• 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.

Real simple:

What are you?

  • Pro-life

    Votes: 19 32.8%

  • Pro-choice

    Votes: 39 67.2%
  • Total voters
    58
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roberdorus, a sperm and egg, before merging, are nevertheless living biological organisms. They may not be equipped for long-term survival, but they each exhibit rather more liveliness than, say, a reproducing virus. And when they stop, they are considered to have died.

Now for a digression; let's consider a "chimera". This organism arises when two individual blastocysts merge. Prior to the merge, each blastocyst is a living biological organsim, as you well know. They are not really well-equipped for long-term survival (if they cannot find a womb from which to extract nutrients, they will die), but they certainly are "alive". Well, after they merge, they begin to cooperate in constructing an overall chimeric organism. Many details of that remain to be discovered, but it is a fact that this can and does happen. So, the yet-to-merge blastocysts qualify as an "earlier stage" of the chimera, see?

OK, when sperm and egg merge, they begin to cooperate in constructing an overall organism. Many details of this are well known, and the interesting thing is, it is possible, due to the preceding paragraph, to consider this new organism to be a special kind of chimera. Heh! As a result, the sperm and egg can indeed be considered to be an earlier stage of that new organism....
 
Felicity said:
Abortion is simply NOT something a woman chooses and experiences on her own. ....It simply is not.
Click to expand...
In the former Soviet Union abortions were readily available (maybe even free) without social stigma. Many women used abortions as primary birth control. It may be true that a lot of them would have preferred a less complicated alternative, but to the best of my knowledge, this proves you are mistaken, about women not choosing abortions on their own. Remember that that culture also had many child-care centers, so that mothers could work.

Such choices, despite the social support for births, for abortions, multiple times for many women, also shows that the "soul-searching" that a woman might go through, over doing or having-done an abortion, is largely an artifact of the culture.

All you pro-lifers are doing is trying to inject guilt into our culture, with no valid cause and for no useful purpose. Especially is it not useful, in an overpopulated world.
 
“No more important than the death of my hand severed from my wrist. Actually, the hand is more important because it actually served some value to a person.”
Click to expand...


The death of your hand only concerns you. A death of an unborn concerns the unborn.


“No, it's because their job is to interpret law and the Constitutionality of a law that is brought before them.”
Click to expand...



They interpreted the law based on lies that were before them. They used their morals to guide them. They are no different than we are except they wear a robe and what they say goes and it affects us all. Laws can change and they do based on who is sitting on the bench. Abortion was once illegal. Slavery was once legal. Did it make a difference who Bush appointed to the SC? You bet your arse it did……to all those who are pro-choice/abortion. Because if they got enough pro-life men and woman on the bench and looked at what medical science has to say about the life in the womb they would see the personhood in the unborn and……your once legal abortion would become illegal once again. Its all about morals and less about facts really because the evidence presented in Roe was not fact.

Grannie said, “First, you have to show that it IS a person.” I think medical science has proven that.
“In the case of abortion, a pregnant woman is not an aggressor, she is defending her own life, or way of life.’
Click to expand...



She is the aggressor to the life within her. She is the one who will spread her legs to allow the doctor to kill the life she help create. She gives him permission to kill in any means necessary. She is a big, big, big part of the whole thing. She defends no life, she abuses it, she kills it. And the way of life she condones is one of violence against a living human being.



I damaged my unborn, I killed it. I suffered greatly until JESUS CHRIST came into my life. He turned me around gave me purpose and life again. So I am blessed, I am whole, I am proud to stand with Him. I am not damaged.

I have never 1069 said my abortion ruined my life. Waht i did was horrible but God has a way of making somehting bad into soemthing good. It has blessed my life in many ways. I came to know Christ because of it. I talk to other wonderful people because of it.




The child I took help lead me to Christ. That is a blessing. I am not damaged.
 
doughgirl said:
The death of your hand only concerns you. A death of an unborn concerns the unborn.
Click to expand...

Huh? How concerned can the unborn be without a brain?




Seeing the "personhood in the unborn" is a belief, not a medical fact. I suppose judges as well as anyone else will base their decisions on what they believe, we can only hope they will not base those decisions on an overly-emotional appeal.

Grannie said, “First, you have to show that it IS a person.” I think medical science has proven that.
Click to expand...

Medical science does not even define personhood, much less prove it.



It is so sad that your view of women is so tormented. The fact is that a zef, in early pregnancy at least, is not of much value to society or anyone except parents who want it. If a woman doesn't want it, she shouldn't have to endure the trials of pregnancy/childbirth in order to satisfy someone else's selfish moralistic whims.
 

hu·man (hyōō'mən) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

human - Definitions from Dictionary.com

The definition of Human when used as a noun. See the nifty n.? There is nothing about the definition that excludes the unborn. It would however exclude a strand of human hair, human blood cells, human sperm, unfertilized human eggs, a severed human wrist, ect.

OKGrannie's thanking your post. That's all I'll say.
 
Grannie says, “Huh? How concerned can the unborn be without a brain?”
Click to expand...



So you say the unborn in the womb has no brain? However functioning, has no brain? My neice had no brain when she was born at 21 weeks? No functioning brain waves? You don’t know what your saying grannie………step out of the box and look up when there are measurable brain waves in the fetus………come on go look it up. I'd tell ya and give a source but you might learn something along the way........go look it up.

Then tell me there is no brain. Don’t ya have to have a brain to be able to detect the waves???????????? Where do you come up with this stuff?



Well there ya go…….our courts might not see it as personshood but the medical community however does. The SC has never been presented the facts. And should they and they acknowledge the fetus as a person………….bye bye abortion on demand.




Tormented? It is sad grannie that you do not see the value of all life but you pick and choose at whim what is important and what is not. Maybe a retarded or handicapped person is not of value to you, probably not……maybe the elderly has no value either, prabably not…….who knows, but you see no value…..in the life inside the woman. Your only care and concern is that a woman be able to kill on demand. Kill it because it isnt a person and what did you say, IT HAS NO BRAIN. IMO your view is the one that is horrendously barbaric and it also lacks compassion for all involved.

Hey grannie and while your at it........does the unborn child in the womb have a heart? :rofl :rofl
 

Take a chill pill, you're getting hysterical again.
STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT from ovum/sperm to newborn baby

"26 weeks or 6 months: The fetus 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. The higher functions of the fetal brain turn on for the first time. Some rudimentary brain waves can be detected. The fetus will be able to feel pain for the first time. It has become conscious of its surroundings. The fetus has become a sentient human life for the first time."

Concerning your niece born at 21 weeks...perhaps there was a tiny error in gestational age...."A baby born during the 22nd week has a 14.8 percent chance of survival. And about half of these survivors are brain-damaged, either by lack of oxygen (from poor initial respiration) or too much oxygen (from the ventilator). Neonatologists predict that no baby will ever be viable before the 22nd week, because before then the lungs are not fully formed." 4



IMO your view is the one that is horrendously barbaric and it also lacks compassion for all involved.
Click to expand...

And IMO your view is horrendously barbaric and also lacks compassion for all women. That is why we have CHOICE. You have one opinion, and others have a different view. We should not all have to live by YOUR opinion since you have failed to convince us of your superior judgement.
 
talloulou, "human" can be a noun, as you have indicated, but it can also be an adjective. Context decides.
Definition of human - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Regarding "living organisms", consider this:
Go Ask Alice!: Life of sperm
Why would they use "live sperm" and "live egg" in that description, if they were not alive in some sense? One thing I once read somewhere (no idea if can find again) had to do with the moment of fertilization; seems the egg has some cilia or some such that can actively reach out and grab one sperm and haul it in. Despite however-many sperm are actively beating themselves against the egg, the egg decides which sperm fertilizes it! In a manner of speaking, of course. But neither can't do what was just described if they are just dead collections of chemicals, right?
 

Now that's interesting.....

or·gan·ism
an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being
Click to expand...

Oh my, thems fightin words...."a living being"+ human dna = "a human being"

....mmmmm...an embryo is an organism with human dna....so and embryo must be "a human being".....and as of approximately the 8th week, no less.

Plenty of time to the morning after pill...2 months to get an abortion....I'd be willing to compromise that out to the end of the first trimester, so you get 4 weeks for free, aren’t I a nice guy....
 
FutureIncoming said:
talloulou, "human" can be a noun, as you have indicated, but it can also be an adjective. Context decides.
Definition of human - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Click to expand...
Obviously. And clearly in regards to whether or not an unborn can be a human as in noun I say yes since they are living homosapiens.


No where in there did I read anything about a scientist, biologist, or any other dr. referring to sperm cells or an unfertilized egg as an organism. Again, I claim they are not organisms but an embryo is. If you have a legit source that claims otherwise I'm open to reading it.

And I never claimed they were dead. My hair is alive, my skin is alive. Parts of my skin could die while I remain alive. My skin by itself is not an organism. Neither are sperm. An embryo is.
 
I'd be willing to compromise that out to the end of the first trimester, so you get 4 weeks for free, aren’t I a nice guy...
Click to expand...

Not particularly; you're another friggin' hypocrite, IMO... except unlike Doughgirl and I, you guys've actually terminated two pregnancies.
How about if I propose a law where your first abortion is free, and then if you have a second one, the government dispatches a posse to drag you off behind the barn and shoot you?*
Would you find that "nice"?


* I believe something like this was proposed in earnest at one point on this forum; if I recall correctly, the proposal involved public flogging, among other things.
 

Jerry had 2 abortions? You must mean his wife/girlfriend did. And how can he be held responsible for that? It's the woman's choice after all. He doesn't legally get a say either way so I don't see how you could point to those and call him a hypocrite. They weren't up to him.
 
1069 said:
Not particularly; you're another friggin' hypocrite, IMO... except unlike Doughgirl and I, you guys've actually terminated two pregnancies.
Click to expand...

Accusing me of hypocrisy is like accusing a recovering alcoholic, dry for 12 years, of hypocrisy for saying that people shouldn't abuse alcohol.

1069 said:
How about if I propose a law where your first abortion is free, and then if you have a second one, the government dispatches a posse to drag you off behind the barn and shoot you?*
Click to expand...

How bout that?
Lets see the draft.

1069 said:
Would you find that "nice"?
Click to expand...

What the.....I must be on to something if your this hysterical...

1069 said:
* I believe something like this was proposed in earnest at one point on this forum; if I recall correctly, the proposal involved public flogging, among other things.
Click to expand...

Tell ya what,
You quote me forwarding that kind of thing and I'll....give you a silver donation.
 

Oh no, see, this is where I where I wear my sins in public.

PP had me sign off on each abortion. Not because my girlfriend-now-wife needed my permission or anything, but to cover their own ars.

I talked her into them, she didn't really want to, but I talked her into them.

The state paid for the first one and I paid for the second one.

I arranged the time off from our jobs (long story) and I arranged transportation (long story).

My hands have as much blood on them as hers.
 
Jerry said:
Tell ya what,
You quote me forwarding that kind of thing and I'll....give you a silver donation.
Click to expand...



link

Pay up, biotch.


Yeah, Tallou, didn't you read that post where Jerry claimed that he used to be "pro-forced-abortion"?
 
1069 said:
link

Pay up, biotch.
Click to expand...

I said "me".

Yeah, Tallou, didn't you read that post where Jerry claimed that he used to be "pro-forced-abortion"?
Click to expand...

Pro-Abortion, yup.

The mandatory abortion of every pregnancy not authorized by the state, through a license to reproduce, enforced with mandatory sterilization, heavy fines and jail time.

Applicants for a reproductive license must possess cretin qualifications, some of which include minimum education and income requirement, age minimums and maximums, demographic considerations, etc.

A qualified applicant could be turned down if the state felt that doing so was in the interests of maintaining population control.


I know the dark side, but I turned.

They say if your not a liberal by the time you turn 16, you have no hart, and if your not a conservative by the time you turn 26, you have no brain.
 
My wife is now in her 22nd week of pregnancy. She feels the baby being active in her womb.

To all you who believe in abortion- question: Would it be morally acceptable for her to take the life of that baby tomorrow?
 
