sportfisher Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 If a single living cell was found on a Mars, scientist would claim that we have found life on another planet? If so, why isn't a single living cell found inside of a pregnant woman considered a life? http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=40#content 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one2one Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 check out the book " Chariots of the Gods "---a real eye-opener regarding visitors here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bamagirl Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 If a single living cell was found on a Mars, scientist would claim that we have found life on another planet? If so, why isn't a single living cell found inside of a pregnant woman considered a life? http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=40#content It is a life to me.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PipPig Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 Simple......Only a Soulless human being wouldnt consider it life.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportfisher Posted April 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 It is a life to me.... me too 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magawatt Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 If a single living cell was found on a Mars, scientist would claim that we have found life on another planet? If so, why isn't a single living cell found inside of a pregnant woman considered a life? http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=40#content I agree that life is precious and a single cell with the potential to develop into a feeling, thinking individual is a miracle- but you are playing with language with your question. Your question assumes that scientists don't recognize a fertilized egg as being alive or having the potential to develop into a viable separate organism. The question was decided by the Supreme Court not NASA. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiveDeepSix Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 It is a life to me.... Same here! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportfisher Posted April 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 I agree that life is precious and a single cell with the potential to develop into a feeling, thinking individual is a miracle- but you are playing with language with your question. Your question assumes that scientists don't recognize a fertilized egg as being alive or having the potential to develop into a viable separate organism. The question was decided by the Supreme Court not NASA. bingo!................this has to do with abortion........................and NO, the question does not assume your claim about scientists...........................then as you say, it is the Supreme Court that doesn't recognize the value of the life of a child in their worldly decisions. Why is the Supreme Court playing god and? When will the authority of our government return to seeking God in their decisions??? 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbill Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 If a single living cell was found on a Mars, scientist would claim that we have found life on another planet? If so, why isn't a single living cell found inside of a pregnant woman considered a life? Good point!!! Never heard it like that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEODinar Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 If a single living cell was found on a Mars, scientist would claim that we have found life on another planet? If so, why isn't a single living cell found inside of a pregnant woman considered a life? http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=40#content Because there is a difference between "life" and "human being". If you can't see that difference then I can't imagine you have ever swatted a fly before. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportfisher Posted April 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 Because there is a difference between "life" and "human being". If you can't see that difference then I can't imagine you have ever swatted a fly before. If so, are you saying life is more important than a human being? Obviously the point being, If a fly was found on Mars, that is more important than an unborn childs life? 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEODinar Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 If so, are you saying life is more important than a human being? Obviously the point being, If a fly was found on Mars, that is more important than an unborn childs life? No, I'm saying that you have to differentiate between simply a living organism and a human being. viruses are living organisms yet we strive to destroy them. flies are living organisms and or life as you put it yet we don't bat an eye when we kill them. So scientifically speaking, if they find a cellular organism on a different planet, that would be absolutely amazing, but thats not saying that the scientific community would value that life more so than human life or more so than a human fetus for that matter. Thats simply an assumption, that would be completely dependent on the scientists personal discretion and opinion, although i would imagine that if a scientist had to pick between having the chance to discover a cell on mars or not having to abort their child, I would guess they would pick the latter. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportfisher Posted April 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 No, I'm saying that you have to differentiate between simply a living organism and a human being. viruses are living organisms yet we strive to destroy them. flies are living organisms and or life as you put it yet we don't bat an eye when we kill them. So scientifically speaking, if they find a cellular organism on a different planet, that would be absolutely amazing, but thats not saying that the scientific community would value that life more so than human life or more so than a human fetus for that matter. Thats simply an assumption, that would be completely dependent on the scientists personal discretion and opinion, although i would imagine that if a scientist had to pick between having the chance to discover a cell on mars or not having to abort their child, I would guess they would pick the latter. Why.......................if you believe in evolution, where everything comes from pond scum anyway, then I find your argument invalid. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEODinar Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 (edited) Why.......................if you believe in evolution, where everything comes from pond scum anyway, then I find your argument invalid. Yes I believe in evolution ( kind of hard not to), how does that make my position invalid? Are you saying that because I believe in evolution I should treat every living organism equally?? How is that logical? Edited April 6, 2012 by NEODinar 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulTxn Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 bingo!................this has to do with abortion........................and NO, the question does not assume your claim about scientists...........................then as you say, it is the Supreme Court that doesn't recognize the value of the life of a child in their worldly decisions. Why is the Supreme Court playing god and? When will the authority of our government return to seeking God in their decisions??? Personally I find this absolutely hilarious... There is thread after thread about people demanding that their rights, liberties and decisions that effect their lives be left in their hands and not legislated by the government... Then, when a decision is left in the hands of the people they complain about it still having it... :lol: 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportfisher Posted April 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 Yes I believe in evolution ( kind of hard not to), how does that make my position invalid? Are you saying that because I believe in evolution I should treat every living organism equally?? How is that logical? because in your own belief system, any form of life could potentially evolve into some kind of being. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smee2 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 If a single living cell was found on a Mars, scientist would claim that we have found life on another planet? If so, why isn't a single living cell found inside of a pregnant woman considered a life? http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=40#content Not to be argumentative or anything, but it is not a single cell. For the definition of "life" ... and here we are going with the Right to Life type of definition, there needs to be two cells ... one from the woman, the egg, and one from the man, the sperm, which, as soon as they merge split into two equal and identical cells. Then they split to be four and they split to be eight, then sixteen and so on and so on and so on. But one cell inside a woman, waiting to be impregnated, is the egg cell, and that is not being pregnant. My gosh if just hosting the egg cell made a woman preggers she'd be that way all the time! No, sorry, as in most things where a man and woman are involved, it DOES take two. I do realize this was not your point and it isn't that I am trying to change the point, just clarify. I am sometimes picky. smee2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divemaster5734 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 Not to be argumentative or anything, but it is not a single cell. For the definition of "life" ... and here we are going with the Right to Life type of definition, there needs to be two cells ... one from the woman, the egg, and one from the man, the sperm, which, as soon as they merge split into two equal and identical cells. Then they split to be four and they split to be eight, then sixteen and so on and so on and so on. But one cell inside a woman, waiting to be impregnated, is the egg cell, and that is not being pregnant. My gosh if just hosting the egg cell made a woman preggers she'd be that way all the time! No, sorry, as in most things where a man and woman are involved, it DOES take two. I do realize this was not your point and it isn't that I am trying to change the point, just clarify. I am sometimes picky. smee2 hahaha, there's always "that" one person in a crowd.. maybe it's just because I'm up way past my bed time, but that was FUNNY... 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportfisher Posted April 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 Not to be argumentative or anything, but it is not a single cell. For the definition of "life" ... and here we are going with the Right to Life type of definition, there needs to be two cells ... one from the woman, the egg, and one from the man, the sperm, which, as soon as they merge split into two equal and identical cells. Then they split to be four and they split to be eight, then sixteen and so on and so on and so on. But one cell inside a woman, waiting to be impregnated, is the egg cell, and that is not being pregnant. My gosh if just hosting the egg cell made a woman preggers she'd be that way all the time! No, sorry, as in most things where a man and woman are involved, it DOES take two. I do realize this was not your point and it isn't that I am trying to change the point, just clarify. I am sometimes picky. smee2 guess you never looked at the link??? Single-Cell Embryo http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=40#content as in most things where a man and woman are involved, it DOES take two. smee2 Isn't God's design perfect 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cajunrescuemedic Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 It is a life to me.... Me too..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desimo Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 I know everone has their own opionion, but I would like to ask things in a different manner. If a woman who is using Cocain or Meth while pregnant can be cited for child abuse, why is she able to abort it? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cranster Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 Because there is a difference between "life" and "human being". If you can't see that difference then I can't imagine you have ever swatted a fly before. Unless that human being's dead there is no distinction between life and a human being, being human is being alive. There is no distinction between the first few fertalized cells dividing in the womb or a full grown human being other than the stage of development. With out human intervention or a developmental defect in the womb, those dividing cells will always become a full grown Living human being. The war today is being waged in language. by calling an embryo... Tissue... it dehumanizes it. Likewise calling the murder of a child by it's own mother "choice", dehumanizes the gravest crime against humanity in the world today. we can't let the liberals hijack the english language and change the meanings of words to sanitize an evil more grave than anything hitler or stalin combined perpetrated against humanity. It's not tissue it's a human being! It's not choice it's murder! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speakn The Truth Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 If there is life on another planet im moving.Tired of all these crooked,criminal politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEODinar Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 because in your own belief system, any form of life could potentially evolve into some kind of being. Yes, and?? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEODinar Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) Unless that human being's dead there is no distinction between life and a human being, being human is being alive. There is no distinction between the first few fertalized cells dividing in the womb or a full grown human being other than the stage of development. With out human intervention or a developmental defect in the womb, those dividing cells will always become a full grown Living human being. The war today is being waged in language. by calling an embryo... Tissue... it dehumanizes it. Likewise calling the murder of a child by it's own mother "choice", dehumanizes the gravest crime against humanity in the world today. we can't let the liberals hijack the english language and change the meanings of words to sanitize an evil more grave than anything hitler or stalin combined perpetrated against humanity. It's not tissue it's a human being! It's not choice it's murder! I have to disagree There is a drastic difference between a sperm cell and a human being. Edited April 9, 2012 by NEODinar 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts