When does "life" begin

[Jerry]

Mods! Can't you make Jerry stop hijacking threads with his tasteless commentary?
We're trying to have a rational discussion here, jeesh.

Quit talking about my panties then and we can get back to talking about pregnant women with penises.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Finaly an easy question.
Life begins when they get slaped and start breathing on their own.
Or when god tells us.

 

[Jerry]

Finaly an easy question.
Life begins when they get slaped and start breathing on their own.
Or when god tells us.

Let's go there......

Life begins with God.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Now some mod is going to come in and tell everyone to "get back on topic"

Moderator's Warning:

Get back on topic. :2razz:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You know, I've been spending a little more time down here in the Abortion Forum, and I've noticed that, at times, y'all get kinda silly and have some fun. Doesn't seem like that bad a place to hang out, at times. Oh, wait...now I'm taking us off topic. :sigh: Guess I must moderate myself...again. :doh

 

[Felicity]

Re: Acuity

"Acuity"



You should not be argumentative over trivial discussion.

I'm not arguing--I'm mocking. That IS appropriate to trivial discussion.

Now, about that prostate stimulation, .

If you're concerned--I'm sure your HMO could get you in for a check-up. Although, I'm not sure how your insurance would view paying a doctor to sexually stimulate you. I'm not licensed in "that area.":3oops:

 

[jallman]

Re: Acuity

I'm not licensed in "that area.":3oops:

I am if you're hot. :twisted:

 

[Felicity]

Re: Acuity

I am if you're hot. :twisted:

Just to be clear, Monk-eye, jallman's talking to you (even though I am quite "hot" :mrgreen: )

 

[Monk-Eye]

Origin Of Species

"Origin Of Species"

Just to be clear, Monk-eye, jallman's talking to you (even though I am quite "hot" :mrgreen: )

The original jeer was towards the G-spot homologue in males and by which disposition it came to be there. Through interrogative for your account, was it perhaps an act of perverse creation?

And what is the contention about the chorion and placenta?

 

[dottedmint]

The problem comes in the pro-life comparative assertion that a live human cell equates to human life. The issue isn't even human life--it is personhood.

An acorn is not a tree.

I am not trying to equate just any live human cell as being human life .... sorry .... (I made that mistake with others) .... I should say a living organism.

A live human skin cell does not equate a living organism.

A fertilized human egg does equate a living organism.

A fertilized human egg has all of the characteristics of a living organism.

A live human skin cell does not.

Also.

Using the acorn/tree argument has a bit of the apple/orange problem.

A different way would be to look at a frog.

An adult frog looks nothing like a tadpole and yet they are both the same animal.

It is illegal for me to kill a Bald Eagle because (well) because it is our national emblem.

It is also illegal for me to destroy a Bald Eagle egg because we do not see a difference in the two.

A catapillar spins a cocoon and then turns into a butterfly.

The catapillar, cocoon, and the butterfly each are completely different in apperance but each of them is the same organism.

The embryo growing inside of the mother may not look "human" but it is the same organism as the baby that gets born.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

What separates a human from another organism is the use of the human brain. This still applies to the mentally retarded and healable (real word?) vegetables, since they are still cabable of thought, but a fetus cannot think. Up to a certain point, it cannot feel pain. As long as painkillers are used before the procedure, I believe it is perfectly moral to perform abortion up to the end of the second trimester- although a fetus could be potentially viable before then, the risks and expenses are far too high for a parasitic organism (see endless posts on Real Simple) that is incapable of human thought.

 

[jallman]

What separates a human from another organism is the use of the human brain. This still applies to the mentally retarded and healable (real word?) vegetables, since they are still cabable of thought, but a fetus cannot think. Up to a certain point, it cannot feel pain. As long as painkillers are used before the procedure, I believe it is perfectly moral to perform abortion up to the end of the second trimester- although a fetus could be potentially viable before then, the risks and expenses are far too high for a parasitic organism (see endless posts on Real Simple) that is incapable of human thought.

I am pro-choice but I find it completely disingenuous to refer to the fetus as a parasitic organism. It is still a human organism and we are not parasites (except for my last ex, but he is a whole different animal).

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

I am pro-choice but I find it completely disingenuous to refer to the fetus as a parasitic organism. It is still a human organism and we are not parasites (except for my last ex, but he is a whole different animal).

So? While a parasite always exhibits parasitic behavior, that does not mean that parasitic behavior is restricted to parasites only. And:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureIncoming, in Msg #605
Parasitic behavior is unacceptable, in all cultures, worldwide, and typically leads to the killing of the parasitic organisms. And that group can include fully-person-class humans who have broken laws against, say, serial killing. Only in special circumstances do we do otherwise --such as when a woman wants to carry a pregnancy to term.

I notice that while the Messages have gone past #640, you did not respond to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by talloulou, continuing Msg #601
And it is not something you "acquire" or something that you "pick up" in third world travels. It is something your body creates which makes it very different from genuine parasites.

Again, it is the behavior that is worldwide generally deemed unacceptable -- and the type of life-form that happens to be exhibiting that behavior is irrelevant. I can admit that just because unborn humans are not true/ordinary parasites, they are often excused for their behavior, but I don't see any rationale to require their parasitic behavior to be excused. Indeed, every pro-lifer who would allow abortion when the mother's life is endangered is basically agreeing that in that case the parasitic behavior of the fetus is NOT excusable!

Quote:
Originally Posted by talloulou, continuing
There is no reason or logic behind comparing a human to malaria or a tapeworm. It's a hysterical analogy.

NONSENSE. "A rose by any other name", and all that. Parasites as a class are defined by a particular set of behaviors; when an organism only exhibits such behavior, we call it a parasite. And when an organism can exhibit a wider range of behaviors than that, we don't call it a parasite. But that doesn't make parasitic behavior by a non-parasite one iota less parasitic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by talloulou, in Msg #601
Furthermore yes the law does allow women to give up babies for adoption however it must be done in a manner that is safe for the baby. The mother is not allowed to just "dump" her newbown on a freeway. She is responsible for the safe transfer of her responsibility on to someone else. If a woman gives birth in the middle of the desert and there is only one other person around and that person refuses to accept responsibility for the newborn than the mother is forced to continue her responsibilty to the newborn whether she wants to or not. She can not legally just leave the baby to die or feed it to coyotes because no one else, at the time, was able to take on the responsibility for her. If a woman can not safely transfer the care of her baby from herself to someone else she is forced to wait until such time comes that she safely can or she can legally be held responsible for what happens to the baby in her neglect.

AGREED. And all of that is simply because of the traditional automatic assignment of personhood to a human at birth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by talloulou, continuing
There is no reason pregnancy should be viewed differently.

FALSE. The parasitic behavior of an unborn human can be exactly such a reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by talloulou, continuing
There is noone but her during pregnancy that can be responsible for keeping the human in her womb safe so it's not unreasonable to expect her to continue with that responsibility until such time when she can safely transfer it to a willing person.

This is only reasonable to the extent that she is willing to excuse the parasitic behavior of the fetus. It has been said that you cannot be robbed if you give your stuff away fast enough; likewise you cannot be parasitized if you are giving away appropriate stuff. However, if she isn't in a charitable mood, and considers the unborn human to be parasitizing her --and certainly you have no rationale to require her to excuse parasitism and to be charitable-- then abortion becomes as logical an act as any other specialized technique for removing a parasitizing organism.

Here is the old Real Simple post I meant (or at least one of them).

par·a·site
–noun
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the
hospitality of others.

About as ingenuous as it gets.

1 and 2, check. The fetus is living- without the permission of the mother at the moment- and using resources from her body. If she wants to get it out, that should be her right.

 

[jallman]

par·a·site
–noun
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the
hospitality of others.

About as ingenuous as it gets.

1 and 2, check. The fetus is living- without the permission of the mother at the moment- and using resources from her body. If she wants to get it out, that should be her right.

You ingenous nature surely shows expresses itself when you think that in a single post you can "1 and 2, check" a debate that has been going on for 34+ years :roll:

You find me one medical professional who gives a fetus the taxonomy of any parasite and I will concede you "check". Heres a clue: you can't because the taxonomy of a human is Kingdom animalia species homo sapiens.

Time to kick your king because you credibility is done. :doh

 

[Felicity]

Re: Origin Of Species

"Origin Of Species"
The original jeer was towards the G-spot homologue in males and by which disposition it came to be there. Through interrogative for your account, was it perhaps an act of perverse creation?

And what is the contention about the chorion and placenta?

hOLY yODA, lORD vADER--wHAT THE hELL ARE YOU taLking AboUT?:darthgunny

 

[1069]

You ingenous nature surely shows expresses itself when you think that in a single post you can "1 and 2, check" a debate that has been going on for 34+ years :roll:

You find me one medical professional who gives a fetus the taxonomy of any parasite and I will concede you "check". Heres a clue: you can't because the taxonomy of a human is Kingdom animalia species homo sapiens.

Time to kick your king because you credibility is done. :doh

Inasmuch as a fetus subsists by cannibalizing its host, it certainly behaves in a parasitic manner.
Biology knows no sentiment.
In a wanted pregnancy, it's easy to imagine that you're voluntarily nourishing your "baby" by "giving" it your bodily resources, the iron from your blood, the calcium from your bones and teeth.
And it's easy to forget that this organism would take these things with or without your consent, even to your detriment, even- possibly- to your death.
I think it takes personally experiencing an unwanted pregnancy, to truly get this; the implications of it.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Origin Of Species

hOLY yODA, lORD vADER--wHAT THE hELL ARE YOU taLking AboUT?:darthgunny

If a pregnant woman has 2.......then doesn't she also have 2.......

 

[Felicity]

Re: Origin Of Species

If a pregnant woman has 2.......then doesn't she also have 2.......

You only have one though, darlin' Do you have a perverse need to feel inadequate?

 

[Felicity]

Re: Origin Of Species

If a pregnant woman has 2.......then doesn't she also have 2.......

And suppose she's carrying TWINS?:shock:

 

[1069]

Re: Origin Of Species

And suppose she's carrying TWINS?:shock:

And suppose she's carrying quintuplets, and they're all male?
Then she could get a teeshirt that reads: "I've had five d!cks in me at once!"

Now, can we drop this repulsive line of discussion and move on?

:roll:

 

[Jerry]

Re: Origin Of Species

You only have one though, darlin' Do you have a perverse need to feel inadequate?

And suppose she's carrying quintuplets, and they're all male?
Then she could get a teeshirt that reads: "I've had five d!cks in me at once!"

Now, can we drop this repulsive line of discussion and move on?

:roll:

This is the original line of the discussion.

 

[1069]

Re: Origin Of Species

This is the original line of the discussion.

Surely not; I believe it's merely a perverse tangent.
And I think it's now been hastened to its logical conclusion, so we can get back to discussing Monk-Eye's prostate, or... wait a minute, what the hell was the original topic, anyway?
It must not've been anything too interesting, considering the number of digressions in this thread.

 

[Felicity]

Re: Origin Of Species

Surely not; I believe it's merely a perverse tangent.

Well, if you could get your bud grannie to explain her point about a fetus being merely a part of a woman...maybe we could.:2razz:

 

[1069]

Re: Origin Of Species

Well, if you could get your bud grannie to explain her point about a fetus being merely a part of a woman...maybe we could.:2razz:

Let's just pretend she conceded the point in absentia; or, how about this: I'll concede for her, by proxy.
Now can we stop discussing fetal genitals and move on?

 

[Felicity]

Re: Origin Of Species

Let's just pretend she conceded the point in absentia; or, how about this: I'll concede for her, by proxy.
Now can we stop discussing fetal genitals and move on?

Eh...you're no fun...you're the one who thinks it's perfectly fine to kill another human being if that other human being NEEDS you to survive. Grannie's not so far gone as far as I can tell. She needs to either admit her deprivation and embrace it as you seem to have, or renounce her foolish ways.:mrgreen: