• 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.

Hello I am a Baby in my Mommy’s Womb

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gibberish said:
You believe you mean.


Yes they do, they just lack the experience, knowledge and motor skills. There brains function the same though, unless there is an obvious disorder.



There is a difference between brainwaves and random firings. As Steen stated a few posts up.

Fact at 43 day the Baby moves, at 17 days the heart is beating. what is controlling this? What makes a baby kick? what makes a Baby move in the womb. 2 weeks the brain is there. What is it being used for? Source Grays Anatomy If Mr Steen was honest instead of demanding sources he would be listing his so far the silence is deafening.
 
steen said:
Another lie. We KNOW that this is what you CLAIM. It is not proven in any of your posts. Please cease the very dishonest anti-choice tactic of misrepresenting beliefs and wishful thinking as facts.
We know it doesn't happen before the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, so again please cease your deceptions and misrepresentations. Your dishonesty is beginni8ng to be bothersome.
We know that you are lying when you make that claim.
It is not a matter of being able to meassure random impulses. You get the same "waves" off a plant. However, actual "brainwaves" do not occur until there is a coordinated pattern of signals between several centers of the central nervous system, which doesn't occur until such signals are transmitted throughout, whioch is at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy.

So by all means continue to spew your lies. the evidence against them have been posted.

More Sources

To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." -Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune1

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." - Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic1

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception." - Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee1

"I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being." - Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine1

"To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous." - Dr. Richard V. Jaynes1

"Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." -Dr. Landrum Shettles, the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization

Scientific enough for you. I showed you mine now show me yours.
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Fact at 43 day the Baby moves,
False. There is no evidence of a "baby," your revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding. So once again are you making claims of facts per solely personal beliefs.
at 17 days the heart is beating. what is controlling this?
That would be reflexes. You DO know what reflexes are, don't you?
What makes a baby kick?
A baby? All sorts of things. A fetus before the 26th week of pregnancy- solely reflexes.
what makes a Baby move in the womb.
Nothing, as there are no babies in the womb. Movement is in fetuses, not babies, and before the 26th week of pregnancy, this comes from reflexes. I already provided scientific sources for this. that you ignore the evidence so you can continue to spew your dishonesty and false claims merely shows you to be willfully lying.

STOP LYING!

2 weeks the brain is there.
A lie.
What is it being used for?
Nothing.
Source Grays Anatomy If Mr Steen was honest instead of demanding sources he would be listing his so far the silence is deafening.
I have provided scientific references. Once again are you outright lying. You are showing yourself to be nothing but a dishonest stinking prolife liar. The typical prolifer, in other words.
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
More Sources
......

Scientific enough for you. I showed you mine now show me yours.
What you quoted was testemony before a congressional committee. That's political espousings, not scientific evidence. There is no peer-review or requirement for accurate science in a political confirming message. And, in fact, the scientific community has gotten down on Lejeune for his claims, hitting him on the misrepresentation of a personal opinion as having scientific background.

And yes, I have provided scientific sources earlier, even though you ignore them and claim otherwise. That merely continues to show you as a flat-out liar.

STOP LYING.
 
steen said:
False. There is no evidence of a "baby," your revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding. So once again are you making claims of facts per solely personal beliefs.
That would be reflexes. You DO know what reflexes are, don't you?

Reflexes Heart beating just a reflex? Please list your source again I missed it.

A baby? All sorts of things. A fetus before the 26th week of pregnancy- solely reflexes.

Let me tell you a personal source My Wife and I lost 5 premature babies all born alive between 19-21 The first Boy live an hour according to you without a functioning brain. No Incubator or Oxgen was given yet he cried? again no brain waves according to you. You sir are the liar Aurora get a bucket of water I think Steens pants are on fire.


Nothing, as there are no babies in the womb. Movement is in fetuses, not babies, and before the 26th week of pregnancy, this comes from reflexes. I already provided scientific sources for this. that you ignore the evidence so you can continue to spew your dishonesty and false claims merely shows you to be willfully lying.

Fetus is Latin for Baby I prefer the English.

STOP LYING!

A lie.
Nothing.
I have provided scientific references. Once again are you outright lying. You are showing yourself to be nothing but a dishonest stinking prolife liar. The typical prolifer, in other words.