Jerry said:
http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=organism
an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being

Oh my, thems fightin words....
Click to expand...
Fightin' words? Nah. There is plenty in that medical definition which is open to interpretation. For example, "activities of life" is what list? I'm aware that reproduction is considered to be one of the activities of life, and yet I'm also aware of a Robert A Heinlein quote, something like: "A zygote is a gamete's way of making more gametes." Egg and sperm are "gametes", see? More expansively, a multicellular organism is some genes' way of making more of those genes --even if genes, by themselves, are not generally considered to be any more alive than viruses. For more information about that, see the book, "The Selfish Gene".

Regarding "organs separate in function but mutually dependent", both sperm and egg have them; they are merely appropriately miniscule. (For example, the egg contains mitochondria, which can be called organs of energy-generation.)

{{This is for you, too, talloulou}} Now I'm fully aware that the word "organism" can be used to describe things that are outside the biological realm. A nation's government is an organism, for example. A "Von Neumann Machine" will be another. Thus there is enough variance in the usage of that word "organism" that it can encompass any sort of single-celled biological entity, such as a bacterium, or a sperm and egg -- and even the AIDS virus.

One other thing, before somebody else reminds me of things I've stated before. On various occasions I've used such terms as "biological robots" to describe many ordinary life-forms, especially insects, because their behavior is genetically hard-wired; they have no Free Will or even self-programming ability (an individual-based ability to adapt behavior slightly to changing circumstances). Obviously sperm and egg fall into the bio-machine category, too. But that does not mean they are disqualified from being living organisms....

Jerry said:
"a living being"+ human dna = "a human being"
Click to expand...
YES, in spite of this:
FutureIncoming said:
"human being", where "being" is the noun, an intelligent/person-class entitiy, and "human" is the adjective, a descriptor. And as in "human fetus", where "fetus" is the noun, an unborn animal-class organism, and "human" is the adjective.
Click to expand...
In the case you presented, an alternate meaning of "being" is used; it is a synonym for "organism", simply because not everything that can be called a "living being" is an intelligent/person-class entity. Therefore the result of your verbal addition, "human being", merely means "human organism", and doesn't automatically mean anything inherently more special than that.

===============================================

talloulou said:
And clearly in regards to whether or not an unborn can be a human as in noun I say yes since they are living homosapiens.
Click to expand...
AGREED. After all, how many times have I used the phrase, "unborn humans", in which the noun-form of the word is quite explicit? Nevertheless, "human" does not automatically also mean "special", as just stated earlier (except in the minds of the prejudiced, of course --go ahead, find me a dictionary description of "human" which includes "special" as one of the definitions!).
 
"Concerning your niece born at 21 weeks...perhaps there was a tiny error in gestational age...."A baby born during the 22nd week has a 14.8 percent chance of survival. And about half of these survivors are brain-damaged, either by lack of oxygen (from poor initial respiration) or too much oxygen (from the ventilator). Neonatologists predict that no baby will ever be viable before the 22nd week, because before then the lungs are not fully formed.""

My neice was born at 21 1/2 weeks and over 14 years ago. She was born at Toledo Hospital. The REd Cross did a Nationwide calendar and she appeared in it to celebrate the life in the womb. Your source of the neonatalist who said this is crap.

She was not the youngest who appeared in this calender. So no grannie there was no mistake with gestational age....to I'm sure your dissapointment.

Today she is a freshman in high school in all honor classes. So when people say like you do that unborns at this stage are not viable, that they have no brain waves, a heart that wouldnt support life it drives me crazy, because you simply do not know what you are talking about.

She did not suffer any brain damage whatsoever. She had vision problems that was corrected by glasses and that is it.



Funny you say that a 20 week old isnt viable and really isnt aware of anything.........TITLE XXIX--UNBORN CHILD PAIN AWARENESS.


Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005 -- S51

When does the unborn child's heart begin to beat?


A baby's heart begins to beat 18 days from conception, and by 21 days the heart is pumping blood through a closed circulatory system.


When can the unborn child's brain waves be detected?


A baby's brainwaves can be detected at 6 weeks from conception.


The Unborn Child


Science for Unborn Human Life | What the Unborn Child Senses



Go here grannie.......and view the pics of the 16 week and the 20 week olds that you condone killing.

Science for Unborn Human Life


Day by day growth of the unborn in the womb. For the life of me I just cant believe someone would think it alright to dismember a living human being.


Science for Unborn Human Life | Appendix 1 | 4th Week

Science for Unborn Human Life | Appendix 1 | 4th Week


"The British researchers tracked all extremely premature births in Britain and Ireland over a 10-month period in 1995. Of those who were born live, only a quarter survived and eventually went home from the hospital -- 1 percent of those born at 22 weeks; 11 percent at 23 weeks; 26 percent at 24 weeks; and 44 percent at 25 weeks."

Premature Babies Face Disability



New Study Finds Some Late-Term Abortion Babies Born Live at Only 18 Weeks


The Future of Children - Sub-Sections

I am NOT saying that my niece was not a miracle, she was, and there are others like her, I have seem them. she made it and she is a brilliant teenager today. Most unborns that are born at 24 have excellent chances of survival with technology today.

but to think that people like 1069 and grannie.......think that abortion is alright because NO unborns make it at that gestational age is terrible.
 
Noah's Hammer said:
To all you who believe in abortion
Click to expand...
That would be nobody, and your feeble attempt to put your words in others' mouths has failed ridiculously, even stupidly. One does not "believe in abortion" in the same way, for example, that one "believes" in God. Abortion is just a tool. Like any tool, it can be used or abused. The fact that most pro-lifers would allow abortion in certain cases means that they recognize abortion actually is a useful tool. But the fact that they claim to Know the Only Possible Circumstances in which it can be used -- that fact just makes them look like idiotic hypocrites. Genuine abuse of abortion would be to arbitrarily declare, "All Nazi pregnancies must be aborted". For example.
 
FutureIncoming said:
Fightin' words? Nah. There is plenty in that medical definition which is open to interpretation.....

[......]
Click to expand...

Well shoot, FI,

You can shut me down right now by giving a credible medical source which shows that sperm and/or egg are "organisms".
 
Noah's Hammer said:
My wife is now in her 22nd week of pregnancy. She feels the baby being active in her womb.

To all you who believe in abortion- question: Would it be morally acceptable for her to take the life of that baby tomorrow?
Click to expand...

Is she having a gremlin or a succubus - er, I mean, is she having a boy or a girl? :2razz: :2wave:
 
doughgirl said:
So no grannie there was no mistake with gestational age....to I'm sure your dissapointment
Click to expand...

Unless the child was conceived by IV or artificial insemination it is VERY difficult to be certain of precise gestational age.



Funny you say that a 20 week old isnt viable and really isnt aware of anything.........TITLE XXIX--UNBORN CHILD PAIN AWARENESS.
Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005 -- S51
Click to expand...

Please realize that legislation doesn't prove anything. Lawmakers are generally not scientists or medical specialists, and they pass legislation based on what they WANT to believe or what they think will make them popular with constituents.


Early brainwaves are just electrical impulses, they don't indicate a functioning brain. At the earliest, a functioning brain is present at 6 months gestation.




Go here grannie.......and view the pics of the 16 week and the 20 week olds that you condone killing.
Click to expand...

The VAST majority of abortions are done much earlier. Here are some reasons why abortion might be delayed (according to Religious Tolerance):
1. undetected pregnancy
2. The woman is in denial over pregnancy
3. no convenient clinic nearby (how many clinics have been shut down because of anti-choicers rabble-rousing?)
4. lack of money (anti-choicers lobbied to cut of medicaid funds for abortion)
5. delay getting parental or court consent (anti-choicers lobbied for laws that cause abortions to be delayed)
6. Development of unexpected medical conditions
7. realization that earlier prcedures (e.g. X-rays) or medication might have accidentally damaged the fetus
8. decision to abort due to malformed fetus which was only detected after the 16th week by amniocentisis.







If 1% of those born at 22 weeks survive, what are the chances of those born before that? Abortion is prohibited by most states after 20 weeks except for saving the woman's health, and women don't CHOOSE to have them that late.
 
Noah's Hammer said:
My wife is now in her 22nd week of pregnancy. She feels the baby being active in her womb.

To all you who believe in abortion- question: Would it be morally acceptable for her to take the life of that baby tomorrow?
Click to expand...

If the pregnancy threatens her life, do you think she should maintain it anyway? Since a 22 week old has a 1% chance of survival, do you think all possible measures should be taken to assure survival knowing that the chances are great of severe damage to the child?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…