinion, but I hope I enlightened you to the flaws of your view. Perhaps you can argue to give my cells human rights someday. Your pro-life views would fit perfectly with arguing for human rights for human cells. I'm sorry if you think that it is cold hearted not to define human cells as a human being. "main stream world views" have nothing to do with my conclusions on abortion or the definition of a human being.

So, we can't measure the state of degradation of an isotope within a rock to determine the age of the substance? We can measure back billions of years this way. The fact that something happened in the past is IRRELEVANT. We can observe things in the present to understand and calculate what happened in the past. Also, we can use experiments to test hypotheses about what happened in the past.

That is an issue. Measuring the isotopes. Assumptions are made, with rocks we observe now and then assuming that they have a constant state of decay from what is observed now. There are more variables to be tossed in, and one of the major ones is when the rock was formed how much or how little of daughter isotopes were present. Also how much contamination that would effect the rates of decay. You just dont know those facts when you assume a rock is billions of years old. Its an assumption period. Also let me give you another example of assumptions .. Ill give you a location off the top of my head. Mt St helens, they took rock samples from there, dating to be millions of years old, and in reality they were only a couple hundred or even less than a hundred years. There are many more places, National parks, rocks and dating in the Grand canyon. So there are assumptions, because for the theory of evolution to even work, everything NEEDS to be old regardless if there are issues with science or not.

Perhaps you have heard of particle accelerators? Have you ever heard of the Large Hadron Collider where particles are smashed at incredible rates using vast amounts of energy to solve "fundamental open questions in physics, concerning the basic laws governing the interactions and forces among the elementary objects, the deep structure of space and time, and in particular the intersection of quantum mechanics and general relativity"? For example, scientists are using a massive particle accelerator to recreate the Big Bang, which is an incredible feat. So, science is much more complex than you can imagine.

IM well aware of CERN and them smashing protons together. Can i point something out ?

scientists are using a massive particle accelerator to recreate the Big Bang

Hum, intelligent beings taking things that already exist to make something exist.. kinda sounds like God. Go figure

Assumptions or assuming is the act of taking something for granted. This is where Science and religious dogma split. Religious dogma has a rigid belief system that is not changed or influenced no matter how much information, evidence, or research is presented that negates their beliefs. Science uses observation, research, and experimentation to verify its hypotheses. You can not classify wild-guess assumptions used within religion in the same category as verified hypotheses used in science. As technology, knowledge, and our techniques advance and evolve there will always be new ways of understanding what we can not solve currently. Modern science has changed from when science was first practiced. Our current understanding of science can change instantly. One thing that we accept as the truth as far as can be currently proven, may be challenged by a new theory or scientific technique. Science constantly evolves. When one theory that is accepted becomes challenged or dis-proven, then it evolves to the next theory that is the best explanation with our current level of sophistication. You know, a theory is the best explanation that can be derived with our level of sophistication, and a theory fits in with all current information, and no current knowledge can disprove the theory. So, it is NOT an assumption. It is the culmination of all evidence, research, and scientific proofs into a currently VALID explanation.

Assumptions are made, with rocks we observe now and then assuming that they have a constant state of decay from what is observed now. There are more variables to be tossed in, and one of the major ones is when the rock was formed how much or how little of daughter isotopes were present. Also how much contamination that would effect the rates of decay.

"with rocks we observe now and then assuming that they have a constant state of decay from what is observed now."

Indeed, isotopes decay at a constant rate. However other factors can affect the accuracy of dating process. These factors are taken into account through calibration. I suggest you look "calibration", as you will find some useful information on the process. The accuracy of dating depends on "calibration".

The daughter isotopes were not present during the inception of the isotope being tested.

As I stated earlier, calibration takes into account contamination present over time. Scientists know precisely how contamination affects isotopes and primarily carbon dating. Calibration is the result of years of research to measure the level of contamination present in the past, and these levels are then taken into account during the dating process.

However, carbon dating is generally used in addition to other isotope dating techniques such as U-Pb, Pb-Pb, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Nd-Sm, and Re-Os. Depending on the isotope system being used, these techniques are affected by different factors, and some take different things into consideration. For example, Pb-Pb dating uses 204Pb which is primordial isotope created prior to the formation of the solar system. It is not the product of decay of U or Th, so it can be used as a test independent of primary daughters.

Ill give you a location off the top of my head. Mt St helens, they took rock samples from there, dating to be millions of years old, and in reality they were only a couple hundred or even less than a hundred years.

This is dependent on the isotope being tested. I assume you are citing the 1992 test made by Dr. Austin. It is well known that Dr. Austin used the incorrect dating system. He used a potassium-argon dating system. This isotope system is not accurate when the rock tested is less than 10,000 years old for various reasons. The primary reason is the insufficient levels of potassium and argon present in young rock.

"Since Dr. Austin's sample was known to have solidified in 1986, its argon content was clearly well below the threshhold where an amount of argon sufficiently useful for dating could have been present. And even that threshhold applies to only the most sensitive detection equipment. Potassium-argon dating is done by destructively crushing and heating the sample and spectrally analyzing the resulting gases. The equipment in use at the time at the lab employed by Dr. Austin, Geocron Laboratories, was of a type sensitive enough to only detect higher concentrations of argon gas. Geocron clearly stated that their equipment was only capable of accurate results when the sample contained a concentration of argon high enough to be consistent with 2,000,000 years or older."

So, the results of the test are clearly a result of human error. You can find more in-depth information on this topic here:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146

What about the Grand Canyon?

