A simple Yes or No with a short explanation.

[Urethra Franklin]

I was unaware that I was annoying you. That certainly was not my intention. My efforts are directed toward edification regarding human creation not the fomentation of botheration, irritation, vexation, or frustration.

I guess that what you are telling me, indirectly, is that you are unable to furnish factual rebuttal to the dozen or so experts I quoted who, on the basis of facts established as a result of collaborative research in their respective fields, agree unanimously, and have never been challenged, that human life begins at conception.

That's too bad. I was hopeful that you might be the one who could do it. Pity.

I considered your favorite, however it didn't seem to fit the story being woven.

No Fantasea, I will not be reduced to your imbecillic dial-a-quote level of argument. I'm more intelligent than that. I also don't need to scour the Oxford English Dictionary for obscure words in order to impress :roll:

What I will put to you is this. At what point do we switch off artificial respiration apparatus for the victims of trauma? When it is clear that that person would not survive independently without this artificial intervention, i.e. in terms of survival, they are not independently viable. Nature, Fate, God, Allah, The Tooth Fairy, whatever you believe in, would take them.
In most nations the same criteria are applied to the foetus. They may be legally aborted at a point when they would not survive independently were they to be removed from the mothers body. Why? Because many obstetricians, gynaecologists, embryologists, midwives and ethicists believe that this is when life begins. It's not a "fact" - it's their intellectual conclusion having considered the evidence. Others believe that life begins at conception. Similarly that is not a "fact" - it's their intellectual (or in some cases religious) conclusion having considered the evidence (or in some cases because the pope says so).

Most countries have an opt out clause for health care workers, so that if your conscience disagrees with abortion, you do not ever have to take part, just as Jehovah's Witnesses are not obliged to participate in blood transfusion. Nobody is forced to take part in abortion against their conscience. All I would ask is that you return this respect for others' opinions, by not having the law deny abortion to women who can justify it in their own minds.

 

[Schweddy]

They may be legally aborted at a point when they would not survive independently were they to be removed from the mothers body.
You may want to re-think that statement. A 3 year old could qualify within the abiguity of "survive independently".

Did you know that as early as 20 weeks the survival rate has significatly increased the last few years?

 

[Urethra Franklin]

They may be legally aborted at a point when they would not survive independently were they to be removed from the mothers body.
You may want to re-think that statement. A 3 year old could qualify within the abiguity of "survive independently". ]

No. Three year old children can usually breath for themselves, have independent cardiac, renal, neurological function etc. I was speaking biologically, and you either knew it or you're not very bright.

[

Did you know that as early as 20 weeks the survival rate has significatly increased the last few years?

Which is why most countries have a 16 week limit. Contrary to the butchers slab pictures the anti-abortionists will show you, the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first few weeks of pregnancy.

 

[Schweddy]

Which is why most countries have a 16 week limit. Contrary to the butchers slab pictures the anti-abortionists will show you, the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first few weeks of pregnancy.

You seem to be well educated, purhaps you can answer the following:

Why is it that a doctor can go in and cut up a child then remove them piece by piece and it be called abortion, but removing them whole and then chopping them up with a butcher knife like a piece of chicken is murder? (in the US)

 

[Urethra Franklin]

You seem to be well educated, purhaps you can answer the following:

Why is it that a doctor can go in and cut up a child then remove them piece by piece and it be called abortion, but removing them whole and then chopping them up with a butcher knife like a piece of chicken is murder? (in the US)

Your terminology is wrong.
A doctor who cuts up a child is a murderer.
A doctor who cuts up a foetus has done nothing wrong if:
1) that foestus is within the legal limit allowed within that coutry's law, and
2) the woman carrying that foetus consented to the procedure.

The issue here is where does life begin? What constitutes a child? We will never have universal agreement, but we can respect each other's views. I fully support the conscience clauses which allow health care professionals to opt of abortions (let us not forget that in other instances such 'refusal to care' is considered gross professional misconduct). I ask that anti-abortionists have the same respect by not enforcing their views on other through the law.

Lets get one thing straight. Abortions today are mainly performed by suction of by chemical induction. The old fashioned surgical abortion, where it is still performed, involves the foetus being mashed up beforehand with a flushing curette, not being "removed" to be sliced up on a butcher's table. Please stick to facts, not televangelist fiction.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Re: the above, it appears I misread your proposition, but the principle remains the same. In your "murder" scenario, a foetus would be unlikely to survive removal from the womb. This should not be "murder", but could be labelled a whole host of other things: unlawful performance of a medical procedure by an unqualified practioner perhaps? The issues here are was the woman consenting, and if so, why had she not sought correct medical help. The answer could be that she lives somewhere like Ireland, where women's rights are denied and people are often forced into such terrible situations.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Your terminology is wrong.
A doctor who cuts up a child is a murderer.
A doctor who cuts up a foetus has done nothing wrong if:
1) that foestus is within the legal limit allowed within that coutry's law, and
2) the woman carrying that foetus consented to the procedure.

And let's not forget that "murder" is a legally defined concept. If it's not illegal, it's not murder!

The issue here is where does life begin? What constitutes a child? We will never have universal agreement, but we can respect each other's views. I fully support the conscience clauses which allow health care professionals to opt of abortions (let us not forget that in other instances such 'refusal to care' is considered gross professional misconduct). I ask that anti-abortionists have the same respect by not enforcing their views on other through the law.

Nice idea, Urethra, but wishful thinking, I'm afraid. The Rabid Right just won't let it go!

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Re: the above, it appears I misread your proposition, but the principle remains the same. In your "murder" scenario, a foetus would be unlikely to survive removal from the womb. This should not be "murder", but could be labelled a whole host of other things: unlawful performance of a medical procedure by an unqualified practioner perhaps? The issues here are was the woman consenting, and if so, why had she not sought correct medical help. The answer could be that she lives somewhere like Ireland, where women's rights are denied and people are often forced into such terrible situations.

And that's a really important point. Abortion should be the choice of the woman concerned. And she should have the option of the safest possible procedure. I'd hate to see a return to the dreadful "back street" abortions that used to cause so much harm and suffering!

 

[Fantasea]

Quote = Urethra

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I was unaware that I was annoying you. That certainly was not my intention. My efforts are directed toward edification regarding human creation not the fomentation of botheration, irritation, vexation, or frustration.

I guess that what you are telling me, indirectly, is that you are unable to furnish factual rebuttal to the dozen or so experts I quoted who, on the basis of facts established as a result of collaborative research in their respective fields, agree unanimously, and have never been challenged, that human life begins at conception.

That's too bad. I was hopeful that you might be the one who could do it. Pity.

I considered your favorite, however it didn't seem to fit the story being woven.

No Fantasea, I will not be reduced to your imbecillic dial-a-quote level of argument. I'm more intelligent than that. I also don't need to scour the Oxford English Dictionary for obscure words in order to impress

When the insults begin is a good sign that one’s quiver, as it were, contains no facts.

What I will put to you is this. At what point do we switch off artificial respiration apparatus for the victims of trauma? When it is clear that that person would not survive independently without this artificial intervention, i.e. in terms of survival, they are not independently viable. Nature, Fate, God, Allah, The Tooth Fairy, whatever you believe in, would take them.

To this point we were discussing apples and you decide to introduce an orange into the discussion. We have not been discussing the ways in which a mature person, usually one who has lived a full life or has met with an accident, leaves this life. This has absolutely nothing to do with the life of a human being who is working very hard to progress toward birth.

In most nations the same criteria are applied to the foetus. They may be legally aborted at a point when they would not survive independently were they to be removed from the mothers body. Why? Because many obstetricians, gynaecologists, embryologists, midwives and ethicists believe that this is when life begins. It's not a "fact" - it's their intellectual conclusion having considered the evidence.

Given the fact that 'preemies' having a birth weight of less than a can of Coke are now attending school, what is the rationale for aborting infants weighing more than that?

It would be helpful if you cited the arguments of a few of these professionals. Are you able to do so? In the meantime, I think you will agree that the Danes disagree with you.

J Med Ethics. 1988 Jun;14(2):77-8. Related Articles, Links


New Danish law: human life begins at conception.

Holm S.

University of Copenhagen.

A new law has been passed by the Danish Parliament, establishing an ethical council. The law has caused considerable debate in Denmark, particularly because it states that 'the work of the council shall build on the basis that human life takes its beginning at the time of conception'.

PMID: 3292767 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Others believe that life begins at conception. Similarly that is not a "fact" - it's their intellectual (or in some cases religious) conclusion having considered the evidence (or in some cases because the pope says so).

First, please don’t muddy the water by adding religion to a secular discussion.

Second, you would be well advised to look further into the findings of the professionals I cited in several earlier posts. That is, if you are interested in the truth. It is obvious that I cannot do that for you.

Most countries have an opt out clause for health care workers, so that if your conscience disagrees with abortion, you do not ever have to take part, just as Jehovah's Witnesses are not obliged to participate in blood transfusion. Nobody is forced to take part in abortion against their conscience.

What good is so weak a concession to the child who will be tossed into the slop bucket by the abortionist, or the abortionist’s willing assistant?

All I would ask is that you return this respect for others' opinions, by not having the law deny abortion to women who can justify it in their own minds.

One can rationalize anything in one’s own mind. Isn’t that true?

No person has the right to decide whether another lives or dies. Persons tried and convicted of the most heinous crimes have the right to life in the UK. Yet, an infant in he womb, whose only offense is making an appearance at an inopportune time may receive capital punishment.

__________________
She gets too hungry for dinner at 8
She likes 6 burgers and fries on her plate
She's fat and thinks that McDonald's is great
That's why the lady is a yank.
-Paella Fitzgerald "The Lady Is A Yank"

Second chorus, by Fantasea:

She gets too hungry for dinner at eight,
Eats bubble and squeak off a cracked dinner plate,
Thin as a rail and a drab, toothless twit,
That’s why the lady is a Brit.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Quote = Urethra


Second chorus, by Fantasea:

She gets too hungry for dinner at eight,
Eats bubble and squeak off a cracked dinner plate,
Thin as a rail and a drab, toothless twit,
That’s why the lady is a Brit.

Evidence that Urethra is British, please.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Quote = Urethra

No Fantasea, I will not be reduced to your imbecillic dial-a-quote level of argument. I'm more intelligent than that. I also don't need to scour the Oxford English Dictionary for obscure words in order to impress

When the insults begin is a good sign that one’s quiver, as it were, contains no facts.

To this point we were discussing apples and you decide to introduce an orange into the discussion. We have not been discussing the ways in which a mature person, usually one who has lived a full life or has met with an accident, leaves this life. This has absolutely nothing to do with the life of a human being who is working very hard to progress toward birth.

Given the fact that 'preemies' having a birth weight of less than a can of Coke are now attending school, what is the rationale for aborting infants weighing more than that?

It would be helpful if you cited the arguments of a few of these professionals. Are you able to do so? In the meantime, I think you will agree that the Danes disagree with you.

J Med Ethics. 1988 Jun;14(2):77-8. Related Articles, Links


New Danish law: human life begins at conception.

Holm S.

University of Copenhagen.

A new law has been passed by the Danish Parliament, establishing an ethical council. The law has caused considerable debate in Denmark, particularly because it states that 'the work of the council shall build on the basis that human life takes its beginning at the time of conception'.

PMID: 3292767 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


First, please don’t muddy the water by adding religion to a secular discussion.

Second, you would be well advised to look further into the findings of the professionals I cited in several earlier posts. That is, if you are interested in the truth. It is obvious that I cannot do that for you.


What good is so weak a concession to the child who will be tossed into the slop bucket by the abortionist, or the abortionist’s willing assistant?

One can rationalize anything in one’s own mind. Isn’t that true?

No person has the right to decide whether another lives or dies. Persons tried and convicted of the most heinous crimes have the right to life in the UK. Yet, an infant in he womb, whose only offense is making an appearance at an inopportune time may receive capital punishment.

Second chorus, by Fantasea:

She gets too hungry for dinner at eight,
Eats bubble and squeak off a cracked dinner plate,
Thin as a rail and a drab, toothless twit,
That’s why the lady is a Brit.

Impossible to argue with somebody who confuses the word "child" with "foetus". You use the word "child" to describe solmething which is not yet a child because you know it sounds more emotive. Classic anti-abortionist tactic, but most people are intelligent enough to see through it.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

She gets too hungry for dinner at eight,
Eats bubble and squeak off a cracked dinner plate,
Thin as a rail and a drab, toothless twit,
That’s why the lady is a Brit.

What is bubble and squeak?

In the original song it is the first three lines which rhyme while the last differs. It is not a chorus of rhyming couplets. You have not respected the original formula. Smokey Robinson you ain't. Try harder.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

What is bubble and squeak?

Bubble and Squeak is left-over vegeatables fried, basically. Generally cabbage and potato plus any other left-over veggies. When done well it's delicious, and currently quite trendy in expensive restaurants (where the veggies are presumably not left-overs!).

 

[Chaos10187]

What is bubble and squeak?

Bubble and Squeak is left-over vegeatables fried, basically. Generally cabbage and potato plus any other left-over veggies. When done well it's delicious, and currently quite trendy in expensive restaurants (where the veggies are presumably not left-overs!).

Learn something new everyday.

 

[Fantasea]

Evidence that Urethra is British, please.

Ask Urethra for a confession. Any Brit would be too proud to deny it; most other Europeans wish they were Brits.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

most other Europeans wish they were Brits.

Actually, most Europeans are very glad that they're not Brits!

 

[Repubteen]

I want to ask a question to the Democrats. Think of it like this. If someone killed a Baby Bald Eagle or any endagered animal for that matter. He/ She would be locked up for a long time. But the Defendant would ask why is my client being locked up. Because he killed an endagered species. Well correct me if I'm wrong but isn't every child is endagered because, there will never be another like it.It's time for the Democrats to start caring more about the lives of humans and less about the animals.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

I want to ask a question to the Democrats. Think of it like this. If someone killed a Baby Bald Eagle or any endagered animal for that matter. He/ She would be locked up for a long time. But the Defendant would ask why is my client being locked up. Because he killed an endagered species. Well correct me if I'm wrong but isn't every child is endagered because, there will never be another like it.It's time for the Democrats to start caring more about the lives of humans and less about the animals.

It's wrong to destroy one fetus, you say. So how come it's OK to allow millions of adults and children to starve to death in this world when we have the resources to prevent this from happening?

And, FYI, this is not just a right versus left (not that you have a left in the USA) issue. I'm sure there are pro-abortion republicans and anti-abortion democrats!

 

[Repubteen]

First of all, we may have the resources to help other countries but don't you think we should our own country first. Also it is terrible that these people are starving but why does it have to be our government helping these people why doesn't the ACLU or a group along that line help them.And another thing to think about the USA didn't get to where it is today by receiving had outs. Answer this for me do you support patrial birth abortion?

 

[Naughty Nurse]

First of all, we may have the resources to help other countries but don't you think we should our own country first. Also it is terrible that these people are starving but why does it have to be our government helping these people why doesn't the ACLU or a group along that line help them.And another thing to think about the USA didn't get to where it is today by receiving had outs. Answer this for me do you support patrial birth abortion?

I'm not talking about your government in particular. It is the whole capitalist system that is at fault. Some countries have more wealth than they need, and squander it on WMD (and I include my own country here). Other countries do not even have the basic resources to sustain life. As human beings we should share a collective responsibility for the state of our world and that of our fellow human beings.

I wouldn't say that I support abortion, but I feel it has to be the choice of the people concerned, and not my choice.

 

[Repubteen]

This is a good point but the safety and security of America comes first. I feel awful for these people but this is like a global welfare system your talking about. Maybe the governments of these countries need some reforming. That I would support. And would support my country for doing it.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

This is a good point but the safety and security of America comes first. I feel awful for these people but this is like a global welfare system your talking about. Maybe the governments of these countries need some reforming. That I would support. And would support my country for doing it.

How will reforming governments bring rain to countries that suffer long-term drought? How will reforming governments suddenly produce resources for countries that have none?

We do need to empower other countries to become independent, but independece is not an option when you are starving to death. We need to solve that one first.

 

[anomaly]

Naughty, just wanted to say that you hit the nail on the head when you said "the whole capitalist system is at fault". When will my fellow Americans realize that it is the very capitalist system that our gov't supports and promotes at all costs that is the cause of most of the rest of the world's suffering. As long as we have capitalism, we will have poverty, world hunger, terrible living conditions etc. We have two options:
1. Drastically reform the capitalist system with more socialistic i.e. redistribution policies (especially for the global south which is often at the mercy of the rich global north). Ensure that the poor countries have adequete supplies, fair wages, decent living conditions etc. We have the tools (the UN), we simply lack the leadership and/or the cooperation (of the USA mostly).
2. Destroy the capitalist system. This more radical solution typically calls for a 'global state' thereby ensuring the fair treatment of all peoples. Usually we have communism or (probably at first) socialism (where the political controls the economic by putting numerous standards on labor treatment). I think the first solution must be implemented first to give rise to this one.

Also, I have a question for Repubteen. Why do you have a picture of Ronald Reagan next to your name? You actually admire him? Ha!

 

[Repubteen]

Yes, I do admire him. I think he was a great president. He was a much better president than Clinton

 

[Fantasea]

I want to ask a question to the Democrats. Think of it like this. If someone killed a Baby Bald Eagle or any endagered animal for that matter. He/ She would be locked up for a long time. But the Defendant would ask why is my client being locked up. Because he killed an endagered species. Well correct me if I'm wrong but isn't every child is endagered because, there will never be another like it.It's time for the Democrats to start caring more about the lives of humans and less about the animals.

In line with the foolishness you describe, a few years ago one of the US baseball teams was playing in Montreal. A US batter hit a fly ball that collided with a bird flying by. The batter was safe, but the bird was out (for good).

The batter was served with a citation for killing the bird. The next time he appeared in Montreal he also had to appear in court.