• 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.

Hypocrites!

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
vergiss said:
...when did I ever mention life, or lack thereof?
Why so defensive? I never said that you did, did I? I simply asked a direct question and expected a direct answer.

May I have one?
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Fantasea said:
Why so defensive? I never said that you did, did I? I simply asked a direct question and expected a direct answer.

May I have one?

Just wondering, seeing as I have no idea how it's come into the argument.

Does that make it alive?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
vergiss said:
Just wondering, seeing as I have no idea how it's come into the argument.

Does that make it alive?
Does this mean that I won't get a direct answer to my direct question?
 

blogger31

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
vergiss said:
In which case, if it's 100% dependent on the placenta, it's also 100% dependent on the mother.

Wrong again!!! the placenta is not provided 100% by the mother.

The placenta is composed of two parts, one of which, the chorion, is genetically and biologically part of the fetus, the other part of the mother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Gah. You missed what I was saying - that by your logic, if something depends on something, it depends on it 100 percent. Therefore, even if only a tiny bit of the placenta is a part of the mother, then it depends on her 100 percent.

Although, let's not forget - the placenta could not keep going without her, regardless if it's genetically half the foetus'.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
vergiss said:
Gah. You missed what I was saying - that by your logic, if something depends on something, it depends on it 100 percent. Therefore, even if only a tiny bit of the placenta is a part of the mother, then it depends on her 100 percent.

Although, let's not forget - the placenta could not keep going without her, regardless if it's genetically half the foetus'.
You continue to dance around this central point of secular biology. From the moment of conception, the occupant of a mother's womb is a living, developing, growing, human, which, left undisturbed, will, in its own time, move through the birth canal to take its rightful position among us.

An activist judicial decision cannot change biological fact. It can only, as it did, ignore the truth.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Fantasea said:
You continue to dance around this central point of secular biology. From the moment of conception, the occupant of a mother's womb is a living, developing, growing, human, which, left undisturbed, will, in its own time, move through the birth canal to take its rightful position among us.

An activist judicial decision cannot change biological fact. It can only, as it did, ignore the truth.

Well I can see this is going to be today's mantra with you. Judicial activism. Do you have a "quote a day" pro life calendar or something?

First of all...secular biological fact is that there are stages to development with terminologies specific to each. Try as you might, you will never prove that a fetus is a baby, an embryo is a fetus, a zygote is an embryo, or that any of the above share all the same characteristics. And true, this particular mass of cells in question, if left undisturbed, will develop into a human being. But then, if you leave my hair undisturbed, my dad claims I will develop into a girl in time. Two arguments with total irrelevance. You want to stop baby killing, so dont allow the killing of BABIES. We want to leave a woman with her rights to control her medical condition. So we have a medical procedure called abortion.

Pretty open and shut.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
You continue to dance around this central point of secular biology.
"secular biology" As compared to religious biology? Your terminology seems weird and ignorant.
From the moment of conception, the occupant of a mother's womb is a living, developing, growing, human,
Wow, you make it sound like there is some individual entity there. Revisionist prolife linguistics at its worst.

Claiming that there is "a .. human," of course, is ridiculous.
which, left undisturbed, will, in its own time, move through the birth canal to take its rightful position among us.
Even if it is a hydatidiform mole?
An activist judicial decision cannot change biological fact.
Neither can you, so why the misrepresentation?
It can only, as it did, ignore the truth.
As what you posted was a misrepresentation, I am curious as to what the "truth" actually is?
 

blogger31

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
vergiss said:
Gah. You missed what I was saying - that by your logic, if something depends on something, it depends on it 100 percent. Therefore, even if only a tiny bit of the placenta is a part of the mother, then it depends on her 100 percent.

Although, let's not forget - the placenta could not keep going without her, regardless if it's genetically half the foetus'.

Vergiss is this just your way of not conceding that the fetus develops some of it's own environment. The original poster I was countering said the fluid was the mother's. I have simply claimed that the mother, while responsible, is not responsible for 100% of the fetus, the fetus does create some of it's own environment without which it would die. My point in general is that the fetus depends on itself for survival just as it does the woman. Do you agree or disagree?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
jallman said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
You continue to dance around this central point of secular biology. From the moment of conception, the occupant of a mother's womb is a living, developing, growing, human, which, left undisturbed, will, in its own time, move through the birth canal to take its rightful position among us.

An activist judicial decision cannot change biological fact. It can only, as it did, ignore the truth.
Well I can see this is going to be today's mantra with you. Judicial activism. Do you have a "quote a day" pro life calendar or something?
All one needs to understand judicial activism is the ability to read a decision and look for the citations of law upon which it is based. If there are no citations of law present, then the opinion is one of judicial activism; otherwise referred to as "legislating from the bench", which is a usurpation of legislative powers not delegated to the judicial branch of government.
First of all...secular biological fact is that there are stages to development with terminologies specific to each. Try as you might, you will never prove that a fetus is a baby, an embryo is a fetus, a zygote is an embryo, or that any of the above share all the same characteristics. And true, this particular mass of cells in question, if left undisturbed, will develop into a human being.
In the classic play Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, Juliet speaks the immortal lines - That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Many things are called by many names. However the name by which a thing is called does not effect its nature. Embryo, zygote, fetus, all refer to the living human being during its residence in a womb. All are equally human and living, and have been since the moment of conception. The names have been assigned simply to facilitate discussions by those in the medical field and refer only to arbitrary points along the progress of a pregnancy.

Once concieved, there is absolutely no point at which the occupant of a womb, regardless of the word used to describe it, is not a living human being. One's life; one's humanity, however, is absolute. It does not evolve. It does not change. The spark of life which is struck on the event of conception remains constant until it is extinguished by death, either inside or outside the womb.
But then, if you leave my hair undisturbed, my dad claims I will develop into a girl in time.
Father knows best.
Two arguments with total irrelevance. You want to stop baby killing, so dont allow the killing of BABIES. We want to leave a woman with her rights to control her medical condition. So we have a medical procedure called abortion.
The planned result of that medical procedure is to ensure the death of the occupant of a womb. There is no other reason for performing an abortion, is there?
Pretty open and shut.
Not pretty at all. One of these antonyms is considerably more fitting: appalling, awful, disgustful, disgusting, dreadful, frightening, frightful, grim, grisly, gruesome, hideous, horrible, horrid, horrifying, lurid, macabre, nauseant, nauseating, shocking, sickening, terrible, terrifying.
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
alex said:
I did say that. So what is the best way to prevent more unwanted children? Answer: Abortion. If an unwanted child is born, it is not my responsibility to pay for it. What is the best way to prevent imposing responsibility of unwanted children on me? Answer: Abortion.
It could be said that abstinence is, but that is unrealistic. It could be said that prevention is, but that does not always work. Some women and men do not like birth control and they choose not to use it, so that is also unrealistic. The 1.37 million abortions that happen annually are proof of all this. Abortion is necessary to prevent unwanted children from being born. Legal abortion is necessary to prevent women from seeking sub-standard abortions and risking their own health and possibly their lives. Making it illegal is not going to stop women from seeking it. It is more important to protect a born person then it is to protect the unborn when abortion is the choice made. Keeping it legal allows this.

Oooh, this is gonna be fun.

What is the best way to prevent more unwanted children?
Answer: Dont have sex. If you must have sex, use birth control. If you don't like birth control, too bad. You made the decision, now live with the consequences.

Abstinence is realistic. I am abstinent. I do not have any unwanted kids. And I know hundreds of other people who are abstinent too. I prefer abstinence, how can you miss something you've never had? Sex isn't a necessary biological function. You don't need it to survive.

If people do not like birth control, then I have no sympathy for them and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions.

Making it illegal WILL STOP women from seeking it. Does murder being illegal stop people from killing other people whenever they feel like it? Hell yes. If we legalized murder, a lot more murders would be committed than now. Therefore, if we ban abortions, a lot less abortions will be performed.

Where do you get the idea that not aborting a baby will kill a born person?

Here's a solution to the 'unwanted' crap you spew to protect your opinion.
ADOPTION
There are tons of families out there who want children but can't have them. I'm sure they would love and care for the child!

I keep hearing that the fetus in the womb isn't really living, it's dependant on the mother, it's just part of her body etc.
I am interested: At what point does the fetus "graduate" and become a baby? When does the fetus become alive, if it is not living before then? At what point can you make the distinction as to whether or not the "fetus" is now human and cannot be aborted?
If you sever a fetus' connection from its mother, it will die. If you leave a one day old baby in the kitchen for a week, it will die. Babies are still dependant on their mothers for food, shelter, etc. Does this mean we can abort them too?
If embryos are fully dependant on the mother for survival, what makes a baby any different? Is there a difference, besides size and development?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nez Dragon said:
Making it illegal WILL STOP women from seeking it.
Prove that. Extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
You continue to dance around this central point of secular biology.