So there are assumptions, because for the theory of evolution to even work, everything NEEDS to be old regardless if there are issues with science or not.

Are you saying that science manufactures desirable results in order to support its theories? Preposterous! Results create theories, they are not made in such a way that they support theories. You've got it backwards. Like I said earlier, if any conclusive results negate a theory, then the theory is thrown out or it evolves to encompass the new evidence.

They recreate conditions present during the Big Bang to observe what particles are present in such a high energy environment. Many particles that can not ordinarily be observed become apparent when energy is smashed at such vast speeds and energies. The findings are used to verify the Big Bang theory, and many different aspects of physics. To me it sounds like intelligent beings trying to understand what really happened.

@magicmaninthesky- by an extension of your reasoning, slaves (particularly African-Americans) would not have deserved any rights under our Constitution (which they were not granted at the time) because they were considered "property" of their owners and not "fully human". Thankfully that was reversed. To say that a fetus that has human DNA is anything other than human is not only biologically incorrect, but also faulty lreasoning, just as the early views on slaves were. The unborn does have Life, so it is gaurenteed by our constitution. Do you feel that animals ( the laws criminalizing cruelty to them) shouyld have more rights than an unborn child?

"by an extension of your reasoning, slaves (particularly African-Americans) would not have deserved any rights under our Constitution (which they were not granted at the time) because they were considered "property" of their owners and not "fully human"."

Hmmm.. I don't know how you come to such a conclusion. I base my conclusion on science and logic, not on opinions or an accepted belief system as was the case with African-americans during the age of slavery. There was no scientific reason why blacks were not considered as "fully human" as whites. It was simply unfounded racism. My views are everything but unfounded, so to make such a comparison is illogical and absurd.

"To say that a fetus that has human DNA is anything other than human is not only biologically incorrect, but also faulty lreasoning, just as the early views on slaves were."

Once again, you are showing profound lack of logic and reasoning skills. I suggest you actually read my comments before you respond, because I have already gone over this exact topic several times. I do not claim that a fetus is not composed of human DNA and material. Biology does not prove or define the fetus as a human being. It shows that it is composed of human genetic material, DNA, and chromosomes, but this does not define something as a human being. Every single one of your cells has the EXACT same DNA, chromosomes, and genetic material as a fetus! So, by your reasoning, you could define every one of your cells as a human being as well.

"The unborn does have Life"

The unborn has no more life than a bacteria, single celled organism, cell, or microscopic germ. It consists of cells which contain human genetic material, however it lacks any other human attributes, foremost of which are intelligence, sentience, and form. The process of life is not protected by our constitution unless the life is a human being. It is just as preposterous to define a skin cell on my finger as a human being, as it is to define the zygote as a human being. You know, you could clone an exact copy of me from ANY cell in my body. Each of my cells has the same potential to become a human as a zygote, so you might as well grant human rights to my cells as well.

"Do you feel that animals ( the laws criminalizing cruelty to them) shouyld have more rights than an unborn child?"

I do not propose to give any rights to bits of undeveloped genetic material and chromosomes. If I were to do so, then I would be giving rights to each of my cells (all of which contain the complete genetic code and DNA sequence as a fetus). So, I hope that answers your question. However, after a certain stage of development, having an abortion becomes much less preferable.

Magic, Your talking about the recreate an event. I cant think of anything more then the word assumption right here. Your talking about billions and billions of years ago from your point of view, and then to say that some one can recreate some event that happened ? Can you sit there and tell me, that any science can demonstrate a testable event that happened billions of years ago ? Its ridiculous to suggest such a thing. No one was there, no one could know how anything happened, it has to be an assumption. It has to. You can guess what happened and test that, but there is no way someone can say , hey we know how it happened, its ridiculous, and poor science.

As i said above, even if you smash protons together, your still demonstrating, with a instrument that exists, with intelligence that exists, using information that exists.. The scientists are the cause, the experiment is the effect.. let me reword that now.. God is the cause, the universe is the effect.

As for Dr steve austin, i read the article you posted, and the comments people wrote on that website. Im already reading about the rebuttals to the critics from other scientists about the dating and other dating Dr austin and others have used. Its always going to be criticized because any notion of it being true will be a detriment to main stream thinking. So you have your critics who make their case, then there is rebuttal back to the critics. This goes on and on.

I noticed you used carbon dating up there, im assuming your not wanting to use that for any type of long term dating, since its limited to what it can be tested on and only good for a small period of time.

Also with radiometric dating , im not just talking about argon, im talking about all of the properties of the samples collected that show error in testing. If you just google Radiometric testing dating issues , there is plenty of information to read about from all sources.

It is possible to recreate an event from billions of years ago if you know the conditions. We do, in fact, know precisely what conditions were present at the moment of the Big Bang. You ignorance on this topic is quite astounding. To put it simply, you are saying the Big Bang is an assumption. The Big Bang has been proven beyond a doubt. The Big Bang Theory is an absolute and detailed description of how the universe was formed, and how elements, matter, and particles were formed. After the expansion, the universe consisted of quark-gluon plasma, subatomic particles, and elementary particles. The first elements to form were hydrogen, helium and lithium. Quarks, leptons, anti quarks, anti leptons, the Higgs Boson, and other fundamental particles are simply the names we place on the variables within the countless equations gone in to solve the Big Bang. We correctly predicted that these particles would form before we had particle accelerators to prove them. Now, we can smash energy together at such high rates that we can actually observe and record their existence in the billionths of a second after the energy is smashed. Then the particles disappear again. Particle accelerators are still searching for the elusive Higgs Boson, which is the most important missing piece in the Standard Model of particle physics. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the big bang model. So, the Big Bang is accepted without a doubt as the explanation for how the universe was formed. It is a detailed proof for how things formed, and it is backed by every bit of scientific knowledge we possess, including Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and concrete scientific and mathematic proofs. It is so far from being an assumption, that you must have absolutely no knowledge about science or physics for you to make such a statement. The Large Hadron Collider has recreated conditions present billionths of a second after the universe expanded, hundreds of times.

