- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 4,081
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Upper Midwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
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.Fantasea said:I can understand your denial of this common medical term ......
Even more disturbing is your repeated denial of a common medical term, "child in utero".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.
No mixup. Try here:ngdawg said: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?
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.Fantasea said:
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'?
:dohtalloulou said:uh chapter 9.2 is entitled:
9.2 The form and position of the child in utero
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.
Notice how you can not say that any of those sources are not against a womans choice.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.
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.
jfuh said:Notice how you can not say that any of those sources are not against a womans choice.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.Scientists seek truths and do not concern themselves with political law.
Politicians make laws and do not concern themselves with scientific truths.You are playing the game poorly.Thanks for playing your language game tall.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?