Something I dont understand [W:457]

[choiceone]

And so on the birthday, a human infant *poofs* into existence fully formed and ready for life right? That infant did not exist a moment prior?

Are you 12?

I'm over five times that and I believe that.

 

[Henrin]

We're talking about individual life, the kind that belongs to an individual. In the womb, the embryo/fetus lives because the woman's body is giving it part of her own life. It does not have a life of its own because it has implanted in her body and been unified with that body by the placenta, which is the whole reason it does not die.

That logic is horrible and your rationalizations are getting worse. It being attached to the woman does not in any way mean it's not its own life.

 

[minnie616]

Would you like some info on how much money pregnancy and childbirth generate for ob/gyns who attend them instead of performing abortions?

Average Abortion Doctor Salaries 2012

The average salary for abortion doctor jobs is $55,000.

Abortion Doctor Salaries | Simply Hired



From OB-Gyn Salary Information;

Lowest $159K

Average $261K

Highest $417K

OB-Gyn Salary Information

 

[choiceone]

Wrong on both accounts homey. Shocker.

East Asian age reckoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article says that China, Korea, and Japan use a modern age reckoning that is the same as ours and that it is the one used for legal purposes. Japan began using this system in law over a century ago, in 1902. The traditional age reckoning is not used at all in Japan now, though it is common in South Korea. However, that scheme of age reckoning does not mean what you think it does. In that scheme, you are not "one year old" at birth, but rather are "in" your first year of life. Moreover, on lunar New Year's Day, you will enter the second year of life, because you will now be "in" the second lunar year, even though you may be only two months' "old." You are just not paying attention to the actual meanings of the word being used - I'm guessing that you are not fluent in any East Asian language.

 

[choiceone]

I have 5, I'm well versed, son.



What's that thing on the ultrasounds then? A ghost?

It is an indirect, two-dimensional, black-and-white visual representation of shape changes inside the uterus of a woman based on sound waves and not light waves, a representation produced by a machine utterly devoid of life and one that is not accessible to you without the permission of the woman because access to it is regulated by laws of privacy regarding medical documents.

 

[choiceone]

Well that doesn't really change anything. As we have been saying, right and wrong are objective. Killing a human being is not a matter of taste, so it really doesn't matter what you personally feel is right or wrong. This is an objective matter, and the killing of human beings is objectively wrong.

What is not objective is your characterizing a human embryo as a human being and your implicit assumption that the life of the embryo is its own life and not part of the life of the woman with whose body it has become biologically unified by the placenta.

 

[choiceone]

We are talking of facts and the fact is it is a human being.

No, it isn't.

The death penalty is wrong and self defense is not happening here in 99% of the cases.

We've been over and over this. Self-defense occurs in cases of rape and assault. Implanting biologically inside the tissue of a person's body is an invasion of that person's flesh. If you invaded another person's flesh against that person's expressed will, that person could use forcible means to end that invasion. If you did it in a sex organ, that person could use lethal means to end that invasion in New York state, at least, and in either case you could be prosecuted for a felony in a court of law and found guilty unless you were legally incompetent, and no one would prosecute that person for using lethal means to end that invasion in New York state, at least, even if you had been legally insane at the time.

 

[choiceone]

So if you arent walking around you arent a human being? Or is it if you have an umbilical cord attached you arent a human being?

I am just trying to understand your self proclaimed stupidity.

If you are outside of the woman's body and breathe, even before the cord is cut, you are born alive and are a person, so you are given a name and time of birth and a birth certificate. But that is because you no longer depend for life on that woman's body and you have proved that by breathing. If you are outside of the woman's body and do not breathe, you are not proved to be born alive, and until you breathe, "born alive" status is not proven. If they cut the cord and try to make you breathe and you do, you are proven to be born alive. If you do not breathe no matter what anyone does, you are stillborn, i.e., born dead, but you are nonetheless born, so you are accorded personhood, given a time of birth, a name, and death certificate.

 

[choiceone]

No, one does not. The fetus is the child of its two parents. Birth is secondary.

You can follow your bigoted view if you want, but my definition is scientifically proven.

Its also listed of course.

Find me evidence that all professional scientists in biological sciences accept your definition and then find me evidence that this has anything whatever to do with Constitutional rights in the US.

 

[choiceone]

What? Child support law is completely man made, based on emotion and has nothing at all to do with the subject.

How is pregnancy not man-made?

 

[choiceone]

Nature dictates what the act is and isn't.

What act are you talking about?

 

[choiceone]

You are talking of law and I'm talking of science. Science simply matters more to the subject.



Prove that killing someone in revenge is wrong? Why is that needed?

Science does not matter more than law in the issue of abortion because science does not determine who is a person and who isn't.

 

[choiceone]

Explain how this granting of entry happens. No, I think upon conception a human being is created and has the same rights as any other human being that has ever been created.

That is because the man's part in creating is over. You have forgotten the nine months of creative work on the woman's part. Typical misogynist.

 

[choiceone]

I just don't understand why a parent wouldn't sacrifice any and everything to save their child's life.

If my son's life is on the line, take from me anything you need to save him, even if it means killing me in the process.

I don't get people who wouldn't make the same sacrifice.

When the parent chooses to make that sacrifice, I'm all for it, but when strangers try to use legislation to force the parent to do it, the parent isn't sacrificing anything; rather, the strangers are trying to force that parent to be a living sacrifice. It is to make born children come from the physical violence underpinning all human law enforcement instead of voluntary love. If it isn't voluntary, love isn't possible. All children will then be products of human physical violence instead of love. That is disgusting. Furthermore, you are person who would do that to a woman or 12 year old girl impregnated by rape, so you have already sacrificed the right to be considered moral by an overwhelming majority of the people on the abortion threads (and in the US).