“You can guess what happened and test that, but there is no way someone can say , hey we know how it happened, its ridiculous, and poor science.”

So, you call the culmination of observed astronomical phenomena, the Standard Model of particle physics, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, tangible observations in countless experiments, and thousands of solid mathematical calculations that go into proving the Big Bang Theory as a GUESS?? You are really fishing now, buddy. You could learn a thing or to from Mark Twain’s quote, “It is better to keep you mouth closed then open it and remove all doubt.” Furthermore, we can say, “we know how it happened”, because the Big Bang Theory is the explanation. Every prediction made in the Standard Model and the Big Bang Theory has proven correct, and is the basis of modern science.

“Its always going to be criticized because any notion of it being true will be a detriment to main stream thinking. So you have your critics who make their case, then there is rebuttal back to the critics.”

No, there are no peer-reviewed or valid “rebuttals” to the fact that the Potassium-argon test was incorrect for the presented reasons. The group that performed the test, Geocron Laboratories, themselves clearly stated that their equipment was only capable of accurate results when the sample contained a concentration of argon high enough to be consistent with 2,000,000 years or older. So, even if the Potassium-argon test could provide accurate results on young substances, the equipment used would NOT be able to read the results. The equipment would not be able to read the Argon level at such a small concentration, so it was impossible to get accurate readings. In other words, Dr. Austin’s test was a joke and an embarrassment. I don’t know where you come up with “main stream thinking”, but that has nothing to do with science or with the debunkment of this test.

“radiometric dating has issues”

Give me some specific examples. I am sure that you are getting all these arguments straight from some CreationWiki or Genesis site, so I would like to place emphasis that nothing on these Creation websites can be trusted. They usually take some element of science, and distort it in order to “prove” it is wrong. This is what they did with the test on the rocks from Mt. Saint Helens. They took a debunked and flawed test and used it to prove that dating techniques do not work. Furthermore, if these Dating techniques could be “proven” to be false, then dating would not be accepted in the scientific community, and I can tell you that the science community has not missed anything that Genesis websites jabber about. So, you can say without a doubt, that any website that is labeled “Radiometric Dating Is Flawed!” , “The Radiometric Deception” or “Why the Big Bang is Wrong” , is a site that can not be trusted, and is completely unsubstantiated and unproven.

Sorry, Mark Twain's quote goes, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool, than open it and remove all doubt."

I'd like to add as a clarification, in science a "theory" is an explanation, not a guess. The "theory of evolution" is the explanation of how based upon the observable evidence. Same goes with the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Gravity, which explains what gravity is and how gravity occurs.

lol i cant stand it any more, people who say they know for sure what was around billions of years ago.. Im sorry but showing an experiment to explain how it began is far from observing and knowing how it really began. Im the one who is dumb ? This is really getting pathetic. You all have best guesses. no facts.

There are very few things in science that are "for sure" to the absolute meaning of that claim. Laws fall under this definition. However, from all the collected data, universal laws, observable evidence, and testable hypotheses we can come to the most perfect and supported explanation with our level of knowledge. Admittedly, the human race does not know everything about the universe, and there are many laws that have yet to be discovered. Perhaps one of those undiscovered laws will refute the current explanation, perhaps not. But, until that information is discovered, the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution, and all the other scientific conclusions remain the uncontested explanations. No knowledge or laws we currently possess refute or contradict these laws.

Scientists come to the most probable conclusion as far as it can be supported by evidence they have gathered, hypotheses they can test, mathematical calculations to solve the theories, and tangible proofs with which they can conclude. It is a way of thinking and deduction based on evidence, reason, and things we can observe or prove to the best of our knowledge and capacity. However, as our knowledge advances along with the techniques we use to observe our surroundings, our current understandings will change as well.

An experiment is used to prove the explanation. With the Big Bang, thousands upon thousands of equations and calculations went in to calculate if such an event was possible, and supported all evidence and observations. These calculations predicted the expansion of solar bodies, which we can observe today. They also predicted the charges and particles that would come into existence during such an event. Then, we use experiments to see if real-life application matches up with what mathematics and physics has predicted. Turns out, the calculation were CORRECT, these particles come into existence billionths of a second after the energy is smashed. Their proofs and predictions are verified through experiments. Experiments only serve as the proof and support for what has been discovered through math, physics and hypothesis.

"You all have best guesses. no facts."

This is incorrect. Through observing the surroundings, testing the observations, and proving them through math, we have discovered Laws. These Universal Laws are absolute facts. Perhaps you have heard of E=MC2. This is an example in which equations are used to show laws and relationships between energies. There are equations behind every law, and these equations are as solid as 2+2=4. To say a Law is not a fact is like saying 1+1 is not equal to 2. It's absurd. By the way, E=MC2 is the key equation used to create atomic bombs. It proved correct, and we can see that simply by splitting an atom, tremendous amounts of energy is released. These laws are the basis of how we understand the universe, and foundation of all our knowledge.

