The rights of the Unborn still a "hot potato"!

[dancing-loon]

Here is a great tool for recognizing fetal development over time.

If you click retrieval/ovulation then put in today's date that is equivalent to conceiving today. It will provide a number of key dates in development.

And yes, someone who conceives today is really considered 2 weeks pregnant.

http://www.ivf.ca/calcu.htm

Yes, that's a handy chart, but would not convince Praxius and others that it is human, can feel pain and love.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Yes, that's a handy chart, but would not convince Praxius and others that it is human, can feel pain and love.

Dancing loon, feel pain and love? What about all the kids who have been abandoned after birth, who have ended up in abusive foster homes, kids who have turned to prostitution in order to get food to eat, what about kids who have been left out on the streets sleeping under bridges, isn’t that pain with no love? Isn’t that a world where the sun never shines for these poor forgotten souls? Come on man all of you prolifers are sitting here spouting off cheap opinion and doing absolutely nothing to address the real issues which face abandoned children. Talk is cheap………………Action moves mountains…………… :roll::roll::roll:

 

[Praxius]

Yes, that's a handy chart, but would not convince Praxius and others that it is human, can feel pain and love.

That and I can not access that web site where I currently am, due to being blocked. But I have already seen the developmental process of a fetus from egg/sperm to birth....

 

[Praxius]

Freedom of choice is the mothers business if a mistake pregnancy is present; the rest is no ones business. If a prolifer feels that they have a say in someone else’s business such as telling a 14 year old girl to keep a baby which she has no interest in keeping and no experience in taking care of it, the bottom line is stop getting involved in other peoples business. You don’t believe in abortion GREAT FOR YOU, BUT STOP TRYING TO TELL THE 14 YEAR OLD GIRL WHAT TO DO, PARTICULARLY WHEN NEITHER ONE OF YOU PROFILERS GIVE TWO SH!TS ABOUT KIDS WHO ARE CONSTANTLY ABUSED ON DYSFUNCTIONAL FOSTER HOMES. Get it through your stubborn heads, YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL ANY ONE TO DO AS YOU LIKE!!!!!!!:angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::roll::roll::roll:

Well I was gonna give you a rep for this one, but it's telling me to spread it around..... although I can't remember the last time I gave one to you

I too, do not understand this emotional hype over things that haven't been born, compared to those who are already living and whom are currently known to be suffering.

I would personally like to see people take their focus and help those already here to make it a better world. If it's a better world for us who are currently living, then perhaps more people would be more willing to bring children into this world in the first place, thereby reducing the abortion rates in a more practical manner, rather then forcing your own morals and opinions on people you shouldn't have any right to do so to.

 

[Tonington]

It was a figure of speech, moving on....

And it was wrong.

It's irrelevent what you think I know or don't.... none of what you are saying identifies anyting prior to birth as being a living, breathing, thinking human, plain and simple. None of it justifies giving rights to a fetus, a zygote, a diploid or a friggin haploid.

Where did I say the fetus should have those rights? I didn't. I'm only telling you that you're simply wrong to consider a developing human as anything but human life. That is exactly what it is. Is that clear enough for you?

If they are all what you considder as a "Human" then what identification are we right now? Human, last I checked.... yet I don't see some identification of this current stage of our lives such as zygote, fetus, diploid or diplidocous for that matter.

This is why I said you fit option A, ignorant. An adult human is still human life. A human embryo is still human life. A human zygote is still human life. The classification you're talking about is for life stages, it doesn't negate the fact that it's still human.

The identifications, classifications are all set, confirmed, accepted for quite sometime now.... I see no justification for trying to reinvent the wheel due to unfounded emotional appeal.

Yes, I know the classifications very well. It's not reinventing the wheel until someone like you uses them to say it's not human because it isn't an adult. A three year old child can't reproduce. Yet it's still a human. One criteria for life is the ability to produce progeny. But it's still a human life, which is in the process of developing into an adult, as is the embryo.

Irrelevent, basic life, full life, whatever has no reasoning to be placing basic human rights on it, unless it is a living human being....

Maybe if you read more carefully, and don't ascribe beliefs to me that I haven't revealed to you, you wouldn't make such colossal blunders. Human rights are given at birth, and I'm fine with that.

That legal classification doesn't change the fact that what is in the woman's womb is a human.

and I have yet to see any proof or evidence about a fetus being anymore alive then an additional organ in the woman's body, regardless if it may operate differently then any other organ.... hell, the heart doesn't work or operate the same as the brain or kidneys.... I see nothing special about the fetus.

Any more alive? Well that makes no logical sense at all. Tissue is either living or it isn't. It can't be more alive than something else which is alive. Probably why you've never seen any proof or evidence of something which can't be proven.

That has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that there are two living things. The fetus maybe dependent on the mother, but that doesn't change the fact that it is another living thing.

For you as well then, because you're trying to give human rights to a chunk of meat.

For the last time you dumb ass, I'm not trying to extend our fundamental human rights to the unborn. I'm only explaining to you in clear language how a embryo is human life. You have yet to demonstrate that it isn't.

Because it was indeed rhetorical, which means I am not actually seeking an answer, but rather making a generic point.

And I was agreeing with you... that would be the slippery slope if I was arguing for extending said rights. Man you are thick.

Whichever way you wish to call it.... but by your direct words quoted above "Developing Human" clearly explains that it is in development of becoming a Human.... therefore isn't actually a human now is it? My position still stands.

No it doesn't. A ten year old is a developing human. A 16 year old is a developing human. A embryo is a developing human. What is it that you're having problems understanding about that?

Much of what we classify around us in the universe is written down on paper and accepted through explinations and understanding, how else do we learn things in college, university, school, etc... without text books.... they are commonly accepted explinations of the world around us, and I wasn't the one who originally brought the whole "Citizen" equation to the argument, I am just using it as one, among many other examples.

It is valid, but it wasn't what you originally said, and it's completely different from 'individual' and 'independent' humans. Ergo, changing goal posts when it becomes convenient for your argument.

No, you just can't wrap your head on all the angles in which I cover at once.... that's not my fault.... keep up.

You didn't cover them at once. If you did it would have made even less logical sense. I can run laps around you

No it's not... saying so, doesn't make it so.... as explained before, it uses all resources, blood, energy, food, etc. all through the mother, not by itself.... it is therefore an extension of the potiential mother.

Not true. First of all, it's not a potential mother, it is a mother. Using resources doesn't make it an extension of the mother, because living things are classified in this fashion:
cells--->tissue--->organ--->organ systems--->organism, and then onto population classifications.

An organism has it's own DNA, which means all the way down to cells, it is different from other organisms, except for things like fungi and bacteria, which can produce clones. As soon as the cell division and multiplication begin with the embryo, the cells are dividing into three different types of germ layers, which direct the cells to form specific organs and organ systems. Those systems show up well before the fetus emerges from the womb as an infant. During the pregnancy, the fetus is producing it's own antibodies, which can cause problems between the mother and fetus. It is not at all an extension of the mother. It is a different organism, with different characteristics entirely.

You're simply wrong, and if you took any biology classes at all, it would be perfectly clear to you where your numerous fallacies are.

No different from an organ or a parasite as already explained..... these circles are getting about as much fun as a plain doughnut.

A parasite is a living thing with different physiology and genetics, completely separate from the host. An organ is part of an organisms body, and is not separate. An embryo is physiologically the same, and genetically different.

You're way out of your league here. I'm starting to think you're actually option A, ignorant about simple classification schemes taught in introductory biology classes, and option C, ideologue, since you seem to keep confusing my differences with you as being intended to grant rights which I never said I agree with, and have in fact explicitly said I do not.

 

[dancing-loon]

Freedom of choice is the mothers business if a mistake pregnancy is present; the rest is no ones business. If a prolifer feels that they have a say in someone else’s business such as telling a 14 year old girl to keep a baby which she has no interest in keeping and no experience in taking care of it, the bottom line is stop getting involved in other peoples business. You don’t believe in abortion GREAT FOR YOU, BUT STOP TRYING TO TELL THE 14 YEAR OLD GIRL WHAT TO DO, PARTICULARLY WHEN NEITHER ONE OF YOU PROFILERS GIVE TWO SH!TS ABOUT KIDS WHO ARE CONSTANTLY ABUSED ON DYSFUNCTIONAL FOSTER HOMES. Get it through your stubborn heads, YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL ANY ONE TO DO AS YOU LIKE!!!!!!!:angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::roll::roll::roll:

If the 14-year old has sex and can get pregnant, then by nature she should be able to look after her child. Her breasts will have the milk ready; society provides her with the material means. Abortion is a cop-out. She could, if she wanted to, give her baby up for adoption. I've mentioned it before, I have an adopted grandson. His Mom was just 17 when he was born, and felt she could not look after him. She chose adoption. He is alive and kicking and a popular teenager, giving his adoptive Mom all the headaches she can handle.:lol:

Haven't I read elsewhere by you that killing is never right? Why do you in cases of abortion stand aside, instead of advocating to lend a hand?

I can picture many young girls and women who would happily decide to keep their baby once they gave birth. But, because it is made soooo convenient to get rid of the unborn painlessly and for free, it is the easy way out of having to be responsible for ones actions.

Socrates, you can take a big wooden hammer and hit me over the head, I would still be against abortion on demand! PERIOD!!!!:lol:

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Well I was gonna give you a rep for this one, but it's telling me to spread it around..... although I can't remember the last time I gave one to you

I too, do not understand this emotional hype over things that haven't been born, compared to those who are already living and whom are currently known to be suffering.

I would personally like to see people take their focus and help those already here to make it a better world. If it's a better world for us who are currently living, then perhaps more people would be more willing to bring children into this world in the first place, thereby reducing the abortion rates in a more practical manner, rather then forcing your own morals and opinions on people you shouldn't have any right to do so to.

Praxus, excellent comment,

ALL WE HEAR BEFORE THE FETUS IS BORN, THAT POOR LIFE SHOULD LIVE…………

After when youth is in trouble we hear (THROUGH THE RAT IN JAIL……………….)
The prolifers don’t have their priorities strait. IF THEY DID THEY WOULD BE OUT ON THE STREETS HELPING KIDS IN TROUBLE……………….NOT CALLING THEM RATS AND MAKING STUPID COMMENTS HE STOLE MY CAR THROUGH THE F UCKER IN JAIL………………….OR I WILL BRAKE HIS LEGS WHEN I CATCH THE RAT…………..

 

[lone wolf]

Praxus, excellent comment,

ALL WE HEAR BEFORE THE FETUS IS BORN, THAT POOR LIFE SHOULD LIVE…………

After when youth is in trouble we hear (THROUGH THE RAT IN JAIL……………….)
The prolifers don’t have their priorities strait. IF THEY DID THEY WOULD BE OUT ON THE STREETS HELPING KIDS IN TROUBLE……………….NOT CALLING THEM RATS AND MAKING STUPID COMMENTS HE STOLE MY CAR THROUGH THE F UCKER IN JAIL………………….OR I WILL BRAKE HIS LEGS WHEN I CATCH THE RAT…………..

Maybe it would help if you stood up to type....

 

[Socrates the Greek]

If the 14-year old has sex and can get pregnant, then by nature she should be able to look after her child. Her breasts will have the milk ready; society provides her with the material means. Abortion is a cop-out. She could, if she wanted to, give her baby up for adoption. I've mentioned it before, I have an adopted grandson. His Mom was just 17 when he was born, and felt she could not look after him. She chose adoption. He is alive and kicking and a popular teenager, giving his adoptive Mom all the headaches she can handle.:lol:

Haven't I read elsewhere by you that killing is never right? Why do you in cases of abortion stand aside, instead of advocating to lend a hand?

I can picture many young girls and women who would happily decide to keep their baby once they gave birth. But, because it is made soooo convenient to get rid of the unborn painlessly and for free, it is the easy way out of having to be responsible for ones actions.