"secular biology" As compared to religious biology?
I simply wish to make it abundantly clear that I do not discuss the subject on religious grounds. This seems like a good way to ensure that confusion is avoided.
Your terminology seems weird and ignorant.
Ordinarily I would consider your comments insulting. However, I will excuse them on the grounds that English is not your first language. I would respectfully suggest that you adopt a less confrontational tone.
Quote:
From the moment of conception, the occupant of a mother's womb is a living, developing, growing, human,
Wow, you make it sound like there is some individual entity there. Revisionist prolife linguistics at its worst.

Claiming that there is "a .. human," of course, is ridiculous.
If you do not believe that the occupant of a mother's womb is a living, growing, developing human, then tell me what is it? Is it animal? Is it vegetable? Is it mineral?
Quote:
which, left undisturbed, will, in its own time, move through the birth canal to take its rightful position among us.
Even if it is a hydatidiform mole?
Don't quit your regular job. You'll never make it as a humorist.
Quote:
An activist judicial decision cannot change biological fact.
Neither can you, so why the misrepresentation?
Any misrepresentation on my part is a figment of your imagination.
Quote:
It can only, as it did, ignore the truth.
As what you posted was a misrepresentation, I am curious as to what the "truth" actually is?
The truth is simply this, as any biologist, secular or otherwise, will tell you, "From the moment of conception, the occupant of a mother's womb is a living, developing, growing, human."
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
Oooh, this is gonna be fun.

What is the best way to prevent more unwanted children?
Answer: Dont have sex. If you must have sex, use birth control. If you don't like birth control, too bad. You made the decision, now live with the consequences.

Abstinence is realistic. I am abstinent. I do not have any unwanted kids. And I know hundreds of other people who are abstinent too. I prefer abstinence, how can you miss something you've never had? Sex isn't a necessary biological function. You don't need it to survive.
Since you'e never had sex I can maybe see how you would consider this "fun." Not having sex is not an option for the majority of people because it is a natural and beautiful way to express one's affections for someone close to you OR it's a great and pleasurable activity that is fed by a NORMAL sex drive that our bodies produce. IMHO it is UNNATURAL to not have sex, especially to do so on purpose.

Why do some of the anti-choice crowd think it's OK to tell someone else to not have sex? Conversely, I would never tell someone to have sex, so why would anyone think it's OK to tell someone not to have sex?

Nez Dragon said:
If people do not like birth control, then I have no sympathy for them and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions.
No one is asking for your sympathy. No one is asking anything of you. Actually, allowing someone to make their own choice, good or bad is what this about. You choose to not have sex, but that does not mean that most people will adopt your philosophy. You know, women get pregnant all the time USING birth control. Since you have "no sympathy" for someone who gets pregnant not using birth control does that mean that you're OK with someone having an abortion if they did use birth control?
Nez Dragon said:
Making it illegal WILL STOP women from seeking it. Does murder being illegal stop people from killing other people whenever they feel like it? Hell yes. If we legalized murder, a lot more murders would be committed than now. Therefore, if we ban abortions, a lot less abortions will be performed.
HUH? By making it illegal do you mean you would send women to jail if they had an abortion? Are you really naive enough to believe that abortion will ever be illegal again in the USA? Do you really believe that people would stop having abortions if we made it illegal everywhere? Not going to happen.
Nez Dragon said:
Here's a solution to the 'unwanted' crap you spew to protect your opinion.
ADOPTION
There are tons of families out there who want children but can't have them. I'm sure they would love and care for the child!
Odd then that there are so many children available today even with abortion? How do you explain that?
Nez Dragon said:
I keep hearing that the fetus in the womb isn't really living, it's dependant on the mother, it's just part of her body etc.
I am interested: At what point does the fetus "graduate" and become a baby?
When it is born it becomes a baby. Pretty simple.
Nez Dragon said:
When does the fetus become alive, if it is not living before then? At what point can you make the distinction as to whether or not the "fetus" is now human and cannot be aborted?
Repeat, when it is born.
Nez Dragon said:
If you sever a fetus' connection from its mother, it will die. If you leave a one day old baby in the kitchen for a week, it will die. Babies are still dependant on their mothers for food, shelter, etc. Does this mean we can abort them too?
Do you think anyone would ever answer, yes, children that were born can be legally killed? Seems like a totally pointless question to me, sorry.
Nez Dragon said:
If embryos are fully dependant on the mother for survival, what makes a baby any different? Is there a difference, besides size and development?
I'm perfectly capable of taking care of any newborn healthy baby (I'm a guy). However, I would fail miserably trying to take care of a fetus, sorry. It would die everytime. Newborn? I think I can safely say it would live 99.99% of the time after it is born.

No one will force you to have sex or an abortion, so please stop trying to force someone to not have the same freedom of choice you're receiving.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Blogger31 said:
Vergiss is this just your way of not conceding that the fetus develops some of it's own environment. The original poster I was countering said the fluid was the mother's. I have simply claimed that the mother, while responsible, is not responsible for 100% of the fetus, the fetus does create some of it's own environment without which it would die. My point in general is that the fetus depends on itself for survival just as it does the woman. Do you agree or disagree?

Nup, wrong. I was just arguing about you altering the meaning of "100 percent" as it suits you, that's all.

Nez Dragon, in the 1960s and earlier, before abortion was legal and easily accessible, there were more children than parents who wanted to adopt them. If the abortion laws were reversed, millions of children would grow up in orphanages, without loving families. Are you so cruel that you'd condemn a child to such a miserable upbringing?
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
26 X World Champs said:
Since you'e never had sex I can maybe see how you would consider this "fun." Not having sex is not an option for the majority of people because it is a natural and beautiful way to express one's affections for someone close to you OR it's a great and pleasurable activity that is fed by a NORMAL sex drive that our bodies produce. IMHO it is UNNATURAL to not have sex, especially to do so on purpose.

In your opinion it is not natural. Personally, I would prefer to expresss my affection in a natural and beautiful way to someone who I am married to, so that I can continue to express said affection for the rest of my life. As opposed to casual sex, which I do not have for multiple reasons. One is STD's. Two is pregnancy. I would rather not get stuck with a commitment or know that I am the cause of another abortion, therefore I am abstinent.

Why do some of the anti-choice crowd think it's OK to tell someone else to not have sex? Conversely, I would never tell someone to have sex, so why would anyone think it's OK to tell someone not to have sex?

Because abstinence is the only 100% BC out there. Unless you believe that sitting on a public toilet seat can get one pregnant?

No one is asking for your sympathy. No one is asking anything of you. Actually, allowing someone to make their own choice, good or bad is what this about. You choose to not have sex, but that does not mean that most people will adopt your philosophy. You know, women get pregnant all the time USING birth control. Since you have "no sympathy" for someone who gets pregnant not using birth control does that mean that you're OK with someone having an abortion if they did use birth control?

No, I am not ok with it. They still chose to have sex, therefore they must be held responsible for their actions. I have no sympathy (wanted or not) for people who do not take a simple precaution.

HUH? By making it illegal do you mean you would send women to jail if they had an abortion?

I never said they would go to jail. I would let the courts decide what an effective punishment is.

Are you really naive enough to believe that abortion will ever be illegal again in the USA? Do you really believe that people would stop having abortions if we made it illegal everywhere? Not going to happen.

When abortions were illegal, do you think there were more or less abortions than now? Under your mentality, you seem to think that making it illegal just wont stop anyone from getting it. Using that mentality, why don't we legalize murder? If murder being illegal doesn't stop people from killing other people, why don't we legalize it?
Answer: because the amount of murders will skyrocket. Conversely, if we make abortion illegal, granted some women will still seek them. But there would be very very few women doing so. Then abortion will no longer be just another form of birth control. Women would finally have to take responsibility for their promiscuity (hey, that rhymes! Kinda catchy!).

When it is born it becomes a baby. Pretty simple.

Repeat, when it is born.

So then, why is it illegal to abort third-trimester babies? They aren't born yet.

Do you think anyone would ever answer, yes, children that were born can be legally killed? Seems like a totally pointless question to me, sorry.

I never said that. I was raising the question, what is the difference between aborting a born baby and an unborn one? They are both dependant on the mother for survival.

I'm perfectly capable of taking care of any newborn healthy baby (I'm a guy). However, I would fail miserably trying to take care of a fetus, sorry. It would die everytime. Newborn? I think I can safely say it would live 99.99% of the time after it is born.

Yes, if there is an adult around to care for it. It is still dependant on a parent regardless.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
Conversely, if we make abortion illegal, granted some women will still seek them. But there would be very very few women doing so. Then abortion will no longer be just another form of birth control. Women would finally have to take responsibility for their promiscuity (hey, that rhymes! Kinda catchy!).