If you want to argue the validity of the Theory of Gravity, I suggest you jump off a bridge and see how that goes for you.

Nah i dont have any more time for people who believe in magic tricks and know how things happened billions of years ago. Call me silly , but I like data that is empirical, observational, something that can be tested. CERN can show how the universe " could " have began, but it doesnt prove it. All it is showing , is that intelligence that already exists, is using things that already exist, to create something that already exists. Want to impress me, lets all stand here in a group circle staring at the nothingness, and then watching something spontaneously appear from nothing, with no influence . I will even give you infinite amount of time to make something just appear from total nothingness. It just doesnt happen, Of course I cant back that up because I wasnt there , nor can anyone else back up their claim of any other explanation naturally.

You can only view existence 3 possible ways, 2 of them are flawed and one is the only way.

First, existence self created it self

Second, Existence was created from something else

Third , Existence has always been , existent for infinity.

First one is a law of non contradiction because nothing can be or not be in the same time and the same relationship. You would have to be before you were to create yourself, which is impossible.

Second, existence could not create existence because you still need to explain how existence came into being.

Third is the logical choice , because there is something now, something has always existed for eternity because of there was ever a time, when there was nothing, absolutely nothing, void, absence of being, then there would be nothing now.

So the question should be, why is there something , instead of nothing.

Sometimes i think people are just to book smart, and way to intelligent with memorizing numbers, and equations, and sticking to one way thinking, and they lose the ability to use judgement , rational ideas, some basic wisdom or even common sense.

Why do scientists differ from each other, even if they believe in God or not. Regardless if your talking about rock dating, or fossils, or dates of universe, or foods we eat, obesity, diseases, geography, fastest moving object, the list goes on forever , even in the political side, right vs left, the other side is always wrong.. Whether your atheist scientist, or agnostic, believer in God scientist, every one takes the same evidence and can show their point of view and make it work . Who is right ? who is wrong ? Science does change all the time, but God does not. I put my faith first in the Absolute Authority of God. Science can view evidence through a Biblical world view and it still makes sense The science still works. If there was clearly any chance that they are wrong, then there would be no argument at all. There would be no opposition.

Like you said with gravity, no one can argue it does exist, to do so would be foolish. But all the other theories out there, all the fields of science, it all comes down to view points. If one side could make the evidence so true as to that of gravity, then there would be no doors open for debate. Yet I watch so many debates online of scientists demolishing the theories of goo to you, or being from non being.

When the day comes where science can for a fact prove everything, then I will be gladly to stop believing in God. Until then, there is no other explanation for our existence, and according to his word, those who believe in him will have ever lasting life. Sounds like a win to me.

With all that , im out.

Okay, Damon, I am going to attempt to sort out your comment. Most of it relies on circular reasoning, and just plain delusion.. I'm going to Bold the main points, because this post is so long..

"Nah i dont have any more time for people who believe in magic tricks and know how things happened billions of years ago."

Are you serious? This comment would be suitable if it were directed towards yourself. But, it simply doesn't make sense when it is directed towards someone who does not believe in magic, and bases his conclusions on science, evidence based thinking, reason, real-world observations, and logic.

Call me silly , but I like data that is empirical, observational, something that can be tested.

Okay, you are silly. In this statement you are lying to yourself, and to me. Or, perhaps your really are so deluded that you believe your claim. The mere fact that you believe in god, magic, angels, and 7 day creation negates your absurd claim. There is a reason why you must have FAITH to believe religion. Because there is no data, no observable verification, no testable hypotheses, nor any evidence. Nothing! Atheists do not accept that any of the above imaginary creatures, powers, or deities exist as no scientific evidence supports those propositions. The religious have a "belief" that ignorance is superior to empirical knowledge. Atheist see no credible empirical or scientific evidence for the super-natural and therefore reject the notion as one originating from ignorance. If you "like" empirical data as you claim, then you would be an atheist. Not a religious nut.

CERN can show how the universe " could " have began, but it doesnt prove it. All it is showing , is that intelligence that already exists, is using things that already exist, to create something that already exists.

CERN's results and observations merely add further credibility and evidence for the Big Bang Theory. Physicists, scientists, and mathematicians calculated a possible explanation, and they tested their findings in particle accelerators. The fact that their results were correct provides more evidence for the theory. Luckily they didn't spend billions of dollars for nothing.

I agree with the third possibility. And, I also think that "nothing" is a flawed concept. There is always something. Anyways, there may have been an infinite number of Big Bangs preceding the current one.

You know how Black Holes suck matter up, even light, and compress it into an infinitely compact ball of matter? We have not observed anything being expelled from a Black Hole, however they are constantly consuming astronomically vast amounts of matter. So, it is probable that someday, the matter that the Black Hole is compressing will explode with immeasurable force, and all the compression and tension will be released. Perhaps over billions of years, one gigantic black hole ends up sucking most of the universe into its bowels, and into an infinitely dense and compact point of matter. Maybe the explosion and expansion of this matter is what we know as the Big Bang. Perhaps the infinitely dense ball of matter that the Big Bang Theory states as what the universe was in the beginning is the infinitely dense ball of matter from a previous Black Hole in a previous universe. Perhaps this cycle has been going on forever.

Whether your atheist scientist, or agnostic, believer in God scientist, every one takes the same evidence and can show their point of view and make it work .

You're joking, right? Religion is faith in a story. It has NOTHING to do with evidence, logic, or research. Believer's in god "make it work" through pure ignorance, blind faith, and rejection of evidence. They reject logic. They reject research. They reject critical thinking and logical analysis! That is why you must have faith to believe in religion. Religious dogma has a rigid belief system that is not changed or influenced no matter how much information, evidence, or research is presented that negates their beliefs.

