Death_By_Pod

Define maturity, as I understand people 13-15 are completely undeveloped mentally; only when you get to 18 (and in many cases even older) do you START to really understand the true meaning of maturity and life. Those mature kids are doing exactly the same thing as those "trendy" kids who like to drink and party; they are just copying of social norms. The "mature" kid is copying of his parents (or older people 30+) as they perceive that image represents being an adult; you get responsibility with that freedom and the choice to do things that kids (immature people, of course) can not do. Where as the "immature" kid is copying of young people (18-25) as they think at that we are free, have complete control of your life and can do as you please; these people are still youthful, having fun and being trendy, what more can you want? Both are opposite in action but similar in philosophy (being an adult, with freedom); in my opinion neither one is more mature then the other; it is a show either way. Now why are kid doing this more commonly then say 50 years ago; it seems to be a result of technological understanding and forcing more and more difficult problems (not just math but things such as self image and popular culture). As more and more we discover in science and technology the more things you have to learn and in order to understand cutting edge science you need more and more pre requisites. These pre requisites are then pushed earlier and earlier forcing the child to act like an adult when they clearly donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have the mental capacity of one; the exact same thing can be said about fashion and pop culture. They are marketing 'adult' clothes in children sizes capitalising that these kids will think itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s mature and will buy as much as they can; music is the same thing, all you see is older people re enforcing the 'adult' style in their video clips and discussing content that would never have been allowed to air 10 years ago. I think kids are losing those years that are spent 'being a kid' are cutting to 'being an adult' without the mind frame of one. Sorry for the incoherent sounding reply, just writing as it came to mind.

Cloning one's self, freezing your body (or someone else's) for the future, kidney stealing; basically anything. It's not just abortion but that is what we are trying to talk about here.

Death_by_Pod, There is no potential in an egg cell, or a sperm cell to become a fully functional human in and of itself. It is only at the moment of conception that there becomes potential for a fully functional human to be born. Because you are clearly not comprehending my position, there is really nothing more to say on this matter, saddly. :( I would point out though, that there is not a single known species that could even come close to qualifying as "human" by my deffinition that reproduces asexually. The problem here is that you are excluding us as being unique (or outside of classification). However we are interconnected in the vast web of animals some look different, act different or reproduce different. If you want to ignore this simple fact then there is very little I can do as I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t persuade someone stuck in a different mentality. Like you said it's your definition and quite frankly it is rather different to many others (hell my definition could be that foetusÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s become alive when they are born therefore I win but I'm not playing like this). I would have thought that the fact that these species all lie in the same kingdom (Animalia) that would prove that they are living and are in some way human (in the form of some shared traits). Thus if we are interconnected with animals that have the ability to asexual reproduce then potential would existent in all sex cells regardless of ability. Can you apply the Potential model to asexual animals? How do things such as fragmentation and regeneration signify a transfer of potential? It just becomes way too messy and vauge.

Just because they have half the DNA doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean that they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist as potential. We only use half DNA from each parent as a form of evolution and diversity to help us adapt to the best situation by making certain traits dominant or recessive due to the underperforming trait die before it can get passed down. Asexual reproduction is natural it can be found in a variety of organisms, it would obviously be a part of intelligent design (as they exist because a creator created them) however these organisms generally favour r-Selection (many siblings) over K-selection (few siblings). What if we were an r-selection species; we would not expect our children to survive nor would we have a need for diversity and we would only consist of one sex and focus on numbers? The amount of DNA a reproduction cell (and hence its sex) is only a evolutionary trait and only suits the potential argument because we are a species that favours few siblings, proper caring and diversity have we were the other way around this argument would not hold.