 

[mac]

It is an indirect, two-dimensional, black-and-white visual representation of shape changes inside the uterus of a woman based on sound waves and not light waves, a representation produced by a machine utterly devoid of life and one that is not accessible to you without the permission of the woman because access to it is regulated by laws of privacy regarding medical documents.

I didn't ask what an ultrasound is...

 

[mac]

Celibacy is a side effect of marriage between two people who are very inept or unattractive sex partners.

How would you know?

 

[choiceone]

Just repugnant nonsense, all of it. It is completely nonsensical to believe that all our existence is based on evil events that come about from the natural events of child bearing. No, existence is not evil, No, you do not get an excuse to kill because your body is involved because of natural events going as planned. What is really unconscionable and without a doubt evil is killing your children because they are simply in your way or causing you discomfort. If anything here is evil and unthinkable to a person with a heart it is what you support.

Sorry, I'm not falling for this. My mom and dad wanted a child in advance and asked for one, and my mom willingly and happily got pregnant, and she had no problems in her pregnancy, not even nausea and morning sickness, and no pain or labor in childbirth. So I did not come from evil events. If they had been evil to my mom, and she had wanted to end her pregnancy with me on that account, I would happily have been aborted, and I would expect that of any embryo or fetus.

 

[mac]

A human zygote is not a human being. It is a zygote. A human embryo is not a human being. It is an embryo. If you can't tell the difference between these and a fully formed human body outside of and biologically detached from the fully formed human body that gave it life for the duration of its growth, you really don't know a thing.

There are differences in all stages of human life, both visible and invisible. The stage of life does not define its humanity.

 

[choiceone]

I just don't understand that mentality. As a parent I sacrifice for my children, they come first. Imo that's a parent's duty, government involvement or not.

That is the duty of a social parent, from birth. But a woman is not legally considered a mother before she gives birth in US law or in the laws of any state in the US except North Carolina. Biology is not destiny.

 

[choiceone]

You bring up a good point, a gray aria of the 'my body, my choice' argument. If it's your body, and the ZEF isn't a person, then logically you should be able to consume just about anything you want so long as you aren't harming anyone. However, if that ZEF later becomes a 'person', and is deformed in some way because of your consumption while it was not a 'person', your actions did end up harming someone else.

Absent self-control to choose not to consume the drug on your own, the government will step in to regulate your behavior in that first situation where it's just your body and you aren't harming anyone else. This in turn opens the door to other regulation.

It seems we sleep in the bed we made. IMO if we're going to legalize all these other drugs, then we should simultaneously liberally loosen gun control and capitol punishment so that abusers can be removed from the gene pool.

I have preferred to remove abusers from the gene pool by simply not reproducing them.

 

[choiceone]

My daughter was actually a miracle going by your def. We had unprotected sex all the time and were told by doctors she would need expensive treatments to have a child. By age 24 I gave up on the idea of having a child with my wife. At 27 I have a beautiful 19 month old daughter with flowing golden locks, perfect blue eyes, and at 19 months can sing and do "head shoulders knees and toes", potty trained, above the 99th percentile average, runs, jumps, body slams and plays light saber duels with daddy...and isn't even 2. Yeah, I'd say having a kid far superior to most at that point when your wife shouldnt be able to constitutes as miracle.

You can say your daughter is a miracle because you and your partner wanted one and got one. The doctors and what they told you are just human beings who can make a mistake. If doctors were always right, I would have died by the time I was one, and again at 29, and again another time. They really are alarmist. It's so easy to disprove doctors' claims of impossibility that this probably is totally unnecessary to your claim for a miracle.

 

[choiceone]

*Shakes head* No. I do not care to hear your empty rationalizing while using blatant offenses of logic along the way. No, it is not presentable at all. It matters not what the intentions of the rapists where in the process.



Yes I know, child bearing and by extension child birth is evil. All existence to you is evil. Another nonsensical position you seem to want to push.



Normal risks for pregnancy are normal.



There is nothing more vulgar than to claim the natural acts of existing is a place to put guilt of wrong doing. Then to extend it and put in place the punishment of death is the worst kind of rationalization imaginable. No, that is not a moral stance.



Illusions of grander you seem to be filled with for sure.

Some states in the US agree with me, for in them, pregnancy caused by rape is considered "additional injury" in prosecuting a case of rape. I simply do not agree with your opinion or morality. I'm guessing you may be a Catholic. Know this. If Roman Catholicism were the only existing form of the Christian religion, I would be a Buddhist. I am so repelled by the view of women, pregnancy, and zygotes in the Catholic church hierarchy that just thinking of it can make me nauseous.

 

[choiceone]

Religion has nothing at all to do with morals. You might as well say good is bad and bad is good because that is how that statement flows. Their hollow chambers will always echo. Their own history and present disqualifies them from all talks of morals. Anyone that condones the abuse of their own people is not one to speak about how people should live.

Embryos and fetuses are not people.

 

[choiceone]

I didn't ask what an ultrasound is...

That's right. You asked what was in the ultrasound. What is in the ultrasound is precisely a two-dimensional black-and-white visual image based on sound waves and not light waves, which is considered to represent shape changes inside of the uterus of a woman. It is an image produced by a machine devoid of life and it is not accessible without the woman's permission. You meant to ask what is referred to by that image. The answer is that the image is taken to represent shape changes inside of the uterus of a woman. The image can represent an embryo because shape changes inside of the uterus include anything inside the uterus other than emptiness. But the notion that you see anything actual is based on faith in a machine devoid of life and in a representation, because you do not have any direct perception of an embryo - you rely on a two-dimensional image representation machine.

 

[choiceone]

How would you know?

Pardon me. I made this guess because starved for humor.