I put my faith first in the Absolute Authority of God.

If you deem a silly story in an old book as a credible source, then that is your prerogative, but I would rather place my trust in those who look at their surroundings with a critical eye and try to deduce how things happened with reason.

If there was clearly any chance that they are wrong, then there would be no argument at all. There would be no opposition.

If you choose to believe in this stuff, then nobody can change your mind, no matter how much evidence or discoveries you were presented with that prove otherwise. You purposefully "blind" yourself so you can believe. What you must do is assess which sources are more credible for you to trust. If you deem a silly story in an old book as a credible source, then that is your prerogative, but I would rather place my trust in those who look at their surroundings with a critical eye and try to deduce how things happened with reason. But, I see a little bit more in this world than a silly story made up a thousand years ago. Maybe someday you will come to realize this as well.

But, until that day, enjoy your religion. Religion provides comfort or hope for the future that science or facts can't provide. If that's what you need, enjoy it.

Anyways, Browenstein, Damon, etc... I think it's safe to say that that a 15yr old has met with success in this debate. Hope my words and arguments hit home with you guys. Maybe you'll take a second look at your so strongly held beliefs and faiths. Nice crossing swords with you.

Later, mate

I wish I could stand taking the time to give you all the info from all the websites from scientists who give opposing views to yours.

If ever one day your bored and you want to see the other side feel free to browse your topics there. I wont give specific links to counter arguments of cern , or black holes, geology, fossil record, any thing really. Its for you to study if you wish.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.creationresearch.org/ ( popular publication and peer review )

http://www.arn.org/ ( was just reading about higgs experiment on it http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2012/04/13/biological_discoveries_that_match_the_ex ) ( also a good place to read the forums , cant reply on them, its only open to those who are allowed to speak on there, mostly people who are certified to speak on such matters )

http://crev.info/

http://genesisveracityfoundation.com/

http://creationism.org/

http://www.icr.org/

http://www.trueorigin.org/ ( great website for rebuttal of talkorigins.org evolution website )

http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/home.asp

http://www.discovery.org/csc/

There is more then enough reading in all of those websites to last for months. Maybe one day you will challenge your Uniformitarianism ways , and try to see that there is another way. But thats up to you. If not you, hopefully some people will educate themselves with the websites i provided to see that there surely is another way to explain how we got here, and to show the flaws with naturalistic man made world views.

Later

Once again, you must assess the credibility of a source before you place your trust. You can't believe everything you read online. And, it is a good bet that anything called "creationresearch," "answersingenesis", "genesisveracityfoundation", "creationism", etcetera are biased, unsubstantiated, and plain incorrect.

In fact, I just clicked on the first website you provided, "answersingenesis". I clicked on an article about carbon dating. It claimed that carbon dating made these two "assumptions":

• The atmosphere has had the same carbon-14 concentration in the past as now.
• The biosphere (the places on earth where organisms live) has always had the same overall carbon-14 concentration as the atmosphere, due to the rapid transfer of carbon-14 atoms from the atmosphere to the biosphere.

There is the confirmation of my point. They are spewing incorrect information, in order to come to a favorable conclusion that science is wrong. Pathetic. Once again, carbon dating is calibrated to take into account the fluctuations of carbon-14 concentrations in the biosphere. I am sure that every other article or website that "disproves" science is based on some fundamental flaw in their reasoning. It is not even worth my time.

Although, you did spend the time to post the links. So, I took the time to look through more of them. However, I saw the same pattern of biased reporting in the other links. Anything you read on such a site you should try to verify with a reputed source, encyclopedia, or some such source. Otherwise, you are looking at information through broken glasses.

not so true magic, if they didnt have a reason to give opposition, then there would be need to debate. These scientists have a reason for rebuttal , And just because it has creation linked in there doesnt mean i need to go there for my sources, even though its by scientists who are qualified to speak on the matters. I could find atheist, or non creation scientists as well. There are many main stream scientists that are cited that say there are issues with the science and this can pertain to any field. Like I said in a previous post, you always get people who oppose each other on any matter, regardless if its science, or political, or social.. or what ever the topic/subject.

Also remember C14 dating is only good for very short period of time and it has plenty of influences/vaiables that can affect its outcome.

"not so true magic, if they didnt have a reason to give opposition, then there would be need to debate."

The religious will always feel the need to try to "disprove" science, because it damages their rigid belief/faith system. No matter how much evidence of data presented that negates their beliefs, they will continue believing in their religion, and frowning upon rational thought. No matter what is discovered. Since religion rests entirely on blind FAITH, it has nothing to do with tangible knowledge, observations, or evidence. It only has to do with its follower's faith and ignorance.

Until we have absolute knowledge about the universe and we know EVERYTHING, there is always room for improvement in science. Nothing is solid and absolute in science, except Universal Laws. Other parts of science can evolve and change if new information or knowledge challenges the previous conclusion. Science, Math, and logic are the tools humans use to understand the universe and solve the unknowns. Science does not oppose religion or creationism, however it's findings do not support either of them. In fact, scientific findings negate such hypotheses, such as a 6000 year old earth. Among the evidence against such a hypothesis are fossils. Fossils don't develop that fast. However, I am sure one of your websites says something about fossils as well.

Correct. However, Carbon dating is one of the most effective and accurate methods for dating substances back to around 50,000 years. At which point it has less than a 200 year margin of error. By the way, you know how the site stated that Carbon dating assumes carbon levels remain unchanged in the atmosphere? We noted that carbon levels DOUBLED during the Atomic bomb tests in the mid-1900's. So, it is incredible that the website would make such an outlandish claim.

@ magicmaninthesky- if your premise is that a fetus is not developed, then none of us would be "human" for we are constantly developing. A born child does not have his or her teeth. He or she develops their first set around the age of one. Their molars do not comee out until the average age of twelve. A baby's muscles are not strong enough to support his or hers own weight, so he or she can not walk at first. Humans are constantly "developing", maybe even evolving into some higher organism as ecology would suggest. So I do not think- logically- that your premise is an accurate one.

if your premise is that a fetus is not developed, then none of us would be "human" for we are constantly developing.

That is part of the premise. However, to take one part of the defining criteria and say that is the only the only part of my defining process is incorrect. You are drawing to incorrect conclusions based on a flawed assumption of my premise.

Babies, toddlers, teenagers, adults, they are all at different stages of development. They are different. However, at some developmental stage the differences are ignored and a "human entitled to human rights" definition is applied to it. Many factors influence when the differences are ignored, and a human definition is applied. These include whether it has bonded to another human, whether it is experiencing human emotion, whether it has human relationships, whether it is born or not born, whether it is conscious, and whether it can sustain itself. It is not black and white. Many real factors influence the definition, yet you choose to ignore them and set a definite definition for something so clearly influenced by other factors. This is irrational and incongruous. You choose to ignore these factors, I choose to accept them and incorporate them into the process of deciding whether an abortion is necessary or appropriate.

Furthermore, comparing the stage of development of a zygote at the moment of conception to a newborn or a 12 year old is irrational. The human zygote is not the same entity as the developed human. The cells within the zygote have all evolved, specialized, morphed, and developed into an extremely different life form. At first it was a single cell, comparable to any other single celled organism. These cells split just like they do in single celled/simple lifeforms. However, the different genes were expressed which allowed that primitive and simple life-form to develop into a complex, sophisticated, intelligent, and radically different life-form. This life-form does not develop a brain stem until the third trimester, and remains unconscious in a dream-like state until birth. That is another factor, sentience. Sentience, intelligence, self-awareness, and form are some of the most important things that make us human beings and set us apart from other organisms. These should all be a part of the definition of a human, and they should not be ignored, as you seem so hasty to do.

well this law is not liberal and its

conservative ideology ,whats your point, who cares about other laws, were talking about this

What a shame that you are as arrogant and uncaring about women's health as you are. You need to rethink your priorities.

stexan, again you prove how biggoted you are

And George W. Bush was beyond reproach when it came to defending the Constitution,huh?

Well for one- I don't care if women do abort. Most should as people in general make bad decisions finacially, relationships, and all around life choices.

Given this the government and women in general are hypocritical. They want you to stay out of their body decisions, but due to an accident- say the women getting hit by a car, and the fetus dies, THEN they claim it is a life- same thing with the law.

Either IT is a life- or IT is not- but you cannot have it both ways.

Hate to sound mean, but this is a glaring hypocritical situation that government and women love to flaunt to their advantage.

Jobs do conservative Care , no But about VAginas ohhh YEa

it is mandated ONLY if you are getting abortion. Obamace is for everyone who is breathing. you must be a libtard, too stupid to see this.

A mandate is a mandate--if you are against a mandate in principle, then you should be against all mandates. If you are only against a mandate when it affects you, but are in favor of them when it affects someone else, then you have positional ethics and not principles.

The phrase "positional ethics" is a nice way of saying "hypocritical." And, if you aren't bright enough to understand that a principle is a principle--which means it should apply in all cases--then maybe the term "stupid" is being slightly mis-aimed here, no?

Yea how stupid of the Republicans to try to stop the useless Murder of inocent children.

all you have to do to avoid that law is not to get pregnant. not that I agree with Conservatives on their stance about gay marriage and abortion. IMO if you not pregnant woman or gay person who wants to marry ,why you need to decide for those people what is good for them? Having ability to have a choice is what we need.

Funny how Repubs don't want government in our personal business but they don't mind government in our wombs! You guys can't pick and choose which things you want government involved in - guns in every hand is okay huh? How bout shooting innocents? But an abortion, now that's awful! Pshaw!

If you don't want an abortion - don't have one!

Why do you think they are called the party of hypocrites?

R.H.1492728, please explain to me how it is that conservatives care so much about a child before it's born but don't give a damn about it after it's born? Don't want affordable health care so that he or she can grow up healthy, don't want a free public education so he or she can grow up to be a productive, informed, and knowledgeable member of society who is capable of choosing his or her destiny, don't want to protect the environment to ensure that he or she has the clean air, water, and land so very vital to human life, and if the child is a she, don't want her to be an equal member of society with the right to equal pay for equal work and the right to privacy and self-determination. And when these kids grow up with physical or mental disabilities, or limited choices due to lack of a decent education and angry because of you folks calling them leaches, parasites, and scum from the moment they're born, and some of them lash out at the system, your only answer is to lock 'em up and throw away the key. And by all means execute as many of them as you can...

Excuse me for tarring everyone with the same brush but it seems as if all y'all conservative folks are either schizophrenic in your views of human life or a bunch of damn hypocrites. Y'all are always spouting off about how much you love the Lord and how much you want to walk in His footsteps, but where is the unconditional love for your fellow man, especially the weak and powerless and oppressed that Jesus commanded of His followers? Why aren't you feeding the hungry and healing the sick and housing the homeless and visiting the prisoners? Why do you horde your wealth when people are in need...have you no faith that God will provide for you?

