Hrm...[of fetuses (feti?) and such]

[Brother Adam]

Can a small child live on its own? Can the elderly live on their own? Can the handicapped live on their own? Are they sub-humans also?

Humans can be born and live pre-term, this is obvious even to the casual observer. Just because a human is receiving nutriution via an umbillical cord rather than suckling its mothers breast does not make it any less of a separate entity from its mother.

Never taken medical embryology eh? Don't worry, the pro-choice movement thrives on the idiocy of its members

[Brother Adam]

Of course it wouldn't surprise me if Chris was convinced that drugs aren't addictive cause the tabacco company told him so.

[Chris of Zewe]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Sep 17 2005, 10:34 AM']But if allowed to live and develop, it will be able to function on its own.

A four year old can't buy food for himself, he must be cared for.  That does not render four year olds outside the realm of normal or functioning.  Fetal development is the same as a period of development outside of the womb...
[right][snapback]726931[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

But it's not there yet, and therefore isn't a functioning human. A sperm cell has the potential to fertilize an egg cell and then to develop into a fetus which will develop into a human, but I'm sure you'd have no qualms with destroying one of each of those.

The concept of commerce is a purely human construct. The four-year-old is perfectly capable of eating and even gathering food and drink for himself to survive on. Aside from that, he is not [b]entirely[/b] dependent on the mother, like the fetus is.

[Chris of Zewe]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Sep 17 2005, 10:35 AM']Can a small child live on its own? Can the elderly live on their own? Can the handicapped live on their own? Are they sub-humans also?

Humans can be born and live pre-term, this is obvious even to the casual observer. Just because a human is receiving nutriution via an umbillical cord rather than suckling its mothers breast does not make it any less of a separate entity from its mother.

Never taken medical embryology eh? Don't worry, the pro-choice movement thrives on the idiocy of its members
[right][snapback]726933[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, yes, and yes. They just have a significantly lower chance of surviving. As I said before, they're not entirely dependent on another for their survival, either. [b][i]And[/i][/b] they're capable of intelligent thought.

[quote]Of course it wouldn't surprise me if Chris was convinced that drugs aren't addictive cause the tabacco company told him so.[/quote]

But...I thought the tobacco company told me that they [b]are[/b] addictive...as has every teacher, cop, and Christian imperialist I've ever encountered.

Edited September 17, 2005 by Chris of Zewe

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Chris of Zewe' date='Sep 17 2005, 11:37 AM']But it's not there yet, and therefore isn't a functioning human.  A sperm cell has the potential to fertilize an egg cell and then to develop into a fetus which will develop into a human, but I'm sure you'd have no qualms with destroying one of each of those.

The concept of commerce is a purely human construct.  The four-year-old is perfectly capable of eating and even gathering food and drink for himself to survive on.  Aside from that, he is not [b]entirely[/b] dependent on the mother, like the fetus is.
[right][snapback]726936[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Read Bro. Adam's post.

The four year old is dependent on his mother for a place to live, sleep, eat, clothes, etc. Unless the child lives in a temperate area with a grove of fruit trees and animals that come up and say "kill and eat me", he's gonna need some help.

I would not destroy sex cells. I don't think I would be able to do anything with them. I would not have taken the sex cells out of the body in the first place. Nor would I condone a method to destroy them in the body, or render them unable to carry out their function.

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='Chris of Zewe' date='Sep 17 2005, 10:39 AM']Yes, yes, and yes.  They just have a significantly lower chance of surviving.  As I said before, they're not entirely dependent on another for their survival, either.  [b][i]And[/i][/b] they're capable of intelligent thought.
But...I thought the tobacco company told me that they [b]are[/b] addictive...as has every teacher, cop, and Christian imperialist I've ever encountered.
[right][snapback]726938[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

what is the difference chris z of a baby 5 months in the womb, and one that is 5 months born and outside of the womb.

Babies in the womb are able to cry, have dreams, get scared and/or frightened, feel any kind of pain just like we are, know their mother's voice very well and form habits such as sucking the thumb even before being born. A couple of weeks the heart and spinal cord, along with the brain begin to develop.

It really is ignorant to call an unborn child a bunch of cells, because that is not only ridiculous but just down right ignoring the facts of science that we know of...Not to mention if they are then thats what we are too.

A miscarriage is not murder or manslaughter unless the mother or someone else intentiaonally were the cause of it.

God bless.

[Chris of Zewe]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Sep 17 2005, 10:46 AM']Read Bro. Adam's post.

The four year old is dependent on his mother for a place to live, sleep, eat, clothes, etc.  Unless the child lives in a temperate area with a grove of fruit trees and animals that come up and say "kill and eat me", he's gonna need some help.

I would not destroy sex cells.  I don't think I would be able to do anything with them.  I would not have taken the sex cells out of the body in the first place.  Nor would I condone a method to destroy them in the body, or render them unable to carry out their function.
[right][snapback]726943[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Only as a result of technology is he seemingly incapable of surviving on his own. He would have no problem picking fruit to eat, drinking water out of a stream, closing his eyes and sleeping, etc. were he to be treated like any other animal. If you abandon him in a human wasteland, such as a city, of course he's not going to survive. Neither will the healthiest man alive if you drop him in the middle of the Sahara Desert. That doesn't make him dependent.

This is such a joke. I'm beginning to remember why I left this accursed place.

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='Chris of Zewe' date='Sep 17 2005, 10:49 AM']Only as a result of technology is he seemingly incapable of surviving on his own.  He would have no problem picking fruit to eat, drinking water out of a stream, closing his eyes and sleeping, etc. were he to be treated like any other animal.  If you abandon him in a human wasteland, such as a city, of course he's not going to survive.  Neither will the healthiest man alive if you drop him in the middle of the Sahara Desert.  That doesn't make him dependent.

This is such a joke.  I'm beginning to remember why I left this accursed place.
[right][snapback]726947[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


a four year old wouldn't know that Chris. he would not be able to fend for himself or haev the ability to use what is around him. your trying to say that he's the same as a 20 year old and their not.

something else (tyoung children's capabilites) you definitely need to learn about before making conclusions like that.

a child in their early years is dependant and will be dependant, and thats a fact.

premature babies have been born months before they are ready too but yet are able to live and survive on their own. of course they need help, but so does the four year old we just talked about. but both show and develop the ability through assistance and care. something each and everyone of us went through. there is no place of separation where unborn children are nothing.

[Brother Adam]

You left because you have no answers for the truths to which you are being presented and thus get frustrated. If you expect us to bow down because you make some empty argument to why you don't believe a human is a human, then that's your own problem. You're arguments abandoned simple precepts of logic.

Medical science, oh ye who needs 'physical proof', has already shown how an embryo from its first day, is an entirely separate entity from its mother, even if it is dependant on its mother for survival, as is a one day old post-birth child. That does not make it any less of a human, and any more the same creature as its mother. To think so is the epitome of absurdity.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Chris of Zewe' date='Sep 17 2005, 10:39 AM']Yes, yes, and yes.  They just have a significantly lower chance of surviving.  As I said before, they're not entirely dependent on another for their survival, either.  [b][i]And[/i][/b] they're capable of intelligent thought.
But...I thought the tobacco company told me that they [b]are[/b] addictive...as has every teacher, cop, and Christian imperialist I've ever encountered.
[right][snapback]726938[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


So chris where is the cut off, a newborn is entirely dependent and is not capable of intelegent thought so should mothers ( or fathers for that matter) be able to kill them until such time as they have reached one of those stages?

Edited September 17, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[avemaria40]

And a fetus isn't just a lump of cells. In my bio class, and at a genetics conference on stem cell research and embryology that i went to (taught at a [i]secular[/i] university) a baby in the womb has a heartbeat before the mother even misses her period, and also has brianwaves. And many ppl don't know they're pregnant till their eight weeks pregnant. By that time they have complete organ systems and look like a baby. And as for the child depending on the mother for survival, i depend on my parents for survival, since i'm still considered a minor at the age of 16 and don't have my own money, still in high school. How else could i have a place to live food to eat, and clothes on my back if i wasn't living with my family since i would have no other place to go to? Also, say a child is dependent on many machines or equipment for survival? Should they be killed? and no one should accuse a woman of a misscarriage being her fault! Misscarriages are naturally occuring abortions in which the woman's body may not produce enough progesterone, or her body can't hold the baby anymore, or the case may be unknown, she might have an illness etc. Many women who have either an abortion or a misscarriage end up suffering horribly. Esp. since many of their friends and family are unsupportive. We should offer help and healing to any woman who undergoes any of these things. Instead of judging a woman, places like Feminists for Life, Catholic Charities, Birthright, Rachel's Vineyard, etc. should be publicized and any woman who needs to heal from a misscarriage should be met with compassion not judgement or have to hear that she can always have more children, she already has other children, the baby wouldn' have been a good kid anyway, etc. Sorry this post is so long, but as a female myself, i feel strongly about such things