Socrates, you can take a big wooden hammer and hit me over the head, I would still be against abortion on demand! PERIOD!!!!:lol:

Dancing loon I consider you a knowledgeable man, unfortunately the fact that we don’t see thousands of people in the streets helping displaced kids, you can hit me with a truck and if I live I would still believe that caring for humanity should be today no yesterday or tomorrow. Only today if we take care of today tomorrow will be a cake walk.
But unfortunately humanity has many times made the mistake where they place a foot in the past and a foot in the future wile they urinate on the present………….
Abortion sucks but the alternatives SUCKS WORST……………………..

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Maybe it would help if you stood up to type....

Lone W this is not a literary or a grammatical contest, what is your point????????????
:roll:

 

[dancing-loon]

Dancing loon, feel pain and love? What about all the kids who have been abandoned after birth, who have ended up in abusive foster homes, kids who have turned to prostitution in order to get food to eat, what about kids who have been left out on the streets sleeping under bridges, isn’t that pain with no love? Isn’t that a world where the sun never shines for these poor forgotten souls? Come on man all of you prolifers are sitting here spouting off cheap opinion and doing absolutely nothing to address the real issues which face abandoned children. Talk is cheap………………Action moves mountains…………… :roll::roll::roll:

Socrates, before you unload on me and others for doing nothing to those poor unloved kids, show us by your example. If your solution to these problems is not to have them being born in the first place, then your concern and pity for them is only cheap talk... it's quite shallow! The problem can not be solved by killing the unborn. There is something very wrong with our present society!

Sit down and count all the money Canada is throwing away for the war in Afghanistan; all the money given to make life easier for other kids and people around the world; giving millions to a wealthy country like Israel, so they can keep on harassing the Palestinians and/or buy more war machinery. We are wasting our money on so many outside and non-essential projects, that our own kids have to live the way you describe.

Shouldn't we keep our own house in order first, before we meddle in and wish to improve others? It is nothing but wanting to look good on the world stage... pretending, we Canadians are somebodies!!

Bottom line is there is no easy and fast solution to a lot of problems. Not in a democracy! Too much push me - pull me to get anywhere. The debate here is a good example!;-);-)

There is lovely sunshine in my garden....
C U l8er!:lol:

 

[lone wolf]

Lone W this is not a literary or a grammatical contest, what is your point????????????
:roll:

Where are you reading anything about literary or grammatical content?

I'm trying to figure out your point, then come to realize you don't know a difference between child welfare and pregnancy. Do you know how many spoiled brats - who, by the way, were planned and given everything they could ever want to make their lives perfect - go out and steal cars and commit crimes just because they think it all belongs to them?

 

[Unforgiven]

Yes, I see! Thank you. (whatever D to the Lizoon means!:roll:}

It means Dancing Loon. Aight?

I still feel the abortion issue is far from solved satisfactorily. It is about our own children! About our future. If that is not important, I'd like to know what is!!!

And there is nothing that is going to solve it to anyone satisfaction in this election. So while it's worth having an indepth discussion about abortion in Canada, it's pointless to waste time on it as an election issue.

Oh yes,... our barely grown-up children killing and getting killed in Afghanistan is second in the line of importance!

Clearly a much more pertinent issue that can and should be discussed during an election. Are we in the role we should be in? Pull out, stick to it, or maybe step it up a notch or two? We're a country at war and should be closer together on the issue.

If women should have the freedom to destroy their unborn with the help of willing doctors, then there can be no argument about Quebecers wanting to exercise that same right to self-determination!

The two have nothing at all in common.

Sure, your list of other issues are also all important, but none as urgent as abortion. That is my humble opinion.;-)

How many abortions have you had? Should someone be able to force you to have one if you don't want to have one? Just as far to tell someone not to have one the wants one.

Once you solve the problem of people getting pregnant when they don't want to then you can stop abortion. Until then, it really isn't your business what someone does with their body.

 

[DurkaDurka]

I believe Canada should be promoting abortion tourism. Think about it, we could offer 2 week inclusive vactions including abortion, 5 star lodgings and continental breakfasts. This way we could shore up our sorely underfunded health care system with Abortion Tourist dollars.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Socrates, before you unload on me and others for doing nothing to those poor unloved kids, show us by your example. If your solution to these problems is not to have them being born in the first place, then your concern and pity for them is only cheap talk... it's quite shallow! The problem can not be solved by killing the unborn. There is something very wrong with our present society!

Sit down and count all the money Canada is throwing away for the war in Afghanistan; all the money given to make life easier for other kids and people around the world; giving millions to a wealthy country like Israel, so they can keep on harassing the Palestinians and/or buy more war machinery. We are wasting our money on so many outside and non-essential projects, that our own kids have to live the way you describe.

Shouldn't we keep our own house in order first, before we meddle in and wish to improve others? It is nothing but wanting to look good on the world stage... pretending, we Canadians are somebodies!!

Bottom line is there is no easy and fast solution to a lot of problems. Not in a democracy! Too much push me - pull me to get anywhere. The debate here is a good example!;-);-)

There is lovely sunshine in my garden....
C U l8er!:lol:

Dancing loon I am not unloading on you, my point of view about the world is very far from shallow.

Afghanistan, what a joke……………yes that money some $5BILLION would help thousands of forgotten unwanted kids……..But that isn’t about to happen…….
ISRAEL, what a suckle job by the current Government……… all that money can again help these unwanted souls……………….


I reiterate, Abortion Sucks but the alternatives for disadvantaged young women suck worst……..

Although it may be sunny in your Garden…………..the forgotten kids unfortunately can not say the same thing………

 

[Kreskin]

I believe Canada should be promoting abortion tourism. Think about it, we could offer 2 week inclusive vactions including abortion, 5 star lodgings and continental breakfasts. This way we could shore up our sorely underfunded health care system with Abortion Tourist dollars.

Only problem is, if the religious groups are willing to cross the border to demonstrate at a funeral for a beheaded young man you can only imagine the lengths they would go for abortion tourism.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Where are you reading anything about literary or grammatical content?

I'm trying to figure out your point, then come to realize you don't know a difference between child welfare and pregnancy. Do you know how many spoiled brats - who, by the way, were planned and given everything they could ever want to make their lives perfect - go out and steal cars and commit crimes just because they think it all belongs to them?

Man LW, you are comparing butterflies with bats. We are not talking about reach peoples kids we are talking about abandoned kids……………………….because the young mother is not fit to look after a mistake pregnancy, some of you are so egger to shove your point of view into other peoples brains. You know this is a f ucked up world we live in . The wrong that goes unreported on kids who from day one were out in the cold no one is talking about it here…You are trying to figure out my point????? Come on man…………

 

[DurkaDurka]

Only problem is, if the religious groups are willing to cross the border to demonstrate at a funeral for a beheaded young man you can only imagine the lengths they would go for abortion tourism.

We'll have to refuse religious folk entry to the country then.

Or maybe I could just buy an old aircraft carrier and convert it into an abortion carrier, I could ferry my customers around in stealth bombers.

 

[lone wolf]

Man LW, you are comparing butterflies with bats. We are not talking about reach peoples kids we are talking about abandoned kids……………………….because the young mother is not fit to look after a mistake pregnancy, some of you are so egger to shove your point of view into other peoples brains. You know this is a f ucked up world we live in . The wrong that goes unreported on kids who from day one were out in the cold no one is talking about it here…You are trying to figure out my point????? Come on man…………

So ... are you advocating that someone who you judge as unfit should have their kids taken? We know better off kids are never left alone to entertain themselves while mommy and daddy are both out earning an income (ever heard the term "latchkey kids"?) It's just the poor kids who do drugs and steal and ... Get real! A kid of 14 doesn't need a babysitter when he/she gets home from school and the parents still have two or three hours until quitting time. A kid of 14 can get into a hell of a pile of trouble in those two or three hours ... and they're NOT abandoned.

I figured out your point. On the end of something so narrow, it's not that difficult. Now ... what has it to to with the rights of the Unborn?

 

[Praxius]

And it was wrong.

I really didn't care one way or another, or else I would have picked a better example.

Where did I say the fetus should have those rights? I didn't. I'm only telling you that you're simply wrong to consider a developing human as anything but human life. That is exactly what it is. Is that clear enough for you?

Nope.... It is humanoid... but not "Human Life" Once again, if anything, it is just the potiential of human life. Whether or not you want to take that potiential and skip a few steps to call it life, is up to you, but it'd still be wrong.

Once you start calling it "Life" then you open the door to the rights, which is why I direct it to you as if you are claiming it should have rights, because that's what the whole "Pro-Life" argument balances on in the first place.

This is why I said you fit option A, ignorant. An adult human is still human life.

Correct, except for the ignorant part.

A human embryo is still human life.

No, it's the potiential of human life, just like a chicken egg has the potiential of being a chicken. A fetus still has the potiential of being stillborn, or ceasing development halfway through pregnancy..... hince not having the chance to live in the first place.

If you start halfway in building a bridge and then halfway through, you stop or run out of supplies, it's not really a bridge now is it? It's not a bridge until it is completed.... just like nothing on this planet is what it is until it is fully developed.

"Hey what's that you got there?"

"Oh... that's my bridge."

"All I see are a bunch of wood and stones.... doesn't look like a bridge to me.... it doesn't go all the way across...."

"Oh, well it's still in development...."

"Then it's not a bridge now is it?"

"No I suppose not.... But it will be."

A human zygote is still human life.

No, it's just a human zygote.

The classification you're talking about is for life stages, it doesn't negate the fact that it's still human.

As mentioned before, it's no different then a "Human Heart" compared to a "Pigs Heart" Life stages are exactly that..... stages towards life.

Yes, I know the classifications very well. It's not reinventing the wheel until someone like you uses them to say it's not human because it isn't an adult.

I didn't say anything in relation to being an adult, don't start throwing words into my mouth.... if that was the case, then children wouldn't be humans either now would they?

I acknowlege that it is Humanoid.... but it is not a living Human.

A three year old child can't reproduce. Yet it's still a human. One criteria for life is the ability to produce progeny. But it's still a human life, which is in the process of developing into an adult, as is the embryo.

Big difference is it's ability to be independant in function.... while as a fetus, it completely relies on the potiential mother for energy and development..... including oxygen to the brain and the rest of the body. Not to mention infants at the very least have the ability to express that they have a provable consciousness.

Maybe if you read more carefully, and don't ascribe beliefs to me that I haven't revealed to you, you wouldn't make such colossal blunders. Human rights are given at birth, and I'm fine with that.

Fair enough, but I question your position on "Human Life" which leads to Human Rights down the road of the argument.

That legal classification doesn't change the fact that what is in the woman's womb is a human.

Which is no more human then a dead body. Until there is consciousness that can be proven, then in regards to other people's arguments in this debate (Perhaps not your own) it may very well be humanoid... but isn't necessarily a living human which can feel pain and/or suffer.

Any more alive? Well that makes no logical sense at all. Tissue is either living or it isn't. It can't be more alive than something else which is alive. Probably why you've never seen any proof or evidence of something which can't be proven.

Dead tissue can be brought back to "life" through various procedures. Cut off a thumb, no blood is reaching it, it is pretty well dead.... keep it frozen, reattach it, allow the blood to return, and it can be alive again.

Someone's heart stops and there is no brain activity, they are clinically dead.... yet they can still be revived within a short period of time.

My reference to organs being alive is in reference to their collective function which makes the individual alive. After a certain amount of key organs, or perhaps just one fail and no longer works, it dies, and perhaps so do we. Their activity is what brings our own life.... it is the operation of those which helps give us consciousness.

That has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that there are two living things. The fetus maybe dependent on the mother, but that doesn't change the fact that it is another living thing.

I have yet to see any proof that it is a seperate living thing.... it may hold some traits of being seperate, but until I see evidence of individual consciousness, it isn't actually an individual.

For the last time you dumb ass, I'm not trying to extend our fundamental human rights to the unborn.

Lick my un-holy arsehole you degenerate scum-fu*k..... if you can't keep the argument civil, then don't expect me to do the same.

I'm only explaining to you in clear language how a embryo is human life. You have yet to demonstrate that it isn't.

I already have countless times.... you have yet to prove that it is life at all, and unless you can back up some evidence and actual studies/reports showing that a fetus has any form of consciousness, then you have proved one damn thing.

And if I have to continually repeat myself, you can deal with your own repetition.... at least I have yet to lose my cool over this redundancy.

And I was agreeing with you... that would be the slippery slope if I was arguing for extending said rights. Man you are thick.

They say Irish have thick heads.... deal with it.

Let's go a step further then, shall we? If you believe a fetus is "Human Life" then what is your reasoning for a fetus not having human rights? You can't have it both ways unless you explain yourself logically..... which I have yet to hear.

No it doesn't. A ten year old is a developing human. A 16 year old is a developing human. A embryo is a developing human. What is it that you're having problems understanding about that?

individual consciousness..... is there any? You have yet to give me one straight answer on this. Get your sh*t together.

It is valid, but it wasn't what you originally said, and it's completely different from 'individual' and 'independent' humans. Ergo, changing goal posts when it becomes convenient for your argument.

Individual as in individual consciousness.... independant as in indepentant bodily function.... both are relivent, both are two seperate topics in which I am talking about, which both relate, I have not changed goal posts over anything just yet.... keep up will you.

You didn't cover them at once. If you did it would have made even less logical sense. I can run laps around you

Really? Then how come you got Individual and Independant mixed up as the same thing? You're silly.

Not true. First of all, it's not a potential mother, it is a mother. Using resources doesn't make it an extension of the mother, because living things are classified in this fashion:
cells--->tissue--->organ--->organ systems--->organism, and then onto population classifications.

An organism has it's own DNA, which means all the way down to cells, it is different from other organisms, except for things like fungi and bacteria, which can produce clones. As soon as the cell division and multiplication begin with the embryo, the cells are dividing into three different types of germ layers, which direct the cells to form specific organs and organ systems. Those systems show up well before the fetus emerges from the womb as an infant. During the pregnancy, the fetus is producing it's own antibodies, which can cause problems between the mother and fetus. It is not at all an extension of the mother. It is a different organism, with different characteristics entirely.

I am fully aware of everything being "Alive" in some extent or another, which is why I used the organ explination.... if we wanted to cut it right down to fine details, everything in the universe in which we know is made up of atoms.... so one could argue that a Rock, the Sun, our planet is alive.... this is not what I am debating.... I am talking about "Human Life" and "Human Consciousness." Having different DNA, is not an explination of being "Alive" as DNA can be still found in fossils centuries beyond their original life.... that doesn't make them alive now, does it?

I already know you're not for giving human rights to fetusesezezezez...... My argument I am presenting in in reference to "Known Human Life and Consciousness" for the purposes of the other side of the argument of those who want to place human rights onto fetusesezezezessesz......

So in other words, we're arguing over nothing..... fun eh?

You're simply wrong, and if you took any biology classes at all, it would be perfectly clear to you where your numerous fallacies are.

I did take biology, I understood it, and I don't agree with it all..... not hard to understand.

A parasite is a living thing with different physiology and genetics, completely separate from the host. An organ is part of an organisms body, and is not separate. An embryo is physiologically the same, and genetically different.

Ya.... I already know this as well.... I believe the confusion in this argument is that we're both trying to say in which is the same thing, but different..... perhaps it's my accent. I am speaking about "Human Life which should have Human Rights" ~ I already know your position in this, which is why you're getting all pissy.... you're just taking my position and argument in the wrong direction, as it's not actually supposed to be directed to you in the first place. When I say in this debate "Life" I am referring to "Human Life/Consciousness" not life in general.... which is why I was referring to parasites and organs as not being "Alive" in the sense I was talk about.

I believe this is where this whole thing started off from.

You're way out of your league here. I'm starting to think you're actually option A, ignorant about simple classification schemes taught in introductory biology classes, and option C, ideologue, since you seem to keep confusing my differences with you as being intended to grant rights which I never said I agree with, and have in fact explicitly said I do not.

I think you're also Option A: Ignorant on what the hell I'm trying to explain.... perhaps now you might understand where I am coming from..... sorry for simplifying my wording, I just figured I would try and avoid making long posts.