Honestly, I doubt you'd be capable of recognizing Jesus if He walked up and introduced Himself. Hell, if He asked you to give all you owned away to the poor you'd cuss Him up one end and down the other as a commie-socialist hippie-type pinko and crucify Him again.

very well said, /applause

Yea we all know that women are smart and killing thier unborn Babies is what smart people do.

Some women and men are too dumb to figure out having sex can lead to a baby growing in a womb.

R H --yes, if you want to use the phrase "killing their unborn babies," then it sounds like you are smarter than everyone else.

Okay, if a fertilized egg which has developed into an implanted fetus is a "baby," despite the fact that it has no brain and cannot survive outside the womb, then any person on life support whether that person can survive without life support or not and whether or not that person has brain waves is a "person" also. No such person can be removed from life support. Now, you have fun paying for that, bubba, and you have fun explaining why Republicans can have "futile care" laws but just hate allowing abortions.

Abortions are performed on fetuses that are not yet capable of surviving outside the womb or are already dead or have no potential for living outside the womb. Women who choose abortion generally have had a boyfriend dump them and cannot provide for a child they already have if they are pregnant (as they will lose their jobs). Or, they have no health care and run the risk of serious injury (due to a lack of prenatal care) or death (due to a lack of prenatal care) or debt (if they have the baby in a hospital). Or, they have a health problem that will ruin their health and probably that of the child.

Those are the reasons why women have abortions: financial, principally. Some few women have abortions because their boyfriends or husbands turn suddenly abusive, and they either have to abort the child or be stuck with the joker for 18 years.

You want to limit abortions--provide birth control to all women free of charge, provide health care to women of child bearing age and children to the age of 5, protect the jobs of pregnant women, allow women to put babies up for adoption regardless of what the father says (if the father has not been involved with the pregnancy). That is the smart thing. I don't see you doing it.

It is a potential life, not a life, until it is capable of living outside the womb. It is not a "baby," but a potential baby until that point. Any woman who chooses not to be pregnant any more can very easily arrange for that pregnancy to end--whether or not she uses the services of a licensed doctor--and that is what was done prior to making abortion legal. You will not stop abortion by making it illegal--you will just cause women to do the same thing themselves because the alternative is death, ruined health, homelessness, or loss of the child they already have. Women don't choose abortion for no good reason in most cases.

Get rid of the reasons for abortion--get rid of abortion. Get rid of legal abortions--all you will get is illegal ones. How is your plan particularly bright?

I cannot reason with anyone who persists in calling a fetus an "unborn baby".

RH there's a cave in Afganistan that's vacant. Why don't you go there? You're a closet Taliban anyway.

Republican is a lite version of Muslim, they act like one, sound like one and behave exactly like one. What's next, a religious based government with cleric at the top?

Don't know why we had to go to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban; judging by comments by RH and STexan, we got the Christian Taliban right here. We should round them up and send them back to the caves of Kandahar.

Presuming that you are male and not gay (as it is mostly straight males who say dumb things like this), have you ever put a woman at risk of an unwanted pregnancy? If so, then quit having sex unless you want to procreate.

Now, all males who want all women who don't want to have babies to stop having sex altogether (bearing in mind that will probably involve your partner too), and who therefore are willing to give up sex so that women will not ever be in danger of an unwanted pregnancy--clap your hands.

Wow, the silence is deafening. It takes two to tango, brother. Unless men who get women pregnant are going to suffer the same job losses, health problems, and financial issues that pregnant women have--perhaps males should stop pontificating. When you are the person who can have all the sex you want and have none of the consequences (other than the mild chance that you'll actually have to pay child support) . . . well, why exactly does your opinion matter?

Beach: YOU FIRST!

If she doesn't want to be pregnant, maybe she should take the necessary precautions.

RH - When you have a uterus and bear children, then you can keep your babies.

So the murder of babies is OK as long as its done by thier mother

No, I said you can KEEP your babies, but it's your CHOICE!

If we will actually consider the fetus to be a baby as you keep calling it, every woman should be able to remove it and give it up for adoption at however many (up to the cut off point) weeks along they are. If it is in fact a baby, it should be just fine and the new proud parents can care for it.

You clearly have no idea what socialism actually is

Re-pukes are notorious for throwing words around that they haven't a clue about.

Every other industrialized Western nation has socialized healthcare and a higher standard of living than the US. They also have better public schools and public transportation than we do, but that's because they're willing to pay for it AND because they've worked hard to ensure that the system is as streamlined and free of corruption as possible. Right now many US retirees are moving to Canada. Why? The affordable socialized healthcare of course.

Very few people who throw the term "Socialism" around even know what it is.

Steve, that is the pot calling the kettle African-American!

my 5th grader understand socialism better than the neocons.

There are so many shades of Republican and Democrat.

This ideology comes from the evangelical far right.

No, actually, this ideology comes from the evangelical movement and the Catholic movement. There are more Catholic Democrats than Republicans, and there are many anti-abortion Democrats.

What this is, is an attempt by the Republicans to "reach across the aisle" and take away some Democratic votes. It's craven, as they don't give a flying hoot about "unborn babies" or "born babies" or about Christian values . . . but it is an attempt to shatter Democratic bonds.

