Why is it wrong to get rid of a bundle of cells? You do the same when you bite your fingernails.

I bet most abortions occur when the fertilised cell has only matured to a zygote, and no further, so there is nothing to constitute an infant.

Perhaps it become less moral upon fetal development, but still, imagine a baby being born into a poor family, that cannot fend for themselves as it is, or a young single mother. That is no life to live - a constant struggle. I wouldn't want a child of my own to experience such daily hardship.

I am British (Welsh, specifically) - part of the side you, Mr Hitler, failed to crush.

Down with the Reich!

The website works perfectly well on my iPhone, but I couldn't see any harm in having an app, and I'd probably use CD more, as I'd turn my phone on and see the app, and instinctively go on it (as I do with WhatsApp, Facebook etc...) to see what interesting debate I could participate in.

A app would be lovely, but it's not necessary.

If you swallow gum, nothing bad is likely to happen. It won't stay inside of you for 7 years, digesting (it won't digest at all), it will simply move through your digestive system and come out of the other end (seemed like a nicer way of putting it).

Studies published have investigated gastrointestinal blockages composed of gum, but in a very limited amount of subjects - there is very little risk.

Still, it's probably best just to throw your gum in a bin (wrap it in the wrapper first!).

All organisms that are alive do similar life processes.

Viruses cannot be alive - they do not respire, they do not excrete waste, they do not move (on their own), they don't grow.

What are you basing 'an hour' on? What study have you read?

The bodies cells will begin to deteriorate within 10 minutes. After an hour, you'd be well beyond the point of no return.

Perhaps the transplant would be possible - but who is going to donate a head, or consent to the removal of their head after death. Would you? I certainly wouldn't.

I always support 'the egg came first' - it's the most viable.

It is possible that another species produced an egg with a mutation, that caused the chicken, as we know them today, to develop (over many generations, of course).

Cloning endangered species creates genetically identical individuals that are all susceptible to the exact same conditions, diseases, have the same immune system capacity...

A disease originating in one of the individuals will easily spread between individuals, and that is more likely to lead to extinction.

Also, to make such a solution viable, the clones would need to reproduce, possibly passing on recessive alleles, making a genetic condition in the offspring become apparent - which could cause a condition that leads to them being out-competed and, eventual extinction.

All roads lead to extinction - it's best, in my opinion, to create safe breeding environments for endangered species, that are protected, enabling numbers to increase, without the 'inbreeding'.

Now this is an interesting topic.

Personally, if I'd ever been born into a religious family, and christened (etc), I'd have been very annoyed. I believe that people should be free to make a choice, on whether to follow a religion (and if so, what one they wish to be a part of) or not. In no respect is it okay to force beliefs upon someone.

Christening a baby is not an acceptable act - you are condemning that child to a life of following a religion, that they've had no say it. If they want to take on a religion, fair enough, but forcing it upon them is never okay. That is not the freedom that humans deserve.

Whether it is child abuse, is difficult to say - making a child be a certain religion is unlikely to harm them, in any way than, perhaps, educationally (e.g. in Science).