pajarito

No you are saying its not a life since it has no biological functions. See your own words fight you. Have a nice day. I don't think that's what Zen is saying either Ron. He says that sperm, for example, is in fact alive. I agree with him. The question is when does it become a human life and, therefore, be given right to continue living.

I consider myself consistent with being "right wing" but I only take credit for comments that I make. "BILL CLINTON SUCKS!"

Zen...Zen.... Stopit!!! We're gonna get locked!

Wow... I just have to respectfully disagree with you on this. That's ok, though. Again, I'm also intentionally not bringing religion into my argument at all.

If you fire a bullet into the air could you know that it hit someone? You're the one claiming it's murder. What's the difference? I think motive and intent are also factors in determining whether murder has taken place. If someone is killed by your falling bullet, it was probably an accident. If you fire at a house where you believe there might very well be people and you kill one of them, that’s a different story. I’m not sure how long it takes for a pregnancy test to be accurate after conception but if you knew you were pregnant and took one to kill the embryo (or whatever stage it’s in at that time), then I think murder would be appropriate (That is, if you believe that it is human, unlike Zenister). If you took the morning after pill not knowing for sure, I guess (if there was human growth) it would only be something like manslaughter. The common factor I see in all this is that we’re acting on an unknown in a very harsh way.

I'm trying really hard to keep religion out of this one. It's not necessary in this case.

Prevention of implantation is not the primary function or intent.

Ron…if you consider it human (much earlier than Zen’s definition), how can you justify with yourself the acceptance of killing it because it might be born into a particular cultural situation? Or because someone might not think they’re ready for commitment. How is that the developing human’s fault. It is completely innocent in the matter. Many times in life, situations are thrust upon us that we think we’re not ready for. The test is how we react to those challenges. Do you close your eyes and pretend the problem doesn’t exist. Do you get someone else to eliminate the problem for you? Or do you face it and deal with it? “Improvise, adapt, and overcome.”

For those who share this view, how do you feel about the morning after pill? Same standard applies (In the absence of being able to prove otherwise, it is a human life at that point if conception has in fact occurred) no matter how we all try and dance around it. I personally think it's wrong and is simply yet another way to selfishly and conveniently kill. If you don't want a baby, take the proper precautions. Otherwise, as with everything else in life, take responsibility for your own actions.

Guilty...

Sure, as long you get to skip past the points you can't defend . . . That's always the catch, isn't it...

I don't think that's what Ron's doing. I just think the wording is a little off. You're just sharpshooting his comments.

Well...lack of planning + lack of experience.

There are some who are born immunodeprived. Outside a controlled environment (not the one you and I live in and not in the womb), he/she will surely die. I still consider them human and they have a right to live just like you and me. The criteria you’ve set forth in your description above still doesn’t scientifically determine when human life begins. You’re just drawing a line in the sand. All I’ve ever said is that, in the absence of that knowledge, I don’t think it’s prudent, scientifically or otherwise, to make the assumption that it’s ok to kill one of our own. Why must there be? What reason, other than the extreme ones such as rape, incest, or life of the mother, is there for abortion? How is it medically necessary?

Just because it can be statistically proven that “viability” isn’t likely until 24 weeks doesn’t “scientifically” prove that the development prior, at any stage, isn’t human. It doesn’t make your argument stronger just because of the accepted definition of viability. I’m quite sure that Ron can recite most of the basic biological functions common to all humans just like you can. You’re just putting quotas on just how many must be present and how well they must perform before allowing it to be categorized with the rest of us. I don’t think that’s very “scientifically” prudent. Of course sperm and the egg are alive. I agree that “Where life starts” isn’t in question. I think we’re arguing “when it becomes a human life” and, therefore, have a right to live just like you and me.

Progression to AFF had a practical purpose. Bringing two people to the ground under one parachute did also. That’s called Tandem parachuting. Tandem has been researched, developed, and thoroughly tested over decades now. What practical purpose is there to standing on someone’s shoulders, unattached, and holding onto their suspension lines all the way to the ground? I guess I’m just saying I don’t think that’s a good comparison to AFF development and hence a justification. There are varying degrees of what level of expertise you have based on the numbers of jumps that you’ve obtained. Sometimes, it has more to do with your proficiency rather than your number of jumps. However, as a general rule, the number of jumps is a good measure for broad categorization of what should and should not be attempted. That’s not to say that you’ve got to have 1000 + jumps in order to be good. That’s just saying that you should use the “number of jumps” measure as a tool combined with common sense in order to make those decisions. Moral of the story = “Don’t be stupid.”

Maybe I'm not following you to the point you're trying to make. I guess you're right in the most basic sense. That you "want" to have kids even if also for other unselfish reasons. I don't really put 2 & 2 together with what we're talking about, however, in reference to aborting a pregnancy. As for the deal with the 8 year olds...no way!!! [:P

Maybe for some. I, however, wanted to have children to teach and share experiences with. I wanted to be able to give my children more than I had so they could lead a better and more productive life. I wanted to be able to see my own kids become morally upstanding and successful individuals. When it comes right down to it, not much else matters. In the end, they’re all you really have that means anything. Material things are useless. Don’t get me wrong. I like material things too. I’ve got a brand new custom Mirage G-4 on the way.

I don’t believe anyone is arguing that a woman should be forced to bear a child. She made that decision, knowingly or not, as soon as she decided to have sex. A woman isn’t forced to bear a child unless she is raped and consequently gets pregnant. Whether she chooses to face up to the consequences of her actions (i.e. responsibility) (as well as that of her partner) and give birth to the child is a different story. Most reasons for terminating pregnancy are purely selfish in reason. Very sad.

Zennister holds an extreme view on this subject. I admit that I do as well but in the other direction.

Seeing as that was your belief, and never discussed it with her, and claim she's a murderer. Well, then, you would seem to be an accomplice for negligently contributing to the circumstances that led to that event. Yeah...and his parents would also be accomplices for influencing his way of thinking when he was younger which eventually led to some poor choices in life. Come on man... She facilitated the act of terminating the pregnancy. That is her responsibility. She's got to live with that decision.

I love to hear stuff like that about people overcoming adversity. Improvise...adapt...overcome

Yep...that's one view.

Ya know I thought that too till I jumped the Katana. If I ever needed a non xbraced canopy, without a doubt that'd be the one. Blues, Ian The Katana is sweet. I test jumped a 120 at the WFFC. What a nice flying canopy. Very nice!