Don't think this only comes from the "right"--it doesn't.

crab: You did! Cheney.

who's health care are you paying for? your saying people who smoke and drink are not paying for health care? you're not paying for anyone elses health care except the people who refuse to purchase their own and leach off society.

and people are having a fit that the govt. is trying to force people to purchase health insurance. fine, i dont care if people dont want health insurance. but then they dont get to have medical treatment either. get yourselves health insurance or die. i dont care.

No, she is trying to spin the imposition of conditions as doing something wonderful for women seeking abortions. If a woman wants this type of information she can CHOOSE to pursue it. Rep Billy needs to learn the difference between voluntary and involuntary.

Rep billy is pandering to the conservatives, period!

This reminds me of a movie where government said you have a choice to choose, then whenever people choose to do something, the government put those people into learning center and in a small room with repeat video telling them how it is bad and such.

This is a movie in Asia, about how communist help people decide what they need to do.

If it comes to pass that these bills have their intended effect and laws make it nealry impossible to get an abortion, then the mothers ought to go to the lawmakers' offices and hand the kids off to these stalwart defenders of the family. After all, being such pro-life folks, they'll be honored to adopt these kids and raise them, right? Especially if the child was conceived out of rape or incest, is a minority, or has a congenital defect that guarantees lots of medical expenses.

Or walk into the nearest evangelical church and hand the child to the minister.

Wouldn't it simply be easier to make contraception and good gynocological care more affordable and accessible to reduce the number of abortions?

ny mike. One of the candiates running for office actually said if a woman is raped and a pregnancy occurs it should be considered a gift from god. Our country is getting as crazy as wome of the rest of the world.

wow i thought that we were fighting the taliban i didnt know that they were here in america. these republicans are the taliban what"s next no education for women or how about they take away your right to vote, waityou cant run for office. well these jackwagons dont want you to have the abortion because the want to kill the baby after its born, see you have welfare reform no school lunches ect ect ect. what do you republicans want you whine like little bitches all the time.

One thing for sure is it does not belong in politics and the nearing presidential election.

This is one of the three I feel, are the most favorite wedge issues used in running for office. The other two are Immigration and the economy.

Immigration is an important issue but I agree it does not belong in a presidential election. The one and only subject matter needs to be the economy.

REC--to what do you refer? The word "butcher" used to be used for the people who provided women with abortions prior to abortions becoming legal. Women had a bad tendency to die after visiting such a "butcher." And, illegal abortion is becoming more common again now that legal abortion is becoming harder to find.

So, yeah--not really certain what your point is . . .

Your post is an assumption that women don't feel guilt or remorse after having an abortion.

I also see far more hate coming from the pro life crowd than the pro choice crowd, and I am pro life. However, my choice to be pro life ends with me and not with people I think should be pro life as well. Who is anyone to dictate what another person does to their bodies.

Unless you have had an abortion, how do know what a woman feels? You just think they are guiltless murderers.

Why do you assume that every woman who has an abortion feels guilt?
What most women feel is relief.

I have known several women who have had abortions. Most of them did have guilt and cried for days about it. Although one gal I knew would take a heavy injection of meth whenever she became pregnant and cause herself to have a miscarriage. She felt no guilt what so ever. I am sure to most it is an emotional decision to have to make. This is why they should be left alone without interference. I am prolife but do not feel it is my right or even prudent to interfere.

mark--women who have abortions feel relief because whatever problem they had which compelled them to do it has been solved. Larry--What they regret are the circumstances that compelled them to have the abortion--that's not the same as "guilt," my friend.

If you aren't callous and unfeeling towards "little unborn helpless children"--then I'm sure that you are working very hard to make sure that all pregnant women have their jobs protected. I'm sure that you are working very hard to make sure that all pregnant women have access to healthcare so that they won't be bankrupted by the birth. I'm sure that you are working very hard to make sure that all little born helpless children have access to healthcare so that they won't die needlessly after birth.

No? I thought not.

A woman who loses her job due to a pregnancy often has no choice other than abortion--well, homelessness for herself and her child and being on the public dole for a long time is still an option. Going to the emergency room for the birth and skipping town without paying, and abandoning the child at the hospital if it has a health problem she can't afford is still an option. Wow--no prenatal care and living in poverty with mom is such a great choice for little helpless born children.

Why, precisely, do people wax on about the poor little unborn helpless children on the one hand--and then whine about "welfare moms" and their dozens of offspring on the other? You are aware that the women most likely to have an abortion are the women who otherwise would be "welfare moms," right?

When I see the conservative fundamentalist evangelical Christian movement take up the cause of women who decide to go through with unwanted pregnancies--and they DO NOT, though they claim they do--then I will accept that they care about poor little helpless unborn children. The fact is that they want to have women living in purdah--their concern about poor little helpless unborn children extends only as far as a rhetorical gesture to get women to give up any personal freedom so that males can use pregnancies to control them again. Have a great day.

Stop making these worthless pennies,what an other waste of money in this country,just like all that other crab that 99 cent stuff in all the stores and $9,99 or only $99,99 and all that bullsh@t.

I have been reading and thinking about the vaginal probe laws for some time now. As I see it the laws purpose is to stop women from getting abortions. I think it would be a good idea if a person(government person or private person) should only be allowed to vote for vaginal probe laws IF they sign a legal contract stating that they will personally be financially responsible for any child born after the mother has been refused an abortion. And that financial responsibility ends at that child's college graduation. THEN and ONLY then can they vote for the vaginal probe bill.

Here's an idea, for all the women forced to give birth to children they don't want. Dump them on their fathers. It takes 2 to tango. Let him raise his offspring.