but in a million years from now with the right conditions..........

was much funnier.

No it wasn't. Did somebody run over your sense of humor, Rodney?

Heh, well I haven't seen you nominate one you actually thought was funnier.

Probably doesn't help resolve any argument, but its the best zinger so far.

No it wasn't. Did somebody run over your sense of humor, Rodney?

Agreed. The fun is in helping determine that line.

I guess it was whoever ran over your sense of fun.

A hairy soulless liberal I think, and you guys vote enough times as it is so don't.

Probably doesn't help resolve any argument, but its the best zinger so far.

Law requires a line in order to make objective decisions.

Agreed. The fun is in helping determine that line.

I could use my hair cells to clone myself, would the clone be human or hair?

A hairy soulless liberal I think, and you guys vote enough times as it is so don't.

But if you can really do that can you make me a Uma Thurman and a Rachel weisz, please, pretty please?

well then again given a choice and a chance and a bit of effort by it's(by it's I mean sex type not preference) parents your hair can't grow up to vote against an abortionist.

I could use my hair cells to clone myself, would the clone be human or hair?

Your hair isn't a human life in itself. But can we think of an example of just a bunch of cells that eventually meet your criteria for human life? Just everyone you know.

The problem is that we're trying to draw a clear line, make thing black and white, human life or not human life, when nature doesn't require or provide such simplifications, nature is largely gray and fuzzy. Yes, as some point a grouping of cells stops being an appendage and starts being a person, but where do you draw that line?

Law has dictated that a embryo at certain stages is not a human life, not science.

Law requires a line in order to make objective decisions. I couldn't be based on science, because nature doesn't provide a line, just a long gray gradient.

A "human life" isn't defined by a collection of cells with human DNA, my hair meets that criteria.

well then again given a choice and a chance and a bit of effort by it's(by it's I mean sex type not preference) parents your hair can't grow up to vote against an abortionist.

Your hair isn't a human life in itself. But can we think of an example of just a bunch of cells that eventually meet your criteria for human life? Just everyone you know.

Law has dictated that a embryo at certain stages is not a human life, not science.

DL's analogy makes more 'cents' to me.

Incorrect, The embryo is not the copper (actually 98% zinc 2% copper) the baby is the penny in this analogy.

The embryo is the copper, the baby is a penny. At some point the raw material (zinc+copper/embyonic cells) is arranged into a pattern that we recognize as something greater than it's constituent parts (penny/baby). A "human life" isn't defined by a collection of cells with human DNA, my hair meets that criteria.

but in a million years from now with the right conditions..........

Oh, you're evil, nyuk nyuk nyuk...

The Chruch's [sic] official position on unbaptized infants is to pray for their salvation, but that salvation is not assured:

Alex, I don't think we disagree. My comment said _might_ see heaven, I didn't mean to imply that salvation was assured. There's a big gap between "not condemned to hell" and "assured of salvation." On the 2007 decision, see Reuters.

Well we know it sure ain't gonna be puppies

.

but in a million years from now with the right conditions..........

The more accurate analogy would be that copper is not money, which it isn't.

Incorrect, The embryo is not the copper (actually 98% zinc 2% copper) the baby is the penny in this analogy. You're just trying to change the analogy in a self-serving manner.

"...but until the embryo is implanted in the uterus, there is no expectation that it will reach maturity."

Well we know it sure ain't gonna be puppies.