Obama More Qualified Than Palin AND McCain

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from Mercor:

By now, You should know the right's case and theory for life.
The Republican's believe strongly in the life, liberty, and happiness of each individual. They happen to believe a fetus deserves those rights.

Currently the courts start providing some of those those rights to fetuses at 12 weeks. The republican's believe it should start at conception.

The republicans actually believe it is Goverment that is abusing its power by dening the fetus its inalienible rights to life, liberty, and happiness. Rights givin to us not by Govt. but by God or just by existence

Where does 'the right' draw a definitive distinction? Is there a consensus as to when life begins?

Embryonic stem cell research is taboo for them. Is it only after fertilization of the egg (or the moment of)?

It's my understanding that the right believes that once the egg is fertilized, the zygote (it's not an embryo yet) in endowed with constitutional rights, separate and independently of the mother.

If this is true, then why does Palin allow for an exception to have a legal abortion when the 'life of the mother' is at risk should she carry the baby to term?

Why does the mother have superior constitutional rights when her health is at issue, but not in cases of rape or incest?

Just so you know, I find abortion a troubling and unnatural act. I have had difficulty in my own mind, and am not afraid to admit it (since many issues in life are not black and white), in reconciling my desire for small government with my desire to temper or limit unnatural and troubling actions such as abortion.

 

[Mercor]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

Where does 'the right' draw a definitive distinction? Is there a consensus as to when life begins?

Embryonic stem cell research is taboo for them. Is it only after fertilization of the egg (or the moment of)?

It's my understanding that the right believes that once the egg is fertilized, the zygote (it's not an embryo yet) in endowed with constitutional rights, separate and independently of the mother.

If this is true, then why does Palin allow for an exception to have a legal abortion when the 'life of the mother' is at risk should she carry the baby to term?

Why does the mother have superior constitutional rights when her health is at issue, but not in cases of rape or incest?

Just so you know, I find abortion a troubling and unnatural act. I have had difficulty in my own mind, and am not afraid to admit it (since many issues in life are not black and white), in reconciling my desire for small government with my desire to temper or limit unnatural and troubling actions such as abortion.

Certainly modern science like zygote make the issue less clear.
Many conservitives feel fertilized embryo's deserve full rights.

Zygotes...I don't know...Your talking about suspended animation of life. In practicle terms I would only accept active growth of cells as life.

As for the health of the mother, again hard to fit into overall theory.
It could fall under the catagory of self-defense. Each individual has the right to life as long as you don't interfer in the rights of life of others.

In this case the fetus may be threating the life of others so that threat can be mitigated.

Sure, it can be flipped. Is the mother interfering in the right of the fetus to live. That argument can also be made, but not by me.
Maybe society just accepts a strong majoriety of people who put mothers health over the rights of the fetus

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from Mercor:

Certainly modern science like zygote make the issue less clear.
Many conservitives feel fertilized embryo's deserve full rights.

Zygotes...I don't know...Your talking about suspended animation of life. In practicle terms I would only accept active growth of cells as life.

As for the health of the mother, again hard to fit into overall theory.
It could fall under the catagory of self-defense. Each individual has the right to life as long as you don't interfer in the rights of life of others.

In this case the fetus may be threating the life of others so that threat can be mitigated.

Sure, it can be flipped. Is the mother interfering in the right of the fetus to live. That argument can also be made, but not by me.
Maybe society just accepts a strong majoriety of people who put mothers health over the rights of the fetus

But once fertilization of the egg occurs, the zygote begins a process of continual and continuous miotic cell division, which leads to embryonic formation.

In other words, I have trouble in differentiating (no pun intended given cell differentiation) between an embryo and zygote.

I am not trying to be coy at all.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

But once fertilization of the egg occurs, the zygote begins a process of continual and continuous miotic cell division, which leads to embryonic formation.

In other words, I have trouble in differentiating (no pun intended given cell differentiation) between an embryo and zygote.

I am not trying to be coy at all.

True, it is a very complex issue.

When you start to give a fetus or zygote "rights" you also have to decide which rights not to give it. Is a miscarriage man slaughter? Is it's life equal to that of its mother? A can of worms to be sure.

 

[Mercor]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

But once fertilization of the egg occurs, the zygote begins a process of continual and continuous miotic cell division, which leads to embryonic formation.

In other words, I have trouble in differentiating (no pun intended given cell differentiation) between an embryo and zygote.

I am not trying to be coy at all.

Its beyond me too. Right now the conservitives would be happy with the fetus in the uterus being accepted as life.

Like I said, I believe only active cell growth should get rights.

The main issue with zyg's and embyo's is if they can be destroyed. I am sure they can stay frozen untill we decide , It may take 100 years or never.