What, so it's just the women being promiscuous? :roll: And I suppose you consider all sex outside of marriage to be promiscuous? What's more, the number of women who use abortion as birth control would be... almost non-existent. I can't give sources to prove this, but think logically - who the hell would consider pregnancy and getting an abortion to be easier than taking the pill or using a condom?

You're acting as if all abortions are due to pregnancies that were the result of people not using birth control. They're not. Do you have sympathy for those who did take a simple precaution?

I believe abortion should remain legal in the first-trimester (and further on in the case of severe maternal or foetal illness). I just cannot see how an unrecognisable, unthinking, unsensing blob of cells that cannot even breathe on its own is equal to a newborn child. A huge number of first-trimester embryos don't even continue to develop. Accidental miscarriage is incredibly easy - it's pretty much touch-and-go in the first 3 months. Therefore, I don't see how induced miscarriage is any worse.

Nez Dragon said:
Because abstinence is the only 100% BC out there. Unless you believe that sitting on a public toilet seat can get one pregnant?

If someone were to invent a 100 percent successful, totally fullproof form of birth control, would sex then be acceptable in your eyes? Nice to see that you consider all sex outside of marriage to be casual sex, by the way. Not that you believe it's black and white, or anything.

It's funny... pro-choice don't care what you do in regards to sex and abortion, so long as it's the right choice for you. For anti-choicers, it's "my way ONLY". :rolleyes: Sigh.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
vergiss said:
....in the 1960s and earlier, before abortion was legal and easily accessible, there were more children than parents who wanted to adopt them. If the abortion laws were reversed, millions of children would grow up in orphanages, without loving families. Are you so cruel that you'd condemn a child to such a miserable upbringing?
Next time you come in contact with a person who grew up in the circumstances you describe, ask him whether he would have preferred that his mother condemned him to death instead of condemning him to a miserable upbringing.

Why not take a poll, tabulate the results, and publish them in this forum?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Who knows, maybe they're dead already.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
vergiss said:
I just cannot see how an unrecognisable, unthinking, unsensing blob of cells that cannot even breathe on its own is equal to a newborn child.
You do not wish to see. Sufficient material has been presented to enable you to see, if you wished to see.
A huge number of first-trimester embryos don't even continue to develop. Accidental miscarriage is incredibly easy - it's pretty much touch-and-go in the first 3 months. Therefore, I don't see how induced miscarriage is any worse.
Natural fetal death which cannot be prevented is always tragic. Deliberately caused fetal death is inexcusable.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
Oooh, this is gonna be fun.

What is the best way to prevent more unwanted children?
Answer: Dont have sex. If you must have sex, use birth control. If you don't like birth control, too bad. You made the decision, now live with the consequences.
No, if you don't like birth control, the abortion can reach the same result.
Abstinence is realistic. I am abstinent.
25% of all abortions are to married women. They should stop having sex?
I do not have any unwanted kids. And I know hundreds of other people who are abstinent too. I prefer abstinence, how can you miss something you've never had? Sex isn't a necessary biological function. You don't need it to survive.
So nice for you. You don't get to tell others when they can or cannot have sex. Your moral reasoning is for your life only
If people do not like birth control, then I have no sympathy for them and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions.
An unwanted pregnancy cured by an abortion. Yes, ok. Glad we agree.

Now, the latest CDC data exploring the subject found that 58% of abortions were to women who had used birth control. So you are, of course, OK with thejm abortiong. That's nice to know.

Making it illegal WILL STOP women from seeking it.
History has proved your subjective belief and wishful thinking to be false. Women merely will have illegal abortions instead.
Does murder being illegal stop people from killing other people whenever they feel like it? Hell yes.
But then, abortion is not murder, and your right-wing theocratic desire to control when women have sex is none of your business anyway.
Here's a solution to the 'unwanted' crap you spew to protect your opinion.
ADOPTION
Adoption is a parenting decision, not a pregnancy decision. It is irrelevant.
There are tons of families out there who want children but can't have them. I'm sure they would love and care for the child!
And by banning abortions, you ensure a steady supply for these families, enslaving pregnant women for that purpose. You see them as nothing but brood mares. Shame on you.
I keep hearing that the fetus in the womb isn't really living,
Really? Who claims that?
It's dependant on the mother, it's just part of her body etc.
And it certainly is alive as are any ligve ceels. Why the misrepresentation?
I am interested: At what point does the fetus "graduate" and become a baby?
At the point when the "baby" stage of development begins, at birth.
When does the fetus become alive, if it is not living before then?
Actually, it is merely part of a continuum of life as sperm and egg is alive. The "life" present in the zygote originated nearly 4 bill. years ago.
At what point can you make the distinction as to whether or not the "fetus" is now human
It is of the species H. sapiens, of course. What does that have to do with anything? My hair is of the species H. sapiens.
and cannot be aborted?
The status of the fetus is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is a person or not. It doesn't matter if it is a "baby" or not. The level of development doesn't change the woman's right to control her bodily resources and her right to stop unwanted use.

So your question is meaningless. The answer is "never" does the fetus/baby/person have the right to use her body against her will, regardless of how "numan" it is.
If you sever a fetus' connection from its mother, it will die.
As nobody are able to provide the needed resources, yes.
If you leave a one day old baby in the kitchen for a week, it will die. Babies are still dependant on their mothers for food, shelter, etc.
But others are able to step in and take over the support.
Does this mean we can abort them too?
As babies are born, it is not clear how you would sever a bodily use that doesn't exist anymore at that time. So your question doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit reality. It is like a division by zero, the scenario doesn't exist.
If embryos are fully dependant on the mother for survival, what makes a baby any different? Is there a difference, besides size and development?
The baby can be taken care of by anybody who VOLUNTEERS to do so. It thus becomes a CHOICE.

Soooo... you said this was going to be fun... And you were right. :lol:
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
I simply wish to make it abundantly clear that I do not discuss the subject on religious grounds. This seems like a good way to ensure that confusion is avoided.
Rather, it promotes confusion. Claiming a secular biology implies also the existence of a religious biology.
Ordinarily I would consider your comments insulting. However, I will excuse them on the grounds that English is not your first language. I would respectfully suggest that you adopt a less confrontational tone.
That didn't help. Your terminology still seems weird and ignorant
If you do not believe that the occupant of a mother's womb is a living, growing, developing human, then tell me what is it?
It is a living, growing, developing human fetus. There is not "a human." Did you miss that point?
Is it animal? Is it vegetable? Is it mineral?Don't quit your regular job.
And don't get a job that requires reading comprehension. I never questioned the speciation issue.
You'll never make it as a humorist.Any misrepresentation on my part is a figment of your imagination.
They are factually documented.
The truth is simply this, as any biologist, secular or otherwise, will tell you, "From the moment of conception, the occupant of a mother's womb is a living, developing, growing, human."
No they won't (I am also a biologist by training, so your claim is false right there). They will not claim an individual being on any scientific background.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
Quote:
Quote: Previously posted by Fantasea
If you do not believe that the occupant of a mother's womb is a living, growing, developing human, then tell me what is it?
It is a living, growing, developing human fetus. There is not "a human." Did you miss that point?
Read and learn:

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

(Source provided courtesy of Battleaxe)

Quote: Previously posted by Fantasea
The truth is simply this, as any biologist, secular or otherwise, will tell you, "From the moment of conception, the occupant of a mother's womb is a living, developing, growing, human."
No they won't
Read the source cited above.
(I, am a biologist by training, so your claim is false right there).
I, too, am in the medical profession; a neuro surgeon by training. So if you ever want that lobotomy reversed, send me a private message to make an appointment.
:2funny:​
They will not claim an individual being on any scientific background.
Those who teach biology do so every day.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
Read and learn:
Oh, yeah. A political site as "evidence" of science. Sure!
Read the source cited above.I, too, am in the medical profession; a neuro surgeon by training.
I don't believe you for even one second. With such a distorted and abysmal biological backgraund, as well as such lack of comprehension of science and finally the lack of integrity in your outright distortions and having to resort to a prolie site for your neurological information, I am saying that you are outright lying.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
Oh, yeah. A political site as "evidence" of science. Sure!
I don't believe you for even one second. With such a distorted and abysmal biological backgraund, as well as such lack of comprehension of science and finally the lack of integrity in your outright distortions and having to resort to a prolie site for your neurological information, I am saying that you are outright lying.
Really? Perhaps, instead of calling names and issuing blanket denials, it would be better if you presented a few facts to bolster your contentions.

I don't recall having seen any facts from you. Plenty of name calling. Plenty of insults. Plenty of unfounded opinion. But, no facts.

If you have any facts, why not share them?

I contend that human life begins at conception and continues without change until natural death in old age, unless interrupted by sickness, accident, or abortion.

If you opine differently, let's see the facts which support your opinion.
 
Top Bottom