To Zealot with regards to the potential stuff (since quite a lot of stuff is mostly off topic and potential is the bulk of the argument at hand): Ok letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s say that you are right and we should keep the foetus because of its potential. Would it not be a loss of potential if we did not use every ovum that a female has? One of those ova must develop into a child that cures cancer or the next countries ruler (as someone will have to eventually fill these shoes; it just takes time) and if this wonderful person depended on the outcome of wether safe sex is practiced or not (have a chance or greatly remove the chance of conceiving); would it not be murder if the couple decided to abstain? What would have been if they did decided to take the chance, an important figure yet this type of "abortion" is not recognised. Another way at looking about foetal abortion is if the parents did plan to abstain permanently then the issue would never arise therefore the argument of potential would never exist yet the moment they remove abstinence the issue of potential suddenly arises (because the chance of having a child is always above 0). How could we value a child before we even decide if we want to abstain or not? So if it is a foetus it is more valuable then the ova (the rarer sex cell) that are used to create the foetus? There were probably a couple of other points I wanted to make however they left my mind while working on the above ahh well. Okay I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help answer a few more of the other more off topic replies :) In response to the unlikelihood of resurrecting the dead: Many people long ago thought that child birth was an act of god. They did not know anything about DNA and how that is used to form a child. It would sound like a sin to meddle with God's work yet we now know how to engineer a child's birth and in turn help people who normally could not have children as well as to help discover defects in the birthing process. The same could also be said for the human anatomy; it was unlawful to study the human body but since that law has changed we have a great understanding on how a lot of things work and this helps us live a longer and healthier life. You can see where this is going; if we can resurrect people that would mean we are one step closer to total immortality giving us the ultimate in a long life, we might not know much but I would expect in a few hundred years we will be able to solve this problem. I know in my lifetime; [projected] life expectancy will grow by a rate of more then 1 year per year. Morality: morality (good or bad actions) could be explained as a trait, people who are viewed as good by others will more likely to pass their trait along to their siblings. People call Hitler bad because he condoned the murder of others and this is in conflict of good moral traits and anyone with these traits would think he is bad and people with bad traits would think he was right (please note this is an extremely simple explanation). Rape is a fairly dominant trait however it is superseded by the trait that views rape as bad. The gun law you said itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not evil to own a gun yet it is solely used as a tool for harm and in the eyeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s of just about everyone this is an evil thing. Biodiversity: The tree of life idea is misinterpreted (like how people think that evolution means we come from apes, which is incorrect). Natural selection would naturally produce 1 species for the top of the food chain in each environment. Naturally when life was simplistic there would be little competitive advantage over similar species but the more advantage one species slowly gets over another, the faster the other species will get wiped out leaving the better species to increasing their skills making them even more powerful. Any new species are based on the old species except they have changed some of their features to better cope with the environment. Like the saying there is always room for improvement. Koko (and others): I believe animalÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s carry Abstract thinking (nowhere near close to our level). It would take some form of abstract thinking to find the best way to find and eat food, build homes/nests for shelter, for mice (and other animals) to find their way out of mazeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s and other such problems.

Ok this is going to be long and hard; you have given me a lot of philosophy rather then cold hard facts. Originally I wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t going to say much because in essence you are a Christian Extremist and if thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what you want to be I respect that but that wont help me try to show you a 3rd person opinion of abortion. The longer I read this the more I can talk about; so let me say this is going to be long and will not follow your rebuttal but rather done on an idea basis. Ohh to heck with it I'm going through with it paragraph at a time. A new line will represent a new rebuttal to your's. I always love a good debate against extremists. --- cowÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââard n. One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. igÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâânoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââble adj. Not noble in quality, character, or purpose; base or mean. Not of the nobility; common. What is wrong with being a coward by having an abortion? To who, you? The mother is taking her best interests in having an abortion; this is not an easy decision to take. You refer to the foetus as if it were a child; please remember that it is much less then that it only has an extremely small percent of function that a child maintains. If it was not for the parent's reproduction in the first place then the foetus would not exist, thus the abortion of a child a moot point as you say? The foetus has no choice in the creation of its existence, that comes down to the parents so why should the right to end what was begun, be taken away from them? Ill keep pushing this point that the foetus is parasitic and relies solely on the mother and is incapable to make any choice in its early stages of growth (first 3 months for arguments sakes). So in this paragraph you accept a foetuses ability to go from brain dead to brain living but you can not accept that one day we may be able to do that for the dead? If nature can do it surely we can reproduce this to grant ourselves immortality. I'm not going to speculate if there is or isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a god but coming from an agnostic point of view (you see I accept that if a god can be proven to exist then he exists and visa versa) moral is not created by religion. Therefore I do not require the need for a creationism point of view; we can spontaneously evolve from chance. I will leave this point with a short review of a book which deals with this and the review conveys quite well my idea. "Drawing on evolutionary psychology, Skeptic publisher and Scientific American contributor Shermer (Why People Believe Weird Things) argues that the sources of moral behavior can be traced scientifically to humanity's evolutionary origins. He contends that human morality evolved as first an individual and then a species-wide mechanism for survival. As society evolved, humans needed rules governing behavior-e.g., altruism, sympathy, reciprocity and community concern-in order to ensure survival. Shermer says that some form of the Golden Rule-"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"-provides the foundation of morality in human societies. Out of this, he develops the principles of what he calls a "provisional ethics" that "is neither absolute nor relative," that applies to most people most of the time, while allowing for "tolerance and diversity." According to the "ask-first" principle, for instance, the performer of an act simply asks its intended receiver whether the act is right or wrong. Other principles include the "happiness" principle ("always seek happiness with someone else's happiness in mind"), the liberty principle ("always seek liberty with someone else's liberty in mind") and the moderation principle ("when innocent people die, extremism in the defense of anything is no virtue, and moderation in the protection of everything is no vice")." So basically if we hurt people then obviously we are not going to have a good chance with meeting the right mate for your children, which all boils back down to evolution. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know where you get your information from but the encyclopaedia still says they exist along with 6 other past species. I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t show you any offline resources but I will provide you with a link to an online source which is constantly updated and is probably one of the largest online sources of information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus) You should mind that there are other species living or dead. The greater variety of species shows how increasingly valid evolutionism is. But this topic has evolved far from the origins of abortion. You are right and for that I present you Koko; http://www.koko.org/friends/index.koko.html Much like my last post we can communicate with animals because they have brains and thus some form of intelligence but we do not spend enough time teaching/learning each others language. Surely this Gorilla will compel you enough but I'm sure you will respond with some conspiracy theory much like how god changed the carbon-content in bones to make scientists think things were older than 6,000 years? My view of what human ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅisÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Sorry I havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t responded earlier as IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve just finished up some exams and the computer has been in heavy use. Each spaced paragraph will represent a rebuttal to each of your points (albeit some are 1 sentence but I will address them in some way). Rebuttal: I think a pregnancy as a result of having unsafe sex while drinking is a relatively low risk situation. A lot more people die from other causes of death, you just listed statistics from two causes of death from the millions of other causes. If you relate that to abortions well, you will have worse odds winning roulette then from dying as a foetus. But your abortion statistics do not take in to account the number of abortions due to an unwanted pregnancy as a result of having unsafe sex drunk, without proper judgement. Now take that number and form it as a percent to the number of occasions people drink and you will reach a percent that will have many 0's before a significant number appears. The death of these foetuses are a result of people who do not want to undergo the physical and financial burden of what having a child is all about. This is a general statistic and just because you get pregnant unwillingly doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make you irresponsible. You are also referring to the foetus as a child, which is untrue. The Foetus is a foetus and nothing more, the same way a dead person is dead and not an adult. So you are saying a domesticated animal (or any other animal for that matter) is somewhat different to a human? They share the same chemical makeup and means of reproduction. They undergo the same process of a new animal. We are one in the same, bonded by the DNA we carry. Animals just have a different sequence of DNA to differentiate between us and them; much the same way we have a different sequence of DNA to show differences in Skin colour, height, sex, hair density and thousands upon thousands of subtle differences. Where do you draw the line to what you call human? White people (which is of course racism within a species); Homo sapiens (But there are many other species in our Genus many with different characteristics and some that are quite similar. Homo neanderthalensis lived with us 10000 year ago and are pretty similar to us, almost identical. Another such example is the 'Hobbit', Homo floresiensis. They were basically Halflings, they are quite different to us yet lived with us 13000 years ago http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html. How about other early species that look more ape then human?). If you start going further back you Get to The Subfamily and this group contains Gorilla's and Chimpanzees. If you go up 1 step to the Family (Hominidae) you introduce The Subfamily Ponginae (which is mainly Orang-utans). The Hominidae Family Share 97% of our DNA, that are some good odds here (a lot better then getting pregnant while drunk I might add) of these things being pretty much identical to us yet they are not human? I would consider 97% DNA sharing a much better mean of measuring humannessÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ then a foetus that does not have any senses, only shape forming and a technically useless heart starting to beat (which can be reproduced with our modern technology). I say most Mammalia would be more related to us then an underdeveloped foetus and probably share similar features to Chordata (which include the rest of the vertebrates and some invertebrates). Your view of what human actually ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅisÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Are people on respirators, or people who are disabled less human than those who aren't? Ending the life of a human being in cold blood isn't murder? Sperm, when given the chance does not develop into an unborn baby. An unborn baby, when given the chance becomes a newborn, then a toddler, teenager, and adult. You have to draw the line somewhere. That somewhere is 3 months, before that it is only a collection of cells. It has no human function therefore it is not alive. If it is not alive then it is dead. If it is dead then it can be removed and buried like the rest of the dead. You are saying Murder is the removal of the "potential" to become an adult. Dictionary meaning: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Says nothing about the removal of potential; it has already been stated that a foetus becomes human after 3 month's; after these 3 months it becomes alive, before then it is a clump of cells, potential. There are a lot of restrictions placed on people (things cost money, 5th world countries do not have anything) so you are saying any restriction is Murder since it removes the potential for a normal life.

God has no place in abortion. Abortion is between the mother and the foetus (and the male that helped create the child). Your usage of God is ad hominem in itself.

:shock: I really can't believe you just said that. That is so narrow minded. Why do we have more right to be here than a spider? Tell me that. Because we're bigger than them? I don't agree that killing any living creature is right. We're more important than animals because God created us with a soul, to be the one creature that can have a relationship with Him. I'll make it clear that I'm against cruelty to animals and the like, but there is no moral implication in killing an animal for food (as long as it's done humanely). Even if you leave Christianity out of it, it's not practical to not kill animals. We get valuable food and clothing from them. The real question is, why shouldn't we kill animals? And at Daan, why does it matter at what stage the pregnancy is at? Even if the embryo is aborted before 3 months has elapsed, it still would have developed a brain and every other feature if it had been allowed to live. You just became pro abortion with that statement. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not practical to not kill animals. We get valuable food and clothing from them. The real question is, why shouldn't we kill animals? It's not practical to not kill foetuses. We lose valuable resources in creating them. The real question is, why shouldn't we kill foetuses. The only reason why you are anti abortion is because of your religion. Without it you would have no problems with it. America is the only country with this problem because they have one of the highest percentages of fanatical Christians. Just because you have faith in your God does NOT JUSTIFY as a reason to put your believes on the rest of the world. Lastly: But the brain and other features BEGIN TO FUNCTION after 3 months. Before the 3 months it is dead. If we grow extra organs on animals are they alive? We can harvest them and still leave the animal intact because that organ is not a part of the network of a LIVING animal. The foetus needs to be alive in order to be a human being. According to you the dead would be classed as living. They have all the parts to be considered living. DonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t kill the dead because they could turn alive again!

:shock: I really can't believe you just said that. That is so narrow minded. Why do we have more right to be here than a spider? Tell me that. Because we're bigger than them? I don't agree that killing any living creature is right. Does that mean you don't eat anything? B/c eating plants or animals requires (usually at least) that the plant/animal die first. Picking the fruit off tree's does not kill the tree. There are some parts of the plant that are designed to be eaten by other animals.

You better not eat anything with fat it may cause a heart attack. You better not breath the air its full of bad chemicals it may give you cancer. And so forth and so forth. There is always a small risk in EVERYTHING you do. It is just nature that brings about this unpredictability. You can not say dont do x because of y; because the is always a y with anything. Cause and effect, they only way to stop it is to die.

Babies aren't parasits. Mothers get the advantage of absorbing stem cells from the foetus, which increases life expectancy and reduces the chance of cancer. Yes they are parasites are an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. Well it comes under the first 3 points and on the last point you said that it absorbs stem cells. Stem cells are the cells of which are used to create the child. Taken from Wikipedia encyclopaedia: "Adult stem cells have been successfully used in treatments for over one hundred diseases and conditions. The use of embryonic stem cells has not yet resulted in any successful treatments, although many researchers believe that they have great potential as the basis of treatments." Embryonic stem cells have no use to us yet. Even if there are left over stem cells its like shedding skin the child will just leave in the womb. The absorption process does not keep the cell intact. It breaks down to the smaller components; there is no further use for them. If you want to remove adult stem cells this requires human intervention, without scientific progress this process would not even exist. Further more these adult stem cells may not even be suitable for the adult as it is based on the childÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s specifications. As I'm not a Biology expert so I could be wrong so any external links (unbiased. So none of those dodgy Christian anti-abortion sites would be appreciated). Many scientists would disagree with you there. The host cell is alive; but the virus itself isn't. Hehe I'm not really sure why we're talking about viruses anyway:). Then how does it hijack its host cells to reproduce? It needs some form of penetration to inject its DNA. This relates to abortion because they are parasitic much like babies yet are normally classified as Dead. I'm not sure how this is relevant to abortion? This is relevant as it is proof that the zygote and subsequent forms are parasitic and that it is not anything until enough of the parent's energy is used in the production of a "living" foetus. The implications are that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the parents right to abortion as a child may be an unwanted parasite physically destroying the life of the mother. There is no moral implication in killing animals. Humans are a different matter. We kill millions of animals every day for food. I believe that millions of vegetarians, vegans and PETA supporter's would believe otherwise. It is a moral dilemma and some people (much like anti-abortionists and in greater numbers, spread across a greater diversity of the world population) do believe that it is just as much murder no matter what animal you kill. Buddhists anyone? Again, there's nothing wrong with killing animals, but humans are more important. See above point. We are only more important as we perceive we are. If we could take to animals they too would perceive that they are superior to each other. We even see it in out own population; some people perceive that some races are above others. Animals are just as much like us as we are like them (they share the same base which they reproduce and form); we just have not spent enough time in learning their language. If you have ever got close to a pet animal you would understand what I'm talking about. My ex-pet was more of a companion then any baby could ever be. The only way you could take a moral stance is if you are a creationist (over an evolutionist) and a Christian (over an agnostic or atheist). And guess what until there is ANY REAL PROOF that a god exists then you are going to have to accept the scientific and non bigotry view of biology.

The operative word being stupid ;). In this case, many of the girls would be using abortion as a means of birth control, which in itself is pretty crazy, as it can render the girl infertile. Why should the baby die just because it isn't wanted? Frankly, if you don't want a child, then don't go through the process that creates one. You do understand that drugs alters a state of mind. What you naturally think as logical normally may not apply when youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re under the influence. Personally if I were having sex drunk the last thing I would think of is it a cause for children. Rather it would be a expression of raw emotion brought out by an altered state of mind.

Viruses don't respire or excrete; and are incapable of movement of themselves. I'd argue that they are not "alive" in the same way that prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells are. Consisting solely of DNA in a protein coat (as I'm sure you know) they're more akin to biological toxins than traditional cells. A foetus on the hand consists of cells that are very much alive; its stem cells will one day form specific ones specialised to the task they will perform. I'd challenge that. There are stories of fathers raising a child that they thought was theirs, unaware that their wife had been unfaithful. They raised the child no differently to if it was biologically theirs. In this case it's the though that counts. Ah, but again, those cells wouldn't create a human if left to themselves. It requires human intervention to clone something. The zygote that is formed from the sperm and egg will create a human if left to itself; and so preventing this from happening is to prevent a future person from living. First Point: A virus acts much in the same manner as a child. A virus is a parasite to the host and the foetus is a parasite to its mother. A virus is very much alive; its hijacked cells are its living aspect to the organism (it still has to insert its DNA into a host; this in itself would be a sign of life). It shows inheritance (much like the foetus does of its parents) and is dependent of the host (much like the foetus). Without a host neither organisms would be alive (in this respect I would be talking about a fertilised egg as no further development will take place). A footnote here, link to a real living virus. http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041011/full/041011-14.html Second Point: I'd challenge that. There are stories of fathers raising a child that they thought was theirs, unaware that their wife had been unfaithful. Due to the detachment of the birthing process all a father has to rely on is the truth from his spouse. In this scenario he was told it was his child and with that he treated it in every respect as his child. The only thing that would give away this secret is unusual traits in the child (recessive features that would not appear if it were his child) but if the biological father was similar to the father then it would be hard to determine. If the father knew it was not his child, this would be a different story. Sure he may still take on the same qualities but that maternal bond would be severed as it was not his in the first place. Third Point: The zygote needs human intervention to exist. Sure this human intervention is automatic still does not invalidate the point that, without the mother the child would not be created if left to itself; much like a virus in the previous point. You would have no qualm removing a leech from your body but without a host body this leech would not survive for long. Why not extrapolate this idea further, would it not be murder if we kill any living organism. This would mean we could not kill animals or trees, but surely such a law would not be passed; it is too absurd.

You've relied heavily on science during your argument. By all scientific defitions, that embryo/foetus is alive: it moves, respires, senses, grows, can reproduce, excretes and requires nutrition. That's every feauture of life accounted for. There is no scientific or ethical base for the justification of the systematic murder of unborn children - abortion. What do you think of this then? I feel a foetus is in the same position. Viruses: non-living or alive? A virus hijacks its host's cell machinery to create more virus particles, hence completing the life cycle. Viruses are somewhere between being living and non-living. They can reproduce and show inheritance, but are reliant on the complex enzymes of their hosts, and in many ways can be treated like ordinary molecules (for instance, they can be crystalized). Whether or not they are "alive", they are obligate parasites, and have no form which can reproduce independent of their host. Like most parasites they have a specific host range, sometimes specific to one species (or even limited cell types of one species) and sometimes more general.

Is blood relation what's really important? Surely foster parents can love a child as much as any biological parents can. It's the same situation with surrogate mothers. What does it matter that someone gave birth to you? Sure you can love any child; but what really makes it special is that the child you are raising is a piece of you. A maternal bond is stronger then a paternal bond.

Because that embryo, given enough time, would become a human. I'll illustrate my point another way; people are still put in jail for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder, because even if they didn't actually succeed in commiting the murder, they would have if given the chance. Seen the film Minority Report? It's enough that something will happen. Granted, the embryo doesn't have the same sensory ability as a baby, but if allowed to live, it will do. I'd argue that mothers don't have the right to abort their unborn children because those foetuses will become humans in the future. Any of us would be outraged if our parents had the authority to kill us, and why is it any different for an unborn child? I can use DNA from any other living cell in my body for the creation of a child (its called cloning). The sex cells are only a carrier for a child and mechanism for diversity. If I were to gut the sex cells and replace it with the right pieces from another cell it will still produce a child (albeit from only 1 parent). This process has been in use for quite some time and is know as cloning. Given enough time any cell in your body could be used to create a child. We do not outlaw the loss of any of these cells.

it isn't. I know that alot of people will disagree with me on this point, but my stance is that as soon as the sperm has fused with the egg, discontinuing the pregnancy counts as murder. You've got all the genetic material there to create a human, and by all scientific accounts, that embryo is alive. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid which carries genetic instructions for the biological development of all cellular forms of life and many viruses. Remember guys make sure you do no shed any living cells (but you do that quite regually) as that is murder. All cells are made up of DNA which is all the genetic material you need to make a human. There is no difference between a skin cell and an embryo in respect to DNA.

No I'm saying that any law against abortion will be in vain because it will still happen. An abortion may be more convert compared to drink driving and drug use. Can you tell someone has had an abortion within the first few months? It is more difficult to tell and therefore a lot more difficult to enforce. How the hell will you be able to convict someone of abortion when the evidence is long gone? You may say well drug use and drink driving may still happen; to that I say sure it may happen but it is a lot easier for them to be caught. It's a lot like those anti-sodomy laws in Texas (Please correct me here if I'm wrong but I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know much about American laws) people still obtain items to get around this law (like drug dealing) but this is done in a convert way (much like abortion) how many people do you think get caught for possession of a object for sodomy? It is trivial laws that slow down bureaucracy. A murder and punching someone are two different things, they get treated differently so donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t go using logic that involve crimes of a higher magnitude then abortion. Abortion is not a murder; it is a human right.

I know that a lot of people will not agree with me but I'm all for the right for women to get abortions. A lot of people who are against it have an emotional attachment to the final product, a fully functioning baby; but in reality it isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t anything yet, not even its organs are developed. It does not even feel pain until connections have formed and the brain turns the system on after 5 months (20weeks) (any lower amounts would be a deceptive estimate, I.E 8 weeks and pain receivers are spread across the body, however they are not even wired). Taking it from a moral point of view: Even if the child does make it to the world, why do you think the parent wanted to abort the child previously, because it was unwanted? Do you really think that the parents will turn around and suddenly want the child after itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s born? The child would probably be neglected or abused in some cases stunted (physical/mental [developmentally delayed]ation). Sure IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m only talking about a section of the whole here but wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t it be better that no unwanted child be abused and stunted (by giving people the choice to abort) rather then some that do. Look at it from a world point of view; many children die everyday from disease and starvation, why not fix this vital problem before getting on with more Trivial issues. These children die not from neglect but a vast majority due to poverty and lack of education, when you greedy people sit back and argue over things that they could dream of having the luxury of. AmericanÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s (I assume where this debate is taking place) have complete and utter control over their children until they turn 18. This in itself is a horrible violation of human rights. Some Parents forcefully extradite their ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅbadÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Just by looking at resources from the internet (Like I said I'm not a biology/chemistry expert) it seems that you can replace the "atmosphere" with any other type of reducible atmosphere you will still get amino acids. Even if the entire experiment was wrong: Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (Table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall. But whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s really to say that the first proto-cellÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s were made with DNA/RNA replication. There are other forms of replication (like PNA for example) that would thrive under conditions that are not what we experience today. One such theory is an 'RNA world'. But if you the amino acids keep moving around eventually it will hit an order which makes replication, self replicating. All you need it time (I think 3.5-3.8 billion years is enough) for everything to fall into place. There is a FAQ that deals with transitional fossil records here ---> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html so there is another piece of the puzzle to put away. I'm not going to be posting too much more in the coming weeks due to a whole heap of exam's but if you want to leave stuff then Ill look up the posts whenever I can.

Maybe you should stop spamming; there is little flaming going on in this thread.

Uniformitarianism is an assumption and it works well in geology because the Earth is a small system living in 1 tiny part of the universe. Making an assumption in physics does not make it a law. However in classical physics we use symmetry to simplify things to describe what is law. Just because it works here doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean it works everywhere. If I asked you what you would weigh on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy you would use w = mg but if I were to say prove it you would cite examples within our galaxy. In order to truly prove it you would have to go to the planet in question and weigh yourself. We have not seen energy move from low values to high values is because we are living in a time when the universe is expanding. In a closed Universe eventually the universe will collapse on itself bringing energy to a higher value which is in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics. Like you said when we observe is dominant and I agree however just because it is dominant doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean we can rule it out. Why does the outside of the universe matter? Well it matters because it harbours our universe. Just like our universe harbours matter; if our universe does not exist then neither do our planets and if this place outside of our universe doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist then neither does our universe. Current thinking has it that the reason why gravity is so weak is because of the number of dimension our universe contains (10/11) and the fact that gravitons may be able to escape our universe altogether. If you want to treat this as meta-physics then you should treat the big bang as Meta physics (but you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t because it has a beginning as shown by red shifting stars) because you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t test the beginning. Yes you are right energy can not be created or destroyed at any time however if you create +ve energy and also create an equal amount of -ve energy, it cancels leaving no energy. It is shown that particles come to and from existence through quantum fluctuations (a particle and an anti particle pair form and then quickly cancel each other out and disappear). It could be extrapolated that the stuff outside of the universe would create a universe and an anti-universe (but due to the size the universe and anti-universe pair exists for a lot longer then atom pairs would) which would collide and disappear, cancelling each other out. So basically, what you are saying is that because the laws of physics aren't necessarily universal, there's no point in studying them, because tomorrow, they may be totally different? If we understand our current physics we can take advantage of them and make things easier for ourselves. Our laws of Physics did not always exist; just like the same reason water doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exists when its over 100 degree's c; our universe didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have things such as matter, Electricity, magnetism, and the weak force (If you go far back enough all forces act as 1) due to the fact is was too hot. If our universe is STILL cooling then it could be possible one day it gets cool enough so that the universe changes form again. The laws of physics can create itself is the total energy created = 0. This is done by +ve and -ve particle pairs, which can be extrapolated to the universe itself or if the universe is Closed the universe naturally cycles between being really big and being really small (much like a pumping heart). The reason why things such like pi is always 3.142.... is because of geometry of the universe. If you draw a triangle on a piece of paper it's angles will add up to 180degree's but if drawn on a balloon it will add up to over 180degrees and drawn on a saddle shape will be less then 180 degree's. What do you call a miracle and what do you call good luck (or chance). If you give the universe long enough anything can happen. The time it would take for you to "magically" appear on say Mars would take longer then the entire span of the universe to happen (it could happen but the probability that all your particles would appear on Mars would be extremely tiny) but like anything it can happen at anytime. Much like the half life of an unstable atom, we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know when it will become stable (and emit radiation) however we know the time when it half of the atoms will become stable. Evolution stuff (I'm not a biologist so I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really talk too much about it on biology aspects but I can talk about the physical aspects such as probability): Amino Acids like everything else in the universe, if given enough time the acids will appear in the right order to support reproduction (however the majority of orders that you can put amino acids in will result in nothing, there are orders that will result in something). Atheists are just as blind as theists. Again with the time argument about 100million years of evolution; it may take a while to get going but once it does it improves rapidly (like our technology for a modern day example). A possible reason why we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see much evolution is because evolution on a large scale has basically levelled out and there is little use for any more evolution (one day computers will be as fast as possible because they reach the theoretical limits of optics and size). And finally Gravity DOES bring order out of chaos and because you seem to be rather stubborn about this point I will include Scanned Images of a part of a science book that describes this process. Disclaimer: The following scans are legal under Australian Copyright laws (which the reproduction has taken place). They are reproduced under the "fair use" laws which allow 10% or 1 chapter to be reproduced without authorisation for Non-commercial, educational purposes ONLY. Part Taken from Brian Greene's book, The Fabric of the Cosmos All rights reserved; Published by Penguin Group. (If mods want further information about this please PM me) Please click the thumbnails for full size, quality reduced images. Edit: Missed a page.

Double Post