To: weegee
Why are scientists so sure of the origins of life when they cannot even "determine" when life begins after a child is conceived?
Because the issue of when a child exists following the union of sperm and egg is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. There's no mystery of what happens after the union of sperm and egg cells, either immedately after or in the months following, the issue is when the resulting product should be termed a "child".
210 posted on
08/24/2005 12:14:33 PM PDT by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
Because the issue of when a child exists following the union of sperm and egg is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.That's not the issue - the issue is when does human life begin.
The scientific answer is the moment of conception.
The political answer is "much later, in my opinion."
213 posted on
08/24/2005 12:18:40 PM PDT by
wideawake
(God bless our brave troops and their Commander in Chief)
To: Dimensio
If abortion (murder) was not considered a "privacy" issue, there would be no "gray" philosophical question over whether it was life or not.
It is ALWAYS a child. Cell division is life. A beating heart is life. But not to the courts.
218 posted on
08/24/2005 12:24:18 PM PDT by
weegee
(The Rovebaiting by DUAC must stop. It is nothing but a partisan witchhunt.)
To: Dimensio
If it is not a child, because it is forming in a woman's innards, and therefore a "part" of her, what is it when it forms in a test tube?
Is it any less human for not sharing the same "experience" as the majority of mankind?
Since the mother's life is not in danger when a fetus is conceived in a test tube or a petri dish, who should decide if it is allowed to live or die? Does the "father" get equal say with the "mother"?
346 posted on
08/25/2005 1:17:20 AM PDT by
weegee
(The Rovebaiting by DUAC must stop. It is nothing but a partisan witchhunt.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson