<First of all, the only thing you are missing is that before actual childbirth you were still a part of your mother's body,

so is a tapeworm a body part? just because it is inside you and dependent on you?

not a completely independent being.

Infants are independent after birth either. They need a mother to feed then and take care of them, and in fact are still dependent on her body in the form of milk. . . well not necesarily anymore, but it used to be.

Thus your mother still had the final say on what happens to HER body.

Everyone has the right to do what they want twith their body, thier money, their life, their time. . . so why couldn't a mother jsut leave the baby on the sidewalk? Laws have established a responsibility to people dependent on you. . . . like an infant.

THEREFOR, based on the above: the state of being dependent does not justify neglect over the life of, or the grant the right to kill the dependent to the person depended on

however this staement is whitout teeth if the fetus is not granted those human rights that everyone else had, and since I pointed out an example contrary to your value (the right to control life/death over things dependet on you) on which you were basing your counter argument to mine on, you no longer have a counter arguemtn. try again. ;-)

Second, this is really irrelevent to stem cell research. There are more than enough fetuses from miscarriages to carry on this research.

well if the debate was over stem cells form already DEAD fetus', or cadavers then you have no quarrel with me. in fact I wouldn't be speaking out, its only that the issue is with fertilized embyos being used.

Opposition is not based on any pro life arguments so much as they are based on humans not playing god. Thus it IS a religious argument.


When you talk about killing embyos then you are dealing with a pro life argument ( and my prolife agrument doens't call on God)

I have no issue with people playing god, if mankind can do it, mankind can do it. the cahrge that mankind would p be 'playing god' would seem to be an insult to god IMHO, it suspect that its a knee jerk reaction to a religious person whos faith is in question if said science happens.

-Justin Kelly