My point exactly. It is a seed, not a tree. All it has is potential. You still would be wrong if you called it a tree. So you can't call a zygote or a blastocyst a human being. You have a developing human. You can't call a prepubescent kid an adult either. Well, not without being biologically incorrect.But the seed has all the potentialities of becoming a tree, thus essentially a tree in development. Likewise starting at conception all the potentialities exist to become a baby, thus already a human in development.
Man, was your last sentence ever dumb.Tell an expectant mother that the bump, that won't stop moving in her belly, doesn't exist. Man, was your last sentence ever dumb.
Athiesm is a religion.
Yeah, let's blow wads of cash on something that's so utterly and extremely obvious to most people. You fund this "committee" and "study", I'll keep my dough and accept scientific opinion.Honestly, though, I find the motion presented to the House is quite reasonable: he's essentially asking that a committee study the matter of when life begins, which would naturally involve having to invite scientists too. I guess the NDP is scared stiff about that. If they had a little more confidence in science, the NDP would welcome this motion.
In the meantime, I'll stick with my opinion that no abortions should be performed unless there are serious health issues. I also think that the matter should be between the woman and her doctors, not religions, politicians, etc.
Last edited: