Study: Twins interacting deliberately at 14 weeks Gestation

[choiceone]

Gee, if only you'd keep away from penises, you could avoid the mortal terror of pregnancy too.

That's what I did. After all, a penis is essentially a urination device, since that is what it is used for on a more-than-daily regular basis, so why anyone would want it inside her body if she had not been brainwashed by socialization, I don't know. Much more sanitary to abstain.

 

[CanadaJohn]

That's what I did. After all, a penis is essentially a urination device, since that is what it is used for on a more-than-daily regular basis, so why anyone would want it inside her body if she had not been brainwashed by socialization, I don't know. Much more sanitary to abstain.

Absolutely, 100%, agree with you taking this position for yourself.

 

[sangha]

Actually last time I checked you can kill someone in self defence when they are a threat to you, I guess it all depends on your opinion on what constitutes a credible threat. I see a single death as more than enough justification.

If someone decides to force you into a game of russian roulette with the 'potential' of you getting killed or injured being similar to the potential of dying or being harmed by a complication, is that enough justification for you to defend yourself or is the threat not credible because the chances of dying are low?

Giving birth to a child causes harm to the mothers health, including a shortening of her life expectancy.

 

[choiceone]

I never claimed sex was consent to pregnancy, what I argued was that pregnancy is an inherent risk of sex. And that there is no room for consent within conception. That is because it's a biological process no one has direct control over




right, and non-consensual urination, vaginal warts, and an ingrown hair would be "rape". Sorry, your silly emotional appeal is still just that.




No, you can try to fight the effects of the cancer, but the idea of consent is particularly pointless in such circumstances. because it is irrelevent to your state of health




which begs a very key question ...




You can induce your body into a state, but you do not have control over that state. As in you don't go "I'm going to stop menstruating ...."now". You simply increase the probability of such happening and wait

hence, no consent

That is crazy - I told you that you can stop the menstrual cycle, which is a biological process, by deliberately becoming anorexic and attaining a low enough fat-muscle ratio. No, you can't do it overnight, but the fact is that the menstrual cycle is a long-term biological process, one that continues for maybe 40 years, but you can stop in in less than a year and keep it stopped. You can bring on a menstrual period early within a week by means of medication in order to interfere with the cycle for reasons of convenience. That is not just about increasing the probability of something happening. It will happen.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Actually last time I checked you can kill someone in self defence when they are a threat to you

right, when they are actually a real and credible threat, not merely a potential threat

I guess it all depends on your opinion on what constitutes a credible threat. I see a single death as more than enough justification.

****ty argument: If someone is killed by a one legged man in an ally, that doesn't justify you shooting the next one legged man you see in an ally. His mere potential to be a threat does not trigger any right to self defense. He would have to show himself to be an actual and credible threat

If someone decides to force you into a game of russian roulette with the 'potential' of you getting killed or injured being similar to the potential of dying or being harmed by a complication, is that enough justification for you to defend yourself or is the threat not credible because the chances of dying are low?

I'm not sure the analogy works, being a) short of rape, your own actions initiated the game of russian roulette and you forced the fetus to participate.

Without YOUR actions, neither would be put in potential danger

Secondly, pointing a gun at your head represents a real and credible threat (no reasonable person would perceive it as anything else). What you are discussing is more akin to someone potentially putting you in such circumstances, being that pregnancy does not have an immediate connection to potential harm pointing a gun at your head does

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

That is crazy - I told you that you can stop the menstrual cycle, which is a biological process

No, you do not decide on the moment such stops, you can only increase the potential of such happening. i explained this clearly above

 

[Scrabaholic]

The comment wasn't directed at you, although anyone who considers Morgentaler saint-like isn't far off.

I never said he was a saint or saint-like. EVER.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Gee, if getting pregnant puts you in mortal danger and you have no ability to keep from putting yourself in position to get pregnant, what else is there to do? Why not just take the need for an abortionist right out of the equation and commit suicide, or at least get your tubes tied so you never have to suffer the trauma of a parasite attaching itself to your body and attempting to murder you?

The best thing about posts like this is they expose the real you.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Gee, if only you'd keep away from penises, you could avoid the mortal terror of pregnancy too.

:roll:

Perfect. Now cancer cells are the equivalent of fetuses. How sad life must be in your world.

I never said they were the equivalent. Please stop lying about what I say or don't say.

 

[CanadaJohn]

The best thing about posts like this is they expose the real you.

They expose me as someone who's actually read the posts of the pro-abortionists here on DP and believe that they actually believe what they say. Just trying to help you poor dears find a way to survive another day with all those murderous fetuses on the loose.

 

[Scrabaholic]

you don't have a choice in getting pregnant or not? Seems you do, on a number of levels.

Where did I say any such thing?

 

[sangha]

The best thing about posts like this is they expose the real you.

Yep. Go far enough, and even the ones who are supposedly "pro-choice" demonstrate that they're motivated by a morality that requires the "immoral woman" be punished. Whether it be with an unwanted child, or death, matter not.

 

[Scrabaholic]

They expose me as someone who's actually read the posts of the pro-abortionists here on DP and believe that they actually believe what they say. Just trying to help you poor dears find a way to survive another day with all those murderous fetuses on the loose.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha. :lamo thanks for the laugh.

 

[choiceone]

No, you do not decide on the moment such stops, you can only increase the potential of such happening. i explained this clearly above

What is it with some people and the momentary? You don't have to decide on the moment; a moment is just an arbitrary unit of time. You can decide on the week or the month; those are also just arbitrary units of time. You are hung up on the size of the unit of time involved. As I said above, crazy.

 

[sangha]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha. :lamo thanks for the laugh.

It's the pro-life's version of "reason and rationality"! :lamo

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

What is it with some people and the momentary? You don't have to decide on the moment; a moment is just an arbitrary unit of time.

because it indicates you have no direct control over the act and "consent" is meaningless. It's like arguing you didn't consent to your nails growing. Well guess what, you're nails are still going to grow. because in such instances consent is meaningless

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Where did I say any such thing?

isn't that what you were alluding to?

 

[sangha]

because it indicates you have no direct control over the act and "consent" is meaningless. It's like arguing you didn't consent to your nails growing. Well guess what, you're nails are still going to grow. because in such instances consent is meaningless

No it doesn't

It just indicates that one doesn't have *complete* control.

 

[SheWolf]

:shrug: I would disagree - the heart of the matter is simply enough whether or not an unborn baby is a human being.



On the contrary, mere reflex is assessed and discounted as the evidence presented refutes it.

Please stop, we know all know it's a human and that it's not some kind of tumor in there with no intelligence. This study doesn't change my opinion on anything. I am not pro choice because I am ignorant about fetal development.

 

[SheWolf]

This does not answer my question or relate to the suggestions put to you.

Again: If a fetus is initiating actions, not just reacting to the other fetus. This is not just a reflex as the study shows. I am not just talking about reaction or as you say reflex.

Lots of life forms react to the environment. Bacteria only grows and spreads in certain areas, flowers bend toward sunlight, etc.

In this case, we are discussing an early, and beginning human life.... but I don't see it's reactions as being anything unusual in the sense that it's a life form. I am not insulting unborn life, as I do not disrespect unborn life. I am just trying to make the point that all life forms are aware of their enviroment and must be in order to survive. It's a very interesting topic... how something newly created has this knowledge and it's not through observation or study. Unique skills seem to be inborn in all life forms.

I think when we argue life, we shouldn't argue that human life is superior to all other life. I see no evidence of that myself.

 

[Jerry]

Speaks, I think, to the heart of the matter.

It does't matter, prochoice are inhuman monsters. Facts and truth don't phase them.

 

[SheWolf]

You know that very few man are going to get that done, right? I know all the ladies think it's cool and all, but for men its just ****ing scary. I'm not going to put some gel in my body that does anything like that, ever.

Maybe you don't realize the risk involved in messing with that part of my body, but I do. I would rather not take that risk and just avoid doing anything to it. No gels, no cuts, no anything that causes some sort of chemical response. You ladies can risk certain things without dire consequences, but men can not.

There was a thread about that at the beginning of the year and pretty much every man that posted if I remember correctly rejected it. There is a reason for that, and no, it does not have anything to do with not wanting to do anything.

What the hell do you think women go through during pregnancy and labor? You can't expect men to get an injection in their scrotom to prevent pregnancy, because that **** is too scary for men to go through.... but women go through a lot more during pregnancy and labor.

If the majority of men feel this way, then it's time for men to totally bow out of the abortion debate.

 

[Henrin]

What the hell do you think women go through during pregnancy and labor? You can't expect men to get an injection in their scrotom to prevent pregnancy, because that **** is too scary for men to go through.... but women go through a lot more during pregnancy and labor.

If the majority of men feel this way, then it's time for men to totally bow out of the abortion debate.

Yeah, whatever. Getting a shot in my scrotum and get some foreign agent pumped into body has what exactly to do with a natural process of the body? Geez, talk about comparing apples to oranges.

I have already explained my objection and why it's a really stupid idea to mess with that part of the body and I'm not going to do it again.

 

[SheWolf]

This is the whole essence of the pro-abortion lobby - it's about "inconvenience" and "insignificance".

Carrying a pregnancy is a major, life changing decision for any woman, planned or unplanned. I would say that planning a pregnancy and birth is lot more serious than just a simple inconvenience...

 

[SheWolf]

Unlike some of our more dishonest posters, Maggie doesn't claim to be both pro-choice *and* pro-life

lol... I think Maggie's position is pretty clear, and it has always been clear. But I have always seen Canada as a pro lifer... :shrug: