*chirp chirp*

I typed up a response, but I ended up losing it all. Stupid internet.

Anyway, what I had responded was that if we aren't talking twinning, then that zygote that splits is still the same zygote. The zygote does split into two, then four, then eight then so on until after I think 16 cells it becomes a morula. That is why we have many cells now. We start out as a single cell but we have to divide to become multicellular.

With twinning, it is one life becoming two. Technically, the twin wasn't created from conception but without conception, that twin wouldn't exist. It's true that no one knows if that zygote will become two embryos, but that zygote is still alive and until it splits by freak of nature, it is an individual.

I hate when that happens Are you using IE?

Regarding the topic matter, there are legal definitions for the term 'human being'. The U.S. Supreme Court said, "The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." (Hardin 1982:138). Different countries word it slightly differently but generally when a fetus is OUT of the womans body and it can breath on its own it is considered a human being in the eyes of the law. IMO Canada has the most precise definition.


I think it's between the stages of 8 and 32.

Dred Scott v. Sanford tells how much credibility supreme court decisions have.

You don't think they have credibility? Try not doing what they say.

nobody does what they say. if you bothered reading the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision that should be obvious.although i don't think ordering people to violate the supreme court or any other courts decision is such a good idea.

So you're saying that no one born within the United States cares about being a citizen? The Fourteenth Amendment overturned Dred Scott v. Sanford. That's how slaves got Constitutional rights. I don't understand how you think that equates to no one "does what they say"

i said the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision shows a lack of credibility for the supreme court. and you said i should do whatever the supreme court tells me to do. since i was refering to the Dred Scott v Sanford decision i assume you also were refering to the Dred Scott v Sanford. i'm sure the supreme court must have made other equally brilliant decisions but if you are refering to some other decision than the desicion i was refering to. how on earth could i know which supreme court decision you were ordering me to uphold?

No I didn't. I said "Try not doing what they say." Meaning if you don't follow the law you will end up in jail or worse...


I think that Dred Scott v Sanford was an embarrassment to our courts. But courts, just like religions, are man made, and so there will be lots of rhetoric and errors being made within them.

than why did you bring the U.S. supreme court to this debate? how do rhetoric and errors validate your position?

Oh I don't know... maybe to post a LEGAL QUOTE regarding the topic matter

which you said have lots of rhetoric and errors. so how are rhetoric and errors of benefit to a debate?

SCOTUS is not always right, but abortion should never be a legal issue anyways. It's a private, personal medical/surgical procedure, and no one should have the ability to dictate other's medical decisions. Not just in abortion, but all medical procedures.

By the way phelgm, SCOTUS interprets law, they do not make it. Their Dred Scott decision was an interpretation of current law.

Abortion is going to start getting a lot of traction as a property rights issue.

Are you saying, that breaking the law is okay?

Well, phlem has said that he/she has been to jail....

Okay phem...stick to your own rules...after all you said this is an abortion debate. Do not bring Nazis into it, slaves into it, wars into it.

And by the way all, that post was reported for HIGHLY offensive words...I cannot believe someone would say that they wish the Jewish people didn't break the "law" and escape extermination and that the slaves didn't break the law and escape extermination. I do not believe any type of hating based on religion, color, sex, whatever belongs in these forums...but that is my opinion.

actual that was not the meaning of my post or what i said. and if this forum was not a fraudulent farce that removes pro-life posts at the whim of pro-choicer posters, people could know that but they can't because you and your glorious debate only allow your opinions to be posted. actually i was refrerring to the germans that did not agree with the nazi party breaking the law and not the jews breaking the law. and i was refering to the northern whites that did not agree with the southern whites slave laws breaking the law .and all i said is that i am sorry that some people break the law in response to a post asking me if i think people should break the law. if you did not want my response to a post asking for my opinion about breaking the law than why did you allow the post asking for my opinion about breaking the law. seems strange to me that you do not remove the post asking for my opinion about breaking the the law but than remove my response about breaking the law and than lie about what the meaning of my post was. you go on and on about freedom of choice this and right to my body that which if were true does not explain your blatant violations of freedom of speech.