Absolutely embryos are alive. Time and time again, it has been a proven fact. This is why it is so very important to take this into consideration before making the decision to destroy an embryo. I would not want this action to be on my conscience. If there weren't proof somewhere concerning this issue, it would not be an issue. Without a doubt it has been proven.
You can't suggest that an embryo is not alive. Human beings are either alive or dead...And once dead; cannot come back to life. An embryo is developing, growing, maturing...That is what happens when they are Alive. Once an egg is fertilized and attached to the uterine wall, then a distinct human being was created.
J j j j n n n jm j nm erf c43fv bhhbb jn m n m m m m k m m m m m m k hn h h h g gf f f d e e t yh u i lk , m n h g fd
Because they are used to create babies meaning they must be alive otherwise they could not be used to make children. It makes no sense to say their dead. Therefore they are alive. There is no way that anyone, even sciences, can say that they are dead. End Of Argument.
All cells are alive, and an embryo is a base for God's creation-and He formed the embryo down to the very last detail. This is murder to try and say it is not alive yet. God created all of us in his own image, how can you take that away for research?
On July 7, 2012, my husband and I had an embryo transfer; 2 adopted embryos that we adopted from a Korean/Philipino family. In March 2013 I gave birth to Boy/girl twins. These embryos were day 5 blastocysts when they were transferred. They grew in my womb. My body provided all the nutrients for them to grow, and yet, I did not give birth to Caucasian babies. My precious children are perfect, Korean/Phillipino beauties! Every day I look at them, I know that they were complete human beings before I came along. I just provided them with a vessel in which to grow. Yes, they needed a womb to grow in, but they didn't need anything else from me to be a unique and precious human being.
Embryos are alive as far as I know. If a single cell organism without any thoughts, or heart, and nothing aside from that cell makes it alive than I am pretty sure an embryo is alive as well. That does not mean it is alive in the same sense as people, or babies though.
Embryos are alive in the sense that a tree is alive, or a plant is alive, or anything that requires any kind of sustenance to go on, is alive. But there is a huge difference between something being alive, and it having enough life within it to contain itself independently, and therein is where I think the "embryo controversy" lives.
To my mind, it is quite simple really - embryos must be alive or else a baby would never develop. Walk down this road with me if you will. Think about plant life. Take three seeds and plant one each into three different pots of soil. Pot one you water daily, pot two is watered daily as well. Poor pot two never gets any water. After two weeks, a plant grows in pots one and two, but noting comes from pot three. You dig the seed out of pot three only to discover that it has withered and dried, no longer looking anything like what you planted. It is dead. You see, no life came from the dead thing. Therefore and embryo is alive in the same way that the seeds in pots one and two were alive.
What good would it be to expand the debt ceiling at this point? This should have been considered long ago. This method would only resort to more debt that we could not take care of. I'm not sure that there is any solution at this point. Bringing on more problems by expanding the debt ceiling is certainly not a solution.
IS skin alive? NO
IS my jizz alive? NO
do I mourn the loss of millions of potential kids every time I whack it? NO
But on a side note, can males become infertile by bustin too much?
Im kind of worried. I tend to do it five time a day, is this a problem?
Srtyddfhsrfhwrtfh fdhe yt h etyhg h hhgdfg wthwhh g fh w g wrt w gg df f f f f f f f f f f ff f f f f f f ff f f f f f f f f f f f f f f ff f f f f f f f f f usdkrhgf
But when you think about the 'living' what do you think about? Embryonic cells are alive sure, but only in the literal sense. When you scrape your knee, do you mourn over the lost skin? When you loose a tooth, do you cry over it? It's the same thing. These cells are living in a sense, but they can't think, feel, and they're not something to mourn over as a loss. These cells can be used to create cures and treatments for those who are already living. Also this is an overpopulating world, and if you don't want to have a child, there's no reason to go through with your pregnancy,
The question you should be asking isn't rather an embryo qualifies as a living THING, but rather a living PERSON. While an embryo may technically be alive, it has no features that qualify it as a psychologicaly relevant human. The embryo is nothing but potential, and if need be, getting rid of that potential is no crime. In the ejaculating process alone, millions of other potential humans die off as well. Nobody ever sheds a tear about that.
Living things must have the following to be considered living; movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition. Embryos do not have all of these and, therefore, can not be classified as a living thing. How could embryos be considered alive if they do not meet the requirements of what makes a living thing.
An embryo is not alive when it first forms. It becomes alive, as a fetus, but it is not alive. Abortion is something you should be able to do. When it becomes a fetus, you should not, because it is alive, but while it is a non-living organism it is acceptable to destroy. Why can we kill a leaving tree, sharks, whales, and not bat an eye, but when a non-living embryo is involved which is NON-LIVING everyone freaks out. Embryos are not alive, they are acceptable to destroy. Simple