Sphag,

You mean he saw barry-bin-laden signing the, "lets murder babies bill".

The bill looks poorly drafted.

That's usually the argument put forward by people who oppose the bill, but don't really have any good reasons why.

From an objective, scientific vantage point there is no denying that life is a continuum of growth and development that begins at conception and ends at death, be that death caused by an abortion or some other factor. Any argument which claims otherwise is based not on science, but on emotion and a desire to justify an easy (if monstrous) "out" for people wishing to rid themselves of the responsibilities of unwanted children.

Don't think that your deception to change your argument from cells being divided as a "child" or "human being" to "life" hasn't been observed.

You just moved the goal posts and blurred the lines all in one post. Nice try.

I don't think that everyone agrees that cells dividing should be considered a child, or human being.

But it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact, and whether you like it or not from the time of conception to the time of death life exists as a continuum of development and growth.

Trying to pick some point arbitrarily within that the gestation phase of that contiuum – such as 6 months into the pregnancy or the time when the child emerges from the womb – is as stupid as picking it some time later in the child's life. Such as when he/she begins to crawl or walk or eat solid foods.

There is no doubt that defining a child post-conception but pre-birth as nothing more than a lump of cells is little more than a politically or socially convenient definition based on nothing other than emotion.

But it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact, and whether you like it or not from the time of conception to the time of death life exists as a continuum of development and growth.

Then you are confusing your opinion with fact.

Notice again, how you blur the lines between "life" and when you consider something to be a "human being".

If we accepted your standards of what is considered a human, then we must consider sperm as human being because the DNA profile identifies it as human. And every ejaculation is killing human beings.

Should we consider these pigs human beings because their organs carry human DNA?
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-94599453.html

DIY sperm cocktail produces pigs with human DNA. (Genetic Modification).(Brief Article)

A cocktail of pig sperm and human DNA has been successfully used to create pigs that carry human genes in their major organs. This is an advance that could lead to the creation of herds of pigs with organs suitable for transplant into humans,

Currently transgenic animals are created using a direct injection method that involves injecting DNA directly into the fertilised egg. This has proved successful in mice, but is difficult in livestock.

Marialuisa Lavitrano and colleagues from the Universita di Milano-Bicocca report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (21 October) that they have developed a much more successful method to introduce human genes in …

By accepting this law, you are opening pandoras box on what should be considered human.

THAT is a Pandora's box and is exactly why we shouldn't be doing what we are doing.

Yeah, you say that now, but when you or one of your family members needs an organ transplant…..you will take it and praise science and go on eating your McDonald's, right?

Multiplying cells within a womb are no more human then a chicken egg….

Stop speaking. Your thoughts aren't old enough to be let out on their own.

Then you are confusing your opinion with fact.
Notice again, how you blur the lines between "life" and when you consider something to be a "human being".

He's right. It's not a matter of opinion. It becomes a seperate human life at conception. That others disagree is irrelevant.

If we accepted your standards of what is considered a human, then we must consider sperm as human being because the DNA profile identifies it as human. And every ejaculation is killing human beings.

But sperm DOESN'T have the DNA needed to be considered human (as anyone who has taken science knows), because it has 23 chromosomes, whereas a human cell has 46. Same thing with the egg. It's only when the two combine that it can be considered a human cell.

Should we consider these pigs human beings because their organs carry human DNA?

Yet, the overall organism has pig DNA, and is therefore a pig.

That brings us to the question of whether the embryos from which stem cells are derived are persons. The answer: Only if every cell in your body is also a person.

Why? Because scientific ingenuity now makes it logically (if not quite logistically) possible for each of your body's cells to become your twin. (See "Petri Dish Politics.")

Each skin cell, each neuron, each liver cell is potentially a person. All that's lacking is the will and the application of the appropriate technology. Cloning technology like that which famously produced the Scottish sheep Dolly in 1997 could be applied to each of your cells to potentially produce babies (a mammary cell was used to create Dolly).

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34840.html

You wanna talk science? Let's talk science.

You wanna talk your opinion? Fine, but don't label your opinion fact because you are emotional about it.