[quote]You simply can't say that "the science says its alive at conception." Plenty of science says its not. Of course we have to agree to disagree. You can find a scientist that will say pretty much anything you want them to say. There are scientists that have science that says the world is flat. Many of them were part of the church until relatively recently. http://thecollegeconservative.com/2014/05/27/the-unborn-meet-the-criteria-for-life/ Good thing that there's a criteria for life! My only point is that its no one else's choice but the individual to whom those cells belong. If we disagree about when life begins then you should not be allowed to bring the force of the state into the conversation in order to make a woman carry a child from the point of conception to birth. It is alive. I gave you a source showing that an unborn baby fulfills the criteria for life. Its also about the establishment of religion. These are religious beliefs plain and simple. Plenty of cultures have different beliefs about what should and shouldn't happen to people, cells, animals etc. Its not fair to force your beliefs on other individuals if they do not believe that a fetus is a life. I'm not forcing my religious beliefs. I'm telling you [i]scientific[/i] facts. You are the [i]only[/i] one here that has mentioned religion. I actually just saw a story about a 22 month old kid that just got found in the woods in Florida. The 100 miles thing is irrelevant. If you put a fetus in a forest or if you put a fetus in your living room its not going to survive for more than 5 minutes either way because it hasn't been born yet. You can push it to 1000 miles. The Two year old depended on other people saving it. It didn't adapt, it got lucky. Every living thing is a jumble of cells. Should we stop eating meat then? Fetuses do not have conscious awarness to the point whether they care whether they live or die when they are outside of the womb. They are a part of the womb until they are capable of sustaining life for a substantial duration of time outside of it. There's proof that these "fetuses" try to avoid and escape the abortion doctors sucking them into tubes and tearing them apart limb from limb. They seem quite conscience to me. Cancer cells are jumbles of cells. Should we not kill cancer? Certain religions do not believe that if you get cancer you should then get chemo in order to rid yourself of it. That's actually how bob marley died because he would have had to get his toe cut off when he got cancer on it. Either way its no one's choice but the person to whom those cells belong. The cells belong to the child. Just as my cells now don't belong to my mom now, they didn't belong to her then. [/quote]

[quote]Reproduction is the seventh characteristic of living organisms. We are all born with the potential ability to reproduce, even the unborn[/quote] Just to take one twisting of the requirements for life from that article. Fetuses can NOT reproduce. They have the "potential ability to reproduce" once they are born. If we accept the argument of this article then we basically all have to become vegan. The 6th characteristic also fails because a fetus can not maintain an internal balance if it is not a part of the womb. If it is not part of the womb all of this stuff stops. All of it. Also, if this is really a scientific argument that fetuses are indeed human beings, then why does it rely on someone's interpretation of scientific data instead of relying on the opinions of the scientitsts that came up with the criteria for life. This is nothing but Atarah Golden's interpretation of the scientific criteria for life. As far as I can find she is not a scientist.