Why so defensive? I never said that you did, did I? I simply asked a direct question and expected a direct answer.vergiss said:...when did I ever mention life, or lack thereof?
May I have one?
Why so defensive? I never said that you did, did I? I simply asked a direct question and expected a direct answer.vergiss said:...when did I ever mention life, or lack thereof?
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?
Does this mean that I won't get a direct answer to my direct question?vergiss said:Just wondering, seeing as I have no idea how it's come into the argument.
Does that make it alive?
vergiss said:In which case, if it's 100% dependent on the placenta, it's also 100% dependent on the mother.
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.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'.
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.
"secular biology" As compared to religious biology? Your terminology seems weird and ignorant.Fantasea said:You continue to dance around this central point of secular biology.
Wow, you make it sound like there is some individual entity there. Revisionist prolife linguistics at its worst.From the moment of conception, the occupant of a mother's womb is a living, developing, growing, human,
Even if it is a hydatidiform mole?which, left undisturbed, will, in its own time, move through the birth canal to take its rightful position among us.
Neither can you, so why the misrepresentation?An activist judicial decision cannot change biological fact.
As what you posted was a misrepresentation, I am curious as to what the "truth" actually is?It can only, as it did, ignore the truth.
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'.
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.jallman said: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?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.
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.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.
Father knows best.But then, if you leave my hair undisturbed, my dad claims I will develop into a girl in time.
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?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.
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.Pretty open and shut.
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.
Prove that. Extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof.Nez Dragon said:Making it illegal WILL STOP women from seeking it.
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.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?
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.Your terminology 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? Is it animal? Is it vegetable? Is it mineral?Wow, you make it sound like there is some individual entity there. Revisionist prolife linguistics at its worst.Quote:
From the moment of conception, the occupant of a mother's womb is a living, developing, growing, human,
Claiming that there is "a .. human," of course, is ridiculous.
Quote:
which, left undisturbed, will, in its own time, move through the birth canal to take its rightful position among us.
Don't quit your regular job. You'll never make it as a humorist.Even if it is a hydatidiform mole?
Any misrepresentation on my part is a figment of your imagination.Neither can you, so why the misrepresentation?Quote:
An activist judicial decision cannot change biological fact.
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."As what you posted was a misrepresentation, I am curious as to what the "truth" actually is?Quote:
It can only, as it did, ignore the truth.
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.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.
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:If people do not like birth control, then I have no sympathy for them and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions.
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: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.
Odd then that there are so many children available today even with abortion? How do you explain that?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!
When it is born it becomes a baby. Pretty simple.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?
Repeat, when it is born.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?
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 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?
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.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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
When it is born it becomes a baby. Pretty simple.
Repeat, when it is born.
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'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.
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!).
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?
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.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?
You do not wish to see. Sufficient material has been presented to enable you to see, if you wished to see.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.
Natural fetal death which cannot be prevented is always tragic. Deliberately caused fetal death is inexcusable.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.
No, if you don't like birth control, the abortion can reach the same result.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.
25% of all abortions are to married women. They should stop having sex?Abstinence is realistic. I am abstinent.
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 onlyI 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.
An unwanted pregnancy cured by an abortion. Yes, ok. Glad we agree.If people do not like birth control, then I have no sympathy for them and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions.
History has proved your subjective belief and wishful thinking to be false. Women merely will have illegal abortions instead.Making it illegal WILL STOP women from seeking it.
But then, abortion is not murder, and your right-wing theocratic desire to control when women have sex is none of your business anyway.Does murder being illegal stop people from killing other people whenever they feel like it? Hell yes.
Adoption is a parenting decision, not a pregnancy decision. It is irrelevant.Here's a solution to the 'unwanted' crap you spew to protect your opinion.
ADOPTION
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.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!
Really? Who claims that?I keep hearing that the fetus in the womb isn't really living,
And it certainly is alive as are any ligve ceels. Why the misrepresentation?It's dependant on the mother, it's just part of her body etc.
At the point when the "baby" stage of development begins, at birth.I am interested: At what point does the fetus "graduate" and become a baby?
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.When does the fetus become alive, if it is not living before then?
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.At what point can you make the distinction as to whether or not the "fetus" is now human
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.and cannot be aborted?
As nobody are able to provide the needed resources, yes.If you sever a fetus' connection from its mother, it will die.
But others are able to step in and take over the support.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.
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.Does this mean we can abort them too?
The baby can be taken care of by anybody who VOLUNTEERS to do so. It thus becomes a CHOICE.If embryos are fully dependant on the mother for survival, what makes a baby any different? Is there a difference, besides size and development?
Rather, it promotes confusion. Claiming a secular biology implies also the existence of a religious biology.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.
That didn't help. Your terminology still seems weird and ignorantOrdinarily 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.
It is a living, growing, developing human fetus. There is not "a human." Did you miss that point?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?
And don't get a job that requires reading comprehension. I never questioned the speciation issue.Is it animal? Is it vegetable? Is it mineral?Don't quit your regular job.
They are factually documented.You'll never make it as a humorist.Any misrepresentation on my part is a figment of your imagination.
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.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."
Read and learn:steen said:It is a living, growing, developing human fetus. There is not "a human." Did you miss that point?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?
Read the source cited above.No they won'tQuote: 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."
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.(I, am a biologist by training, so your claim is false right there).
Those who teach biology do so every day.They will not claim an individual being on any scientific background.
Oh, yeah. A political site as "evidence" of science. Sure!Fantasea said:Read and learn:
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.Read the source cited above.I, too, am in the medical profession; a neuro surgeon by training.
Really? Perhaps, instead of calling names and issuing blanket denials, it would be better if you presented a few facts to bolster your contentions.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.