I have not completed enough reading on the "theory" about the forest fire issue. It was an article I saw and did a cursory scan of. There are "supposedly" writings by some terrorist groups suggesting the use of forest fires as a means of destruction of natural resources, homes, etc. Another ramification to dealing with large uncontrolled fires is the financial strain it places on resources.

I try not to leap quickly on people; however, the continuing lumping of all Christians together is very irritating to me. Although not a good reason, there are some here who will tell you I have been quite cranky in past days due to an on and off MASSIVE sinus headache, which also contributed to my assail net against you.

We shall go forward with no animosity on either side.
:D

You wish to discuss when it is legal to terminate a human life before birth. This is not a discussion on when life begins.

The term "abortion" is applied to two distinct and separate things: Pregnancy and embryo/fetus. Abortion of a pregnancy is not against the law in the USA, if there is no fetus. And no one is seeking laws requiring a woman bring a dead fetus to term or anything of that sort. I hope we are clear that we are discussing aborting living fetuses, not aborting pregnancies.

The discussion of when live begins is central to this issue because if it is not life, it can not be taken away. As I understand you argument, life begins with the fertilization of the egg and therefore fertilization marks the beginning of life.

I have made no appeal to religion in my opposition to aborting human life. I want the facts to be clear on what is being discussed.

Because something exhibits a similarity to something does not make it so. a camelion and many other animals exiibit the ability to appear to be what they are not. Does an animal say an ape embro in its early stages of justation have similarity to a human embro.

As for the question of legality/ethical and moral correctness
one could say that there is a diversity of opinions about that. Some whould argue that viability outside the womb should be the criteria. It is crtainly a perplexing question.

Allow me to make one additional point, what if any rights should the mother of that fetus have in making a decision.
Now we are dealing with two directly opposite views. Finally Should government even be involved in this decision.

HAPPY 4TH TO ALL MY OPP FRIENDS!

AvJoe,

You may be talking about the legal, ethical or moral uses of live human beings for scientific experimentation. I was not. I was pointing out the "jaundiced" perspective of another commenter.

I also pointed out that abortion is, scientifically, the taking of a human life. There is no debatable issue concerning, scientifically, at what point in reproduction a new life comes into being.

If I have misdirected your comments AUGUSTUS then I apologize. I believe I was responding to YC comments.
Did you actually read my comments?

to:av joe
My response was to Mr rumitiod statements blaming the Patriot act on Cheney and Bush with an overwhelming Democratic Congress??
I agree on the 3 Powers of Government overreaching there responsibilities and that is covered in the Constitution along with the Federalist Papers. Impeachment, Amendments and or Nullification.
Personally I can see no other way but to fix the root cause that caused and is causing most of these transgressions of the Constitution.
copy paste : "Article V project to restore Liberty-table of contents"
I would be interested in you reply.