While there are many different religious and philosophic beliefs and theories pertaining to when life begins, SCIENTIFICALLY life begins at conception. At the very moment of fertilization or conception, the moment when the father's sperm joins the mother's ovum, the fetus contains all the genetic information that baby will have for the remainder of his or her lifetime.

Any medical embryology book you reference will confirm that this new unique human creation is a defined sex and is alive, complete and growing.

At the very moment of conception, this creation is completely human, unique from any other living organism. This new developing baby has the same 46 chromosomes he or she will have until death. The fetus is a living human being who contains SEPERATE and UNIQUE chromosomal structures from it's mother.

That means they deserve all the same rights to life that other INDIVIDUALS enjoy. There can be no doubt that human life exists from the very onset of pregnancy.

No human being should be discriminated against based on his or her stage of development, place of residence (inside the womb) or arbitrary notion of "when life begins".

When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, it is the one who got hit that howls, growls, or barks the loudest....

:eclipsee_gold_cup::eclipsee_gold_cup::eclipsee_gold_cup::eclipsee_go ld_cup:

That is an opinion stated as a fact. Stating it as a fact doesn't not make it any less an OPINION. Mother Theresa also said it's good for the sick to suffer so that they could experience Christ's sufferring.

This is one reason that the term 'viability' gets thrown around a lot. Studies show that 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriages - so if you suddenly give 'rights' to a fertilized egg, do you see an explosion of negligent manslaughter cases (alleging the woman didn't take care of herself).

And what about twins? Now we're finding out that there are more cases of one twin surviving and absorbing the other 'failed' twin than was ever suspected. To be a little ridiculous, do we have judges on standby in the maternity ward to press charges against a newborn baby for killing it's sibling?

How does this view correlate with the public expenditures required to keep, for example, preemies alive? A single premature birth can cost anywhere from a quarter to several million dollars to keep that *born* baby alive.

It's a discussion we don't like to have in this country. Do we save one preemie and deny care to others out of cost control?

It's a terrible thought to think about the strictly financial aspects of the abortion debate. But, remember, abortion is something that is more common among the lower socioeconomic classes. The middle and upper classes generally have kids when they want them because of birth control. So, those lower on the totem pole who already can't afford health care are suddenly those people that you want to require even MORE health care?

It's one of the reasons I've long said that abortion is the symptom, not the disease.

Kinda like this opinion stated as fact?
Sure would like to see the medical book where this came from...

I personally don't care what the French think...

Mother Theresa also said it's good for the sick to suffer so that they could experience Christ's sufferring...Wow, another excellent quote from Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Thanks!

Your suppositions are not as hard to answer as you think.

It is the mother's body and she can eat what she wants. The baby should have a right to a great environment, but some people's parents are wonderful people and some are not. Life's not always fair. If the mother is neglectful, it's sad, but not always criminal.

The point you keep making about one twin absorbing another is unadulterated b.s., and you know it. If a child were to pick up a gun and shoot his 3 yr. old twin there would be nobody who'd consider THAT a crime of the child. So just stuff that one back in you duffel bag of imaginative scenarios.

Money?; you want to talk about the cost of keeping a person alive. Really? Get off that road before you lose your soul.

You've got no case counselor. I suggest you cut your losses.

From Richie:
Well, I might take issue with that bodily function.

My sister in law and her best friend were both pregnant at the same time. Both did drugs daily. Both of their sons are special needs children. Coincidence? Maybe, but my SIL had a previous child born normal and didn't do drugs when she was carrying him.

Nobody in the family will talk about it to each other, but it almost borders on criminal to me.

That's because leftists have indoctrinated young people over the years to "not JUDGE" others.

You're not supposed to identify nor confront behaviors that are illegal and health-destroying.

You're supposed to let them have their self-esteem however they built it.

The mother taking drugs IS criminal and the effect of her criminal act upon her child should be no different than if she gave a born baby drugs. It does not excuse killing the child before birth, which amazingly some think is just fine.

On that note, (OPINION) we are reaping the crop from sowing this CRAP...I LOVE (OPINION) this guy's remedy!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAOrT0OcHh0&fb_source=message[/ame]

DaleMN: Every day we wake up to the rising sun with the thought of how we will manage the course that day is a "good day" And as subsequent days fade away it brings us closer and closer to remember that the day's political events are just ,as my Jewish friends say, "bupkus".

Do you have a daughter? How could you read the post I responded to and NOT be angry? Blame it all on women...again. I repeat...it takes 2 to fertilize an egg and both sexes take sex ed classes. Why smear just women?

My post is the one you respond to and ask if I am angry? The rant of the person whose post I responded to did not make you ask why they was so angry? Oh, let me guess. You agree with the original poster. Now I get it.

I typed archaic wrong, please forgive my terrible terrible error. My original post said "how arcaic are you?" Given the context of the sentence, obviously it was not a noun, a thing. Archaic is very old fashioned.

I can't disagree....it's certainly enough for me....but I fear for the future of those younger of the 99% as the Repubs try to protect and advance only the 1%. :doh:

ladydoc: But abortion proponents make it clear that "its a woman's choice only" to decide to keep or abort. Its also a woman's choice to enter into a union that may or may not 'fertilize an egg. You suggest I am being archiac when I am actually just repeating what feminist have been telling woman for years. I am however old fashion enough to say that a man should man up and if he has shared in the responsibility of concepton then he needs to own up to it and do the right thing.

It is obvious that we are on different philosophical planes and will never come to an agreement.