• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Abortion Warnings?

Fantasea said:
I can understand your denial of this common medical term ......
It is very unbecoming of you to keep making false claims about science. It is disturbing that you are unable to discuss things without such misrepresentations.
 
steen said:
It is very unbecoming of you to keep making false claims about science. It is disturbing that you are unable to discuss things without such misrepresentations.
Even more disturbing is your repeated denial of a common medical term, "child in utero".
 
Hm...trying to find the medical term 'child in utero', but all that comes back is 'in utero' or the phrasing from 'Laci and Conners Law'. And articles when looking that up use the phrase 'in utero' only....could it be you have law and medical terms mixed up?
 
Fantasea said:
Interesting. Now, granted, I speed-read thru it, using my cursor to follow along and I did not see that phrase in 6 pages of developmental writings.
What I DID notice, the site uses these terms in regards to gestation: embryo/embryonic for before 8 weeks, fetus/fetal for second trimester and child when talking about birth. I'll have to take a closer look, I reckon.
"In utero" I saw once or twice but not the whole 'child in utero' as stated, which if you think about it, is redundant anyway. Who speaks of 'cheese sandwich in utero'?
 
ngdawg said:
Interesting. Now, granted, I speed-read thru it, using my cursor to follow along and I did not see that phrase in 6 pages of developmental writings.
What I DID notice, the site uses these terms in regards to gestation: embryo/embryonic for before 8 weeks, fetus/fetal for second trimester and child when talking about birth. I'll have to take a closer look, I reckon.
"In utero" I saw once or twice but not the whole 'child in utero' as stated, which if you think about it, is redundant anyway. Who speaks of 'cheese sandwich in utero'?


uh chapter 9.2 is entitled:

9.2 The form and position of the child in utero
 
talloulou said:
uh chapter 9.2 is entitled:

9.2 The form and position of the child in utero
:doh
Silly me, I went right into reading.
Eh, still, that's the only time it's used in that way. Rest of the pages in that chapter still follow the same pattern, so I would hardly call that a medical term.....semantics are boring after a time. toodles







message too short so I type this to make it longer:roll:
 
:doh
Silly me, I went right into reading.
Eh, still, that's the only time it's used in that way. Rest of the pages in that chapter still follow the same pattern, so I would hardly call that a medical term.....semantics are boring after a time. toodles
 
It's no surprise that the anti-choice advocates have absolutely no other sources to cite other then from thier respective disillusional websites.
As for us on the pro-choice side, what can we cite?
Biology text books, scientific literature, medical journals, oh and also, law.
 
Oh wait, I forgot, there's one more source for the suppresionist side. Religious websites. How could I have forgotten those.
Sorry my bad.
 
I have a Great Idea. If you think abortion is murder.....DONT HAVE ONE. But you sure as he!! better keep your descision to yourself, and while your at it....quit looking in my bedroom window.
 
jfuh said:
It's no surprise that the anti-choice advocates have absolutely no other sources to cite other then from thier respective disillusional websites.
As for us on the pro-choice side, what can we cite?
Biology text books, scientific literature, medical journals, oh and also, law.

Biology, science, and medicine have never claimed anything to dispute the fact that the human embryo is a homosapien human. As far as I am concerned those sources all support the prolife side. The law decides whether it is protected or not. Everything else is a language game.
 
talloulou said:
Biology, science, and medicine have never claimed anything to dispute the fact that the human embryo is a homosapien human. As far as I am concerned those sources all support the prolife side. The law decides whether it is protected or not. Everything else is a language game.
Notice how you can not say that any of those sources are not against a womans choice.
Thanks for playing your language game tall.
 
jfuh said:
Notice how you can not say that any of those sources are not against a womans choice.
Thanks for playing your language game tall.

Are you claiming there are no drs or scientists who are anti-abortion. Clearly that claim is false. Is it not?
 
jfuh said:
Originally Posted by talloulou
Biology, science, and medicine have never claimed anything to dispute the fact that the human embryo is a homosapien human. As far as I am concerned those sources all support the prolife side. The law decides whether it is protected or not. Everything else is a language game.
Notice how you can not say that any of those sources are not against a womans choice.
Scientists seek truths and do not concern themselves with political law.

Politicians make laws and do not concern themselves with scientific truths.​
Thanks for playing your language game tall.
You are playing the game poorly.
 
Back
Top Bottom