Just for the record
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:57:46 -0400, BAR wrote:

So answer his question. Just when does a fertilized egg become a human?

At conception.

===

That's a religious view not supportable by any logic or science. It
even fails the common sense test. You are entitled to your beliefs
as long as you don't try to legislate them for everyone else.

It is not a religious view.

When two monkeys ****, conception of a monkey occurs.

Just for the record
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:31:39 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

On 9/24/2011 6:08 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:57:46 -0400, wrote:

So answer his question. Just when does a fertilized egg become a human?

At conception.

===

That's a religious view not supportable by any logic or science. It
even fails the common sense test. You are entitled to your beliefs
as long as you don't try to legislate them for everyone else.


What do you care? We have abortion on demand now, what more do you want?
You have taken the parents out of the equation, which "even fails the
common sense test". Like I said before, compromise for abortion
advocates, and most other zealots is just a means to an end.. Now that
you have it 100% your way you want it to be considered settled law, and
nobody else can have an opinion on it.. I get it.

It actually was "settled law" until the religious zealots, with whom
you apparently identify, tried to make their religious opinion a
secular law.

There is no such thing as "settled law."

It is sad that parents had to be "taken out of the equation," but
there are parents that, due to religious convictions, will allow
children to starve, go without medical treatment, and other
(secularly) ridiculous actions. Even now, there are parents that feel
that NOT vaccinating their children (boys AND girls) against HPV,
which causes cervical cancer, will keep then chaste and pure. They are
even taking their position to court to defend their right as parents
to allow their children to get cervical cancer. But that is sane,
right?

Parents have been taken out of the equation because the liberals beliefs
are contrary to those of conservatives and the liberals cannot stand to
let others live their own lives.

Just for the record
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:08:28 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:57:46 -0400, BAR wrote:

So answer his question. Just when does a fertilized egg become a human?

At conception.

===

That's a religious view not supportable by any logic or science. It
even fails the common sense test. You are entitled to your beliefs
as long as you don't try to legislate them for everyone else.

Wholeheartedly agree, let me restate:

You are entitled to your religious beliefs, as long as you don't try
to make them the law of the land.

Why are beliefs based upon religous principles contrary to the public
good but beliefs based upon secular humanism are encouraged as good for
the public?

Typically law comes from a deity thru a king to the people. Or have you
forgotten about history, all of history.

Just for the record
 

"Wayne B" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:57:46 -0400, BAR wrote:

So answer his question. Just when does a fertilized egg become a human?

At conception.

===

That's a religious view not supportable by any logic or science. It
even fails the common sense test. You are entitled to your beliefs
as long as you don't try to legislate them for everyone else.

----------------------------------------------

True ... The Roman Catholic Church defined a human as existing at
conception. At least it used to. Don't know what
the RCC preaches now. However:

I take exception to your reliance on a scientific definition of when a human
first exists as well. Try as I might, I have yet
to find any *proof* based in science as to when a human first exists or
when it transitions from a fertilized egg, fetus
to a "human".

There are many science based papers on the subject and discussions as to the
development of the brain, it's "wiring" and
when that wiring develops connections to the spine and nervous system, etc.
However, none of this science or medical
explanation is *proof*. It's simply consensus. It may make logical sense
based on what is known, but it is still an
opinion, theory and general agreement in the scientific community.

It also presents a bit of a sticky wicket in terms of defining by a period
of time or date as to when the transition from
fetus to human occurs, simply because the development in the womb is not
exactly the same for each fetus, baby or
human ... however you want to define it. One pregnancy could have a
faster or slower development than another. So how can
we arbitrarily (for legal purposes) define when a particular fetus
transitioned to a human? We can't.
So we "average" it. Hmmm. That means we might abort a fetus in one case
and abort a human in another.
Are we and the scientists smart enough to determine that? Do we have the
right?

Lastly, science has been proven to be dead wrong many, many times over the
centuries. At one time the consensus
was that the world was flat. More recently (like two days ago) some
scientists at the CERN facility believe they found
matter that travels faster than the speed of light. (yet to be confirmed,
but I heard about this years ago in another experiment).
If proven to be true, all bets are off in the world of physics and
generally accepted theories.

So ... with no proof really of anything, I think we are all correct to
believe in what we are comfortable with with, (and I agree
with you) that one person's or group's beliefs are not legislated to
others.

Eisboch

Just for the record
 

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:41:44 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

I think we are all correct to
believe in what we are comfortable with with, (and I agree
with you) that one person's or group's beliefs are not legislated to
others.

======================

That is key. Religious beliefs should not be legislated.

Just for the record
 

On 9/24/2011 8:00 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:41:44 -0400, wrote:

I think we are all correct to
believe in what we are comfortable with with, (and I agree
with you) that one person's or group's beliefs are not legislated to
others.

======================

That is key. Religious beliefs should not be legislated.


So, we can cut out all this Global Taxing via the Church of Al Gore
stuff now?

Just for the record
 

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:08:28 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:57:46 -0400, BAR wrote:

So answer his question. Just when does a fertilized egg become a human?

At conception.

===

That's a religious view not supportable by any logic or science. It
even fails the common sense test. You are entitled to your beliefs
as long as you don't try to legislate them for everyone else.

Wayne, are you feeling legislated against?

Just for the record
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:41:44 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

I think we are all correct to
believe in what we are comfortable with with, (and I agree
with you) that one person's or group's beliefs are not legislated to
others.

======================

That is key. Religious beliefs should not be legislated.

Religious beliefs have been legislated or codified in law for thousands
of years. Our own founding documents have references to deities.

Just for the record
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:58:45 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

On 9/24/2011 2:05 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:47:56 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree! BUT, when someone acts like they are absolutely
SURE that a fetus is a human, then he must know when a fertilized egg
becomes a human.

I don't have a puppy in that fight. ;-)

... nor should the government.


But they did get involved. Rowe vs Wade. It's settled law according to
the Supreme Court, the govt. is involved.

If the government had not become involved before that there would be
no need for R v W.

Ok, my timeline was off, but when the SCOTUS got involved, they owned it..

R v W was a political compromise. Neither side was completely
satisfied and still aren't.
I could argue both sides effectively but I come down on the side that
women have the freedom to decide what they do with their body. (as do
men)
That is drugs, prostitution, gambling, riding without a helmet or
abortion. It is none of the government's business.
If God cares about her aborting her baby, she will have to deal with
that herself and if she burns in everlasting hell, It is still her
business, not mine.

Should men have to pay child support when they wanted the fetus aborted?

Just for the record
 

On 9/24/2011 8:42 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:58:45 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

On 9/24/2011 2:05 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:47:56 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree! BUT, when someone acts like they are absolutely
SURE that a fetus is a human, then he must know when a fertilized egg
becomes a human.

I don't have a puppy in that fight. ;-)

... nor should the government.


But they did get involved. Rowe vs Wade. It's settled law according to
the Supreme Court, the govt. is involved.

If the government had not become involved before that there would be
no need for R v W.

Ok, my timeline was off, but when the SCOTUS got involved, they owned it..

R v W was a political compromise. Neither side was completely
satisfied and still aren't.
I could argue both sides effectively but I come down on the side that
women have the freedom to decide what they do with their body. (as do
men)
That is drugs, prostitution, gambling, riding without a helmet or
abortion. It is none of the government's business.
If God cares about her aborting her baby, she will have to deal with
that herself and if she burns in everlasting hell, It is still her
business, not mine.

We are the same mind here... But compromise, hardly. It was an means to
an end, the end being abortion on demand and we are there now...