the idea is to prevent it from implanting. at least if we are going to argue, know the facts that can be verified.
the morning after pill is basically letting you catch up like you have been taking the regular pill, from what i can tell.
i think equating it to abortion is likely the work of the people that are against birth control in the first place.
Oh I read plenty of books, some with pictures even..so life is not observable or testable? Yet inanimate objects are. We can come to conclusions using similiar methods that the earth is billions of years old but not when life begins. Based on how your responses are arranged I can tell that you are going to pick and choose what you think is proof for the outcome that you want...you chose the correct professionOriginally Posted by Midtowner:3581666
"With Paul Thompson at QB, Oklahoma will not win the Big 12."
-Lee Corso "is a penis" 9/2/06
No this isnt necessarily true. We combine sea urchin sperm and eggs in intro zoology labs across the country all the time. The cells divide in the petri dish. Same with a lot of in vitro stuff with humans. Just because something has the ability to replicate itself doesnt make it alive. Look at the formation of crystals. They self-replicate, are they alive?
Olevet Posse - Dirty LibOriginally Posted by yermom
What is funny is that this thread is bringing out all the anti-science arguments now. Since science cant explain everything right now, everything that has been discovered or that we do know is obviously false. Effing ridiculous. Science isnt really about answering questions, it is about creating new ones. For every answer there are usually thousands more questions that throw it into doubt.
Olevet Posse - Dirty LibOriginally Posted by yermom
It is not subjective...if there are dividing cells it is alive..no debate...
DNA says it is human...
So science says it is alive and it is human (at least a developing human)
The debate is about a "functioning" human...no debate on the science side of being alive or "human"...
So since science cant explain God, then God doesn't exist..but if Science cant explain life then it cant exist? So many questions yet so few answers...give science timeOriginally Posted by Fraggle145:3581690
"With Paul Thompson at QB, Oklahoma will not win the Big 12."
-Lee Corso "is a penis" 9/2/06
There are other qualities that help define life..stimulus and reproduction being two...
A newborn baby cannot reproduce so we must toss out the window...
A newborn does react to stimulus so that can be used in the argument...
But a dividing cell is alive...
I don't give a **** one way or the other...the preggers person has a right to control their own body...
But to dismiss the other scientific side of the argument is just as foolhardy...
Dividing cells dont necessarily respond to stimuli. I think you would still have to more specific before you could get me to agree that just because cells are dividing means that they are alive.
Olevet Posse - Dirty LibOriginally Posted by yermom
So explain to me why someone would say that God doesn't exist if Science can't explain it? Also explain why someone would say Life cant be determined since science can't explain it.
Believe in God and you are an idiot...Don't believe that Science is always true and you are an idiot.. Dude....everyone that has posted on this topic is an idiot...prove me otherwise...or neg spek me again..Thanks Fraggle.
"With Paul Thompson at QB, Oklahoma will not win the Big 12."
-Lee Corso "is a penis" 9/2/06
Other parameters...
Growth yep
Needs nutrition - yep from mother
Respiratory - yep from mother
So out of the five we have only stimulus being in question....
And if stimulus is a question why do we struggle over unplugging someone who is brain dead or comatose and does not respond to outside stimulus?
God can't be proven with logic. bringing God into a science/logic discussion is silly.
when life begins is more about semantics and philosophy than science.
personally, i'm somewhat offended that you anti-science shills have co-opted this discussion to insert some middle-ages religion into it.
It is up for debate as far as when reaction to stimulus occurs...some say as early as 12 weeks...some say mid 20 weeks...
Whah! I got red spekked... Dont you know the rules about spek... see this thread if you want to know what you sound like: http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/sho...For-The-Record
As for why would someone say god doesnt exist, that is up to them its their personal opinion. If they base it on the fact that science cant test it that is what they base it on. But that really isnt a science issue, it is a faith issue. Anyone can give reasoning about why they have or dont have faith. Its a philosophy question, not a science question.
When life begins cant really be defined. There are properties of things that are organic that are used to define things that are alive that arent observable in inorganic things. pphilfran pointed out a few.
I never said you are an idiot. Belief isnt what science is about its about what do the facts tell you at the time. It is always changing. But to deny the facts that we have, especially when they have been tested as extensively as something like evolution is being willfully ignorant. BTW, evolution doenst have anything to do with creation of life or how it started simply what happens after...
Olevet Posse - Dirty LibOriginally Posted by yermom