Sticks and stones and suction devices will break a babies bones but names will never hurt me or them.
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Steen said:
That would be reflexes. You DO know what reflexes are, don't you?
Reflexes Heart beating just a reflex? Please list your source again I missed it.
Cripes, you are ignorant:
http://www.scientia.org/cadonline/Biology/specialcells/contractile.ASP
Cardiac muscle forms the tissue of the heart and shares characteristics from both striated and smooth muscle: Both cardiac fibers and the fibers of striated muscle are striated, but cardiac fibers can be stimulated by the autonomic nervous system as are the fibers of smooth muscle. Specialized regions of cardiac muscle spontaneously contract in the absence of nervous impulses, though such impulses may modify the automatic rhythm. Under normal circumstances, the impulses that cause cardiac muscle contraction originate from specialized cardiac muscle cells, not in the nervous system. The junction of two closely fused cell walls is the intercalated disc.

http://www.jdaross.cwc.net/cardiac_cycle.htm
When surgically removed from the body, the heart will continue to beat for several hours provided it is supplied with the appropriate nutrients and salts. This is possible because the heart possesses its own specialised conduction system and can beat independently even after being separated from its nerve supply.

http://www.biologymad.com/resources/Circulatory System Revision.pdf
Cardiac Muscle
• The muscle making up the heart is called cardiac muscle.
• It is myogenic, i.e., stimulates itself to contract — does not need external stimulation.
• It is an involuntary, strong muscle that does not fatigue (no anaerobic respiration).


Let me tell you a personal source My Wife and I lost 5 premature babies all born alive between 19-21 The first Boy live an hour according to you without a functioning brain.
No functioning brain cortex, where awareness and processing lies. The brainstem that handles automatic processes certainly was intact. Again, these were reflexes without awareness. That you don't know this is your ignorance, and not my fault.

No Incubator or Oxgen was given yet he cried? again no brain waves according to you.
Correct. the cortex was not involved, there was no processing and coordination of impulses, thus no brainwaves.
You sir are the liar Aurora get a bucket of water I think Steens pants are on fire.
]Rather, your ignorance is perpetuated by you obviously refusing to look at the provided, scientific evidence, willfully chosing to remain ignorant so you can continue to spew your lies. Shame on you.

STOP LYING.

Sticks and stones and suction devices will break a babies bones
Irrelevant, as there are no babies involved in abortions, your lying revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding.
 
steen said:
False. There is no evidence of a "baby," your revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding.
I have provided scientific references. Once again are you outright lying. You are showing yourself to be nothing but a dishonest stinking prolife liar. The typical prolifer, in other words.

O man, everytime I read your posts, you crack me up.:rofl This guy keeps on shifting his stance once you refute this or that claim, hahaha
 
That is the nature of the dishonest prolifers who lie all the time.
 
i will get a bucket of water, but only because this thread is on fire!:lol:
 
steen said:
That is the nature of the dishonest prolifers who lie all the time.

I guess Iam not alone

February 13, 1984

President Ronald Reagan

The White House

Washington, DC

Mr. President:
As physicians, we, the undersigned, are pleased to associate ourselves with you in drawing the attention of people across
the nation to the humanity and sensitivity of the human unborn.
That the unborn, the prematurely born, and the newborn of the
human species is a highly complex, sentient, functioning,
individual organism is established scientific fact. That the
human unborn and newly born do respond to stimuli is also
established beyond any reasonable doubt.
The ability to feel pain and respond to it is clearly not a
phenomenon that develops de novo at birth. Indeed, much of
enlightened modern obstetrical practice and procedure seeks to
minimize sensory deprivation of, and sensory insult to, the fetus during, at, and after birth. Over the last 18 years, real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG (electrocardiogram) and fetal EEG (electroencephalogram) have
demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus
to pain, touch, and sound. That the fetus responds to changesin light intensity within the womb, to heat, to cold, and to
taste (by altering the chemical nature of the fluid swallowed by the fetus) has been exquisitely documented in the pioneering
work of the late Sir William Liley -- the father of fetology.Observations of the fetal electrocardiogram and the increase in fetal movements in saline abortions indicate that the fetus
experiences discomfort as it dies. Indeed, one doctor who, the New York Times wrote, "conscientiously performs" saline abortions stated, "When you inject the saline, you often see anincrease in fetal movements, it's horrible."
We state categorically that no finding of modern fetology invalidates the remarkable conclusion drawn after a lifetime of research by the late Professor Arnold Gesell of Yale University. In "The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind" (1945, Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, "and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way."
Mr. President, in drawing attention to the capability of the human fetus to feel pain, you stand on firmly established ground.
Respectfully,
Dr. Richard T. F. Schmidt, Past President, A.C.O.G., Professor of Ob/Gyn,University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
Dr. Vincent Collins, Professor of Anesthesiology, Northwestern University,University of Illinois Medical Center
Dr. John G. Masterson, Clinical Professor of Ob/Gyn, Northwestern University
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, F.A.C.O.G., Clinical Assistant Professor of Ob/Gyn,Cornell University
Dr. Denis Cavanaugh, F.A.C.O.G., Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of South Florida
Dr. Watson Bowes, F.A.C.O.G., Professor of Material and Fetal Medicine,University of North Carolina
Dr. Byron Oberst, Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, University of Nebraska
Dr. Eugene Diamond, Professor of Pediatrics, Strict School of Medicine,Chicago, IL
Dr. Thomas Potter, Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, New Jersey Medical College
Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, Instructor of Clinical Pediatrics, University of
Pittsburgh
Dr. Melvin Thornton, Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, University of Texas (San Antonio)
Dr. Norman Vernig, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota(St. Paul)
Dr. Jerome Shen, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, St. Louis University
Dr. Fred Hofmeister, Past President, A.C.O.G., Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)
Dr. Matthew Bulfin, F.A.C.O.G., Lauderdale by the Sea, FL
Dr. Jay Arena, Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Duke University
Dr. Herbert Nakata, Assistant Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, University of Hawaii
Dr. Robert Polley, Clinical Instructor of Pediatrics, University of Washington(Seattle)
Dr. David Foley, Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)
Dr. Anne Bannon, F.A.A.P., Former Chief of Pediatrics, City Hospital (St.Louis)
Dr. John J. Brennan, Professor of Ob/Gyn, Medical College of Wisconsin,(Milwaukee)
Dr. Walter F. Watts, Assistant Professor of Ob/Gyn, Strict School of Medicine,Chicago, IL
Dr. G. C. Tom Nabors, Assistant Clinical Professor of Ob/Gyn, Southwestern Medical College, Dallas, TX
Dr. Konald Prem, Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Minnesota (Minneapolis)
Dr. Alfred Derby, F.A.C.O.G., Spokane, WA
Dr. Bernie Pisani, F.A.C.O.G., President, NY State Medical Society, Professor of Ob/Gyn, New York University
 
:2wave:
good night, now behave boys
:2wave:
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
I guess Iam not alone

February 13, 1984

President Ronald Reagan

The White House

Washington, DC

Mr. President:
As physicians, we, the undersigned, are pleased to associate ourselves with you in drawing the attention of people across
the nation to the humanity and sensitivity of the human unborn....
Yes, another prolife political treatise. So what? That is no different than the previous political dregs that you so deceoptively tried to present as scientific evidence. yes, that you are either dishonest or truly clueless about even what science is, that si your problem and not my fault.
 
A letter written in 1984 using some 'information' from 1945 is your proof of your 'facts'?
Ever spray a centipede or spider with Raid? Same reaction as what they are alluding to in saline abortions- primitive nervous center response. Twenty-one years later, we know this.
Babies are wonderful. So are the rights of women. And not ONE anti-choicer has given one legitmate reason as to how or why our rights as women should be denied.
 
ngdawg said:
A letter written in 1984 using some 'information' from 1945 is your proof of your 'facts'?
Ever spray a centipede or spider with Raid? Same reaction as what they are alluding to in saline abortions- primitive nervous center response. Twenty-one years later, we know this.
Babies are wonderful. So are the rights of women. And not ONE anti-choicer has given one legitmate reason as to how or why our rights as women should be denied.

Again we have DNA evidence that first the baby is human. second that the baby is an individual or person. If DNA evidence can be used to prove a person was at a crime scene the same evidence can be used to prove a person is in his or her Mother's womb.

So by killing this person you are violating his or her rights. Not rights given by any government Rights given by God unalienable rights that the fathers of our country fought for. You know Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Declaration of Independence)

Abortion is killing another human being again DNA proves this beyond a doubt. Not only killing another Human being, Abortion is the cruelest most inhumane way to destroy a Life. We would not do this to animals.

Fact 99% of all abortion are not done because of rape, incest, or health of the Mother. Most Americans only favor abortion in these circumstances. (I am against all abortions except when Mom's Life might be endangered) Abortion is Murder plain and simple. If it walks like a duck quacks lie a Duck. Looks like a duck, It's a duck.
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Again we have DNA evidence that first the baby is human. second that the baby is an individual or person. If DNA evidence can be used to prove a person was at a crime scene the same evidence can be used to prove a person is in his or her Mother's womb.
DNA evidence doesn't solely a human make.
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
So by killing this person you are violating his or her rights. Not rights given by any government Rights given by God unalienable rights that the fathers of our country fought for. You know Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Declaration of Independence)
You're jumping to an assumption unsupported by any given facts that the immediate result of a sperm and egg combining automatically equates a person with rights.

Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Abortion is killing another human being again DNA proves this beyond a doubt.
DNA doesn't prove that at all. I've already proven that in this thread which you seem to have glossed over.
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Not only killing another Human being, Abortion is the cruelest most inhumane way to destroy a Life. We would not do this to animals.
Apparently you've never heard of veal.
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Fact 99% of all abortion are not done because of rape, incest, or health of the Mother. Most Americans only favor abortion in these circumstances. (I am against all abortions except when Mom's Life might be endangered) Abortion is Murder plain and simple. If it walks like a duck quacks lie a Duck. Looks like a duck, It's a duck.
So, murder is ok when the mom's life is at danger? This is rich. What makes the mother's life more valuable than what you're claiming would be the other's life?
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Can anyone deny this does not happen? The story tells you how a baby developes during the time most abortions take place.

Yes, I can.

You are using figurative narrative in the same way that animals are personified by use of language in animation. This device is useful to give a voice and communication where it would otherwise not be available.

However, in your case it is the method itself that is used to communicate your point; the message the foetus says is less important. In other words, by giving the imaginary foetus a voice and intelligent thought, you imply that a real foetus has the same. It leads peopple to confuse the real with the imaginary.

Now, I'm not saying at what point abortion should not be allowed, if at all, but I am saying that this argument is misleading. It gets us no closer to understanding whether or not the foetus can think, is conscious or has a soul.
 
shuamort said:
DNA evidence doesn't solely a human make.

Are you trying to tell me we can not tell if someone is human by their DNA? Oh Maybe the person with the DNA has to be a certain age to be human? Fact it is Human DNA right from conception no doubt about it. No assuption.I do not assume because when we assume you make a ASS/U/ME both.

You're jumping to an assumption unsupported by any given facts that the immediate result of a sperm and egg combining automatically equates a person with rights.

DNA makes a person an individual and yes indidual persons have rights (not in this country yet but soon)


DNA doesn't prove that at all. I've already proven that in this thread which you seem to have glossed over.

Sorry I missed that When Where Opps.
(Iam not really sorry)
Apparently you've never heard of veal.

Acctualy Veal, the caft is put in a box so it can not move then fed. I do not like the practice. But we are talking about killing another human being That is Inhumane what is done to the caft is cruel.

So, murder is ok when the mom's life is at danger?

I was put in this situation with my wife 3 times. We were told there was some risk if they tried to continue the pregnancy (we lost 5 premature babies) My wife decided the risk were acceptable. We still lost the babies but she was willing to take that risk.

This is rich. What makes the mother's life more valuable than what you're claiming would be the other's life?

If Mom Dies the baby usually dies also depending how far along she is.
 
paulmarkj said:
Yes, I can.

You are using figurative narrative in the same way that animals are personified by use of language in animation. This device is useful to give a voice and communication where it would otherwise not be available.

However, in your case it is the method itself that is used to communicate your point; the message the foetus says is less important. In other words, by giving the imaginary foetus a voice and intelligent thought, you imply that a real foetus has the same. It leads peopple to confuse the real with the imaginary.

You are kidding me? How can anyone Imagine that. I am sure the Baby is alive and feels things happening to he or she, much like a new born feels when they are getting teeth. Steen just had a cow. I know I can not prove what I am telling you It is just common sense. At nine weeks we do know the baby feels pain (Source National Department of Health and Human Services)

Now, I'm not saying at what point abortion should not be allowed, if at all, but I am saying that this argument is misleading. It gets us no closer to understanding whether or not the foetus can think, is conscious or has a soul.

Fetus or Foetus is Latin for Baby I prefer the English.
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
Again we have DNA evidence that first the baby is human.
That remains false, as it still isn't a baby. It certainly is of the human species if that is what you mean, and nobody have denied this, so your argument seems irrelevant.
second that the baby
And again, there is no baby.
is an individual or person.
And DNA can not prove this, your claim is false.
If DNA evidence can be used to prove a person was at a crime scene the same evidence can be used to prove a person is in his or her Mother's womb.
Nope, as there is no person in "mother's womb."
So by killing this person
There is no person, hence the very foundation for your argument is invvalid.
you are violating his or her rights.
Nope, as there is no person. But assuredly, you are violating the WOMAN'S rights by commandeering her body and enslaving her. Not that such ever bothered the misogynistic, theocratic slaver fundie prolifers.
Not rights given by any government
Then they are not enforceable through governmental legal codes. Thanks for confirming this.
Rights given by God
Ah, a "because I say so" postulation that is no way can be proven. Sure seems like you merely seek to use religion in your political quest to oppress and control women.
unalienable rights that the fathers of our country fought for.
And you have yet to prove that either, especially in light of the clarification that these personhood rights never have been applied to the unborn. hence, when you seek to draw that analogy, you are flat-out lying again.
You know Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Declaration of Independence)
The DoI is not law. Sheesh, didn't you learn that in civics?
Abortion is killing another human being
Nope.
again DNA proves this beyond a doubt.
You are LYING. DNA doesn't prove anything about the legal character of the carrier. DNA doesn't equate with human being, it merely correlates with there being cells of human origin. Your claim remains a lie, just like it was a lie previously. In fact, all you are doing here is lying time after time.
Not only killing another Human being,
But it isn't, your lies none withstanding.
Abortion is the cruelest most inhumane way to destroy a Life.
Fascinating claim, that removing non-sensate, non-sentient cells is worse than torture of persons, burning of kids in a church or whatnot. Your warped view of reality and complete and utter disregard of the horrors that have been faced by thinking, feeling persons is duly noted. It is indeed true that pro-life fundie radicals like yourself care only for embryos and fetuses, but couldn't care less for people after they are born.
We would not do this to animals.
Yeah, we stick them on sticky paper and dump them in the trash to starve to death as we do with mice. Much better than removing non-feeling cells. Your argument is looney.
http://www.designawards.com.au/ADA/04-05/Consumer/015/015.htm
Fact 99% of all abortion are not done because of rape, incest, or health of the Mother.
Irrelevant, as it is not your place to say what the woman should do with her bodily resources
Most Americans only favor abortion in these circumstances.
Irrelevant. The majority doesn't have the right to enslave the minority. That is what the US Constitution Bill of Rights is all about. yes, I understand that you loathe the US Constitution and thus oppose what makes us Americans, but that really is your problem, not anybody else's
(I am against all abortions except when Mom's Life might be endangered)
Yes, I am not surprised that you couldn't care less when the woman "only" face lifelong maiming and pain. After all, her welfare is irrelevant as long as she is around to pop out more babies. Your misogynistic hate mongering is duly noted.
Abortion is Murder plain and simple.
That is a lie, plain and simple.
If it walks like a duck quacks lie a Duck. Looks like a duck, It's a duck.
So you are a misogynistic, anti-American, theocratic, fundie hate monger. OK!
 
You still need to work on how you use your quotes

Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
shuamort said:
DNA evidence doesn't solely a human make.
Are you trying to tell me we can not tell if someone is human by their DNA?
We can't say whether they are A human.
Oh Maybe the person with the DNA has to be a certain age to be human? Fact it is Human DNA right from conception no doubt about it.
Nobody have denied this. You are merely sloppy in your vocabulary. Your illiteracy is not our fault.
You're jumping to an assumption unsupported by any given facts that the immediate result of a sperm and egg combining automatically equates a person with rights.
DNA makes a person an individual
Nope, you are still lying.
and yes indidual persons have rights (not in this country yet but soon)
Individual persons do have right, but you have yet to show that the zygote, enmbryo or fetus qualifies as such. Your lying "because I say so" claptrap nonsense is not evidence of anythign other that your wild and illogical claims.
DNA doesn't prove that at all. I've already proven that in this thread which you seem to have glossed over.
Sorry I missed that When Where Opps.
(Iam not really sorry)
Allmover the place, and of course you aren't sorry that you continue your lies despite the nonsense of it and the evidence against it. Because that would be out fo character for you. You take pride in your lies, so there is no reason to expect you to be sorry about spewing them.
 
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
paulmarkj said:
You are using figurative narrative in the same way that animals are personified by use of language in animation. This device is useful to give a voice and communication where it would otherwise not be available.

However, in your case it is the method itself that is used to communicate your point; the message the foetus says is less important. In other words, by giving the imaginary foetus a voice and intelligent thought, you imply that a real foetus has the same. It leads peopple to confuse the real with the imaginary.
You are kidding me? How can anyone Imagine that. I am sure the Baby is alive and feels things happening to he or she,
It is not a baby, and no it doesn't feel a thing as has been proven to you by scientific references facts previosuly. So you are again LYING.
much like a new born feels when they are getting teeth.
Nope, you are lying. The newborn's sensations are existing, the embryo's and fetus' is not.
Steen just had a cow.
Nope, I merely proved that you are lying.
I know I can not prove what I am telling you It is just common sense.
That is not evidence.
At nine weeks we do know the baby feels pain (Source National Department of Health and Human Services)
Where? The claim is fasle. I alredy provided the solid scientific evidence that the claim is a flat-out lie. yet you continue to spew that lie. You must like lying, then?
Fetus or Foetus is Latin for Baby
You are lying again.
I prefer the English.
So lets look at the English:

http://www.answers.com/topic/fetus
fe·tus (fē'təs)
n., pl. -tus·es.
The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

Oh, but wait. That evidence was presented back in post #35 already. So you already knew this, yet you continue to spew that same lie? yes, you truly are a scumbag liar.
 
Last edited:
:2wave:
happy thanksgiving steen and proudly!, thanks for behaving.
:2wave:

now, steen please educate me on how it's possible for your claims of a non-human, with reflexive movements and no brain waves until 26 weeks, can show up on a sonogram and we can determine the sex
 
Aurora151989 said:
now, steen please educate me on how it's possible for your claims of a non-human, with reflexive movements and no brain waves until 26 weeks, can show up on a sonogram and we can determine the sex
Well, I never claimed anything about a "non-human," but certainly, if it was a chimp, we could do that. And I don't see where the fact of reflexive movements and no brainwaves has anything to do with the sex-determination on sonograms? That just doesn't make sense. Could you clarify?
 
steen said:
Well, I never claimed anything about a "non-human," but certainly, if it was a chimp, we could do that. And I don't see where the fact of reflexive movements and no brainwaves has anything to do with the sex-determination on sonograms? That just doesn't make sense. Could you clarify?


you have stated that DNA does NOT a human make, nor a individual fetus make. I will accept a fetus kicking as reflexive. however this fetus has (a beating heart, a working brain, kicking, meconium and human dna) add this to a living mother barring life support, you have a living fetus, a potential baby who is under the mercy of the mother. personally I believe in protecting the mother's life and not aborting a viable fetus, as you can see from the website of a baby born at 26 weeks. this is why i am so flexible and willing to debate with you, :mrgreen:
 
Aurora151989 said:
you have stated that DNA does NOT a human make, nor a individual fetus make.
Correct. DNA is merely a component of cells. (And pleasedon't get confused here. There is a difference between "human" and "a human." You need to pay attention to the difference).
I will accept a fetus kicking as reflexive. however this fetus has (a beating heart, a working brain, kicking, meconium and human dna) add this to a living mother barring life support, you have a living fetus, a potential baby who is under the mercy of the mother.
I agree with every point you make, yes (other than the "working brain" part, but that is irrelevant to this point, so lets leave that for some other time). How does that contradict anything I said?
personally I believe in protecting the mother's life and not aborting a viable fetus, as you can see from the website of a baby born at 26 weeks. this is why i am so flexible and willing to debate with you,QUOTE]Ah, but the abortion of viable fetuses is an almost non-occuring event, so in a debate about abortions in general, I don't see the relevance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom