Abortion: A Sad Reality

[g5000]

There are a lot of people who cannot breathe or exist without external aid. These are not viable lives, according to the arguments made here.

Guess it's okay to off 'em since they are a financial burden.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Stupid much?

The fact is that abortion kills a human being at its most vulnerable stage of life- That is scientific fact.

So what? What's in a name? You name a 2 celled zygote a human being, what does that accomplish?

It is 100% human and it is alive- and after the zygote attaches (3-7) days it becomes a viable human being at the earliest stages of development- You were a small fetus then a bigger fetus,,,and now you are a grown and stupid fetus- If your mother had aborted you- it would not have changed the fact that you were alive and 100% you- she gave you nothing but residence and sustenance once you came into being- she continued to do so until you left home.

Unless you are still living in her basement~

I'm retired and living in my own - paid for - home, on 2 pensions that I earned by working 40 years for them, since you seem to need to know.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are a lot of people who cannot breathe or exist without external aid. These are not viable lives, according to the arguments made here.

Guess it's okay to off 'em since they are a financial burden.

Can you acknowledge the material difference between a human zygote and a 5 year old child?

 

[clevergirl]

The fact that anti-abortionists cannot even tell the difference between a just fertilized human egg and a 5 year old child is about all you need to know about the intellect of the average anti-abortionist.

Apart from development and location- explain the difference scientifically. You are the one who wants to talk viability- I broke it down for you.

Come on gees with the big mouth- explain it

I am not talking about viability. I am talking about whether or not you have the common sense to see and acknowledge that there is a significant material difference between taking a medication that prevents a fertilized human egg from attaching to the uterine wall,

and murdering your five year old child.

Well then why the fuck did you jump on a reply to a post about viability???

Murder is a legal term when discussing abortion- we all know that deliberately killing a 5 year old is murder- and we also know when the courts are pleased to do so, that killing a fetus can be murder- but we are talking about ending a unique human life know matter its developmental age.


So now you want to talk about the morning after pill?

 

[clevergirl]

So what? What's in a name? You name a 2 celled zygote a human being, what does that accomplish?

It is 100% human and it is alive- and after the zygote attaches (3-7) days it becomes a viable human being at the earliest stages of development- You were a small fetus then a bigger fetus,,,and now you are a grown and stupid fetus- If your mother had aborted you- it would not have changed the fact that you were alive and 100% you- she gave you nothing but residence and sustenance once you came into being- she continued to do so until you left home.

Unless you are still living in her basement~

I'm retired and living in my own - paid for - home, on 2 pensions that I earned by working 40 years for them, since you seem to need to know.

No, I was being facetious~

How nice you had the opportunity to be so successful- You do understand that you were always you- from the moment of conception everything that you are physically and materially speaking- you always were and have been- even at the zygote stage. That you attached and became viable meant, apart from an outside force, you were put on the present course you are on.

 

[Dragonlady]

How nice you had the opportunity to be so successful- You do understand that you were always you- from the moment of conception everything that you are physically and materially speaking- you always were and have been- even at the zygote stage. That you attached and became viable meant, apart from an outside force, you were put on the present course you are on.

Do YOU understand that this is your belief and your right to make decisions in your own life based on your beliefs and your perceived needs. But you would deny women a similar opportunity.

I am sick and tired of anti-abortionists telling women what they must do and what they must believe, all the while reserving the right to make their own decisions in their own lives.

I don't personally believe in abortion and I based decisions in my own life based on that belief. OTOH, I would never deny other women to make their own choices based on their beliefs.

 

[Dragonlady]

I live in a capitalistic country but one which respects families and individuals and requires employers to do the same.

We also respect women enough to allow them the unfettered right to make their own decisions regarding their families. Because of the support of our society, more women chose to have their babies.

We have a country which is pro-family. Families are the foundation and the bedrock of our economy. Americans like to say they support family values but they put capitalism ahead of families every single time.

"....the unfettered right to make their own decisions regarding their families."

They have the right to not get pregnant.


Why didn't you write it this way?
"...the unfettered right to make their own decisions regarding when and which babies they'd like to do away with."

You missed the entire point of the post, which was that IN SPITE of an unfettered right to free abortions, women in countries with a social safety net where pregnant women have the support and protection of workplace legislation, more of them opt to carry their pregnancies to term and to give birth.

If, as you repeat endlessly, your goal is to reduce abortions, then you should favour similar legislation in the US. If, on the other hand, your goal is control women's sexuality and punish women for having sex, then you're on the right track.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is 100% human and it is alive- and after the zygote attaches (3-7) days it becomes a viable human being at the earliest stages of development- You were a small fetus then a bigger fetus,,,and now you are a grown and stupid fetus- If your mother had aborted you- it would not have changed the fact that you were alive and 100% you- she gave you nothing but residence and sustenance once you came into being- she continued to do so until you left home.

Unless you are still living in her basement~

I'm retired and living in my own - paid for - home, on 2 pensions that I earned by working 40 years for them, since you seem to need to know.

No, I was being facetious~

How nice you had the opportunity to be so successful- You do understand that you were always you- from the moment of conception everything that you are physically and materially speaking- you always were and have been- even at the zygote stage. That you attached and became viable meant, apart from an outside force, you were put on the present course you are on.

That's garbage.

You cannot acknowledge that there is a material difference between a zygote and a 5 year old child,

therefore you are not rational on the issue of abortion, and are thus not qualified to participate in any rational discussions of the same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I live in a capitalistic country but one which respects families and individuals and requires employers to do the same.

We also respect women enough to allow them the unfettered right to make their own decisions regarding their families. Because of the support of our society, more women chose to have their babies.

We have a country which is pro-family. Families are the foundation and the bedrock of our economy. Americans like to say they support family values but they put capitalism ahead of families every single time.

"....the unfettered right to make their own decisions regarding their families."

They have the right to not get pregnant.


Why didn't you write it this way?
"...the unfettered right to make their own decisions regarding when and which babies they'd like to do away with."

You missed the entire point of the post, which was that IN SPITE of an unfettered right to free abortions, women in countries with a social safety net where pregnant women have the support and protection of workplace legislation, more of them opt to carry their pregnancies to term and to give birth.

If, as you repeat endlessly, your goal is to reduce abortions, then you should favour similar legislation in the US. If, on the other hand, your goal is control women's sexuality and punish women for having sex, then you're on the right track.

"If, as you repeat endlessly, your goal is to reduce abortions,..."
No I didn't.


Once upon a time, a loving husband overheard his wife say, “I wish I was six again.”
So…upon the event of her birthday, he took her on the roller coaster at the amusement park, got her a big sundae for lunch, and then ended the day on the swings at the park. But when he asked how she enjoyed her b’day, she said, ‘Terrible…I’m dizzy, nauseous, and tired!”
“But I heard you say you wanted to be six again???”
She looked at him, and said…”size six.”
See, that’s where you come in: some folks hear, but don’t comprehend.



I've simply proven that abortions take another human being's life.


Any argument you advance is a tap-dance to avoid that truth.


With anyone else, I'd say they were lying.....but you're not bright enough to lie.
You really are too dumb to understand.

 

[Contumacious]

I've simply proven that abortions take another human being's life..

Really?

By golly, you are a legend in your own mind.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've simply proven that abortions take another human being's life..

Really?

By golly, you are a legend in your own mind.

.

That is true.

But I have done so.

Unless you would like to rebut what I have said, that the baby has different fingerprints, DNA, blood type, and, half the time, a different gender.

Sound like the same person to you?



See....now I'm a legend in both of our minds.

 

[Contumacious]

[Unless you would like to rebut what I have said, that the baby has different fingerprints, DNA, blood type, and, half the time, a different gender.

Fetus

Definition

noun, plural: fetuses

The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth


Supplement

Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development.

See....now I'm a legend in both of our minds.

Both?

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[Unless you would like to rebut what I have said, that the baby has different fingerprints, DNA, blood type, and, half the time, a different gender.

Fetus

Definition

noun, plural: fetuses

The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth


Supplement

Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development.

See....now I'm a legend in both of our minds.

Both?

.

"Both?"

What? You don't have one?????





I know the definition of fetus....but you seem unable to define 'rebut.'


"...rebut what I have said, that the baby has different fingerprints, DNA, blood type, and, half the time, a different gender."





Need to be slapped around a little more until you get it?

Sure:

I know cats have nine lives, but....

It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQCUgOxShc]BaZing! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Contumacious]

It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.

"The essential question becomes: 'What does it mean to be an individual?" For only by being an individual can the fetus possess individual rights. When defining a thing, it is necessary to discover the core characteristics-the characteristics without which it would be something else. With human beings, you subtract accidental characteristics such as race, sex, and hair color until you are left with the things which cannot be subtracted without destroying humanness itself. One such characteristic is a rational faculty.

An essential characteristic--indeed, a prerequisite--of considering something to be individual is that it be a discreet entity, a thing in and of itself. Until the point of birth, however, the fetus is not a separate entity; it is a biological aspect of the pregnant woman which possesses the capacity to become discrete. At birth, the fetus is biologically autonomous and is a self-owner with full individual rights. Although it cannot survive without assistance, this does not affect its biological independence; it is simply the dependence that any helpless individual experiences."

Wendy McElroy

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Unless you would like to rebut what I have said, that the baby has different fingerprints, DNA, blood type, and, half the time, a different gender.

Fetus

Definition

noun, plural: fetuses

The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth


Supplement

Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. Tthe fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development.

See....now I'm a legend in both of our minds.

Both?

.

"Both?"

What? You don't have one?????





I know the definition of fetus....but you seem unable to define 'rebut.'


"...rebut what I have said, that the baby has different fingerprints, DNA, blood type, and, half the time, a different gender."





Need to be slapped around a little more until you get it?

Sure:

I know cats have nine lives, but....

It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.

BaZing! - YouTube[/url

How many week old human embryos have survived the mother's death?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apart from development and location- explain the difference scientifically. You are the one who wants to talk viability- I broke it down for you.

Come on gees with the big mouth- explain it

I am not talking about viability. I am talking about whether or not you have the common sense to see and acknowledge that there is a significant material difference between taking a medication that prevents a fertilized human egg from attaching to the uterine wall,

and murdering your five year old child.

Well then why the fuck did you jump on a reply to a post about viability???

Murder is a legal term when discussing abortion- we all know that deliberately killing a 5 year old is murder- and we also know when the courts are pleased to do so, that killing a fetus can be murder- but we are talking about ending a unique human life know matter its developmental age.


So now you want to talk about the morning after pill?

I want you to either acknowledge or deny that the killing of a fertilized egg is no different than the killing of a 5 year old child.

Or refuse to answer, which tacitly proves my point.

 

[JoeB131]

[


Joe, is a fetus an innocent human life?

.

Nope.

Life would indicate viability outside the woman's body.

Which in most cases, is simply not the case, at least not until the third trimester.

Well, I'll give you credit, that's the first time I've gotten an answer to that question.

So, just to be sure, you're saying that a fetus, arms and legs moving, brain functioning, DNA-specific, is not human life.

Is that correct?

.

Can't live outside a woman's body, it's not "life". This is the standard the Court applied in Roe, and it's a pretty good one.

 

[JoeB131]

[

A fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.

But it's still not a 'life'?

This is your dimocrap mentality, people. This is why we had to kill over a quarter million of the motherfuckers in the Civil War.

Same mentality. Same, exact mentality. Nee-groes ain't human like you and me. They're property.

Few women are having abortions at week 20, and when they do, it's usually for a damned good medical reason.

So that argument really doesn't fly with me.

 

[JoeB131]

[


Joe, is a fetus an innocent human life?

.

Nope.

Life would indicate viability outside the woman's body.

Which in most cases, is simply not the case, at least not until the third trimester.

At what age does a child outside the womb remain "viable" without the need of another human being? 4,5,6?

Up to what age may we kill them for being in need of another for sustenance?

Oh maybe you mean "breathing" on its own- not actual viability-viability- but independent breathing. But that's just silly -every human being goes through the fetal stage and you do know that in this stage you don't breathe... The fetus is exchanging gases and is very viable and capable of doing this. It has set up its own circulatory system to be compatible with its mother's. They both involuntarily, but are scientifically destined to- exchange gases via diffusion.

The fetus becomes viable the moment it attaches to the uterus. At this point the fetal human IS viable- it is alive. Medical abortions can kill it- But location should never be an excuse to kill another human being.

Fetuses aren't people. Sorry.

But this is a pretty silly argument. If you could take the fetus out of the woman it's in and put it inside a dumb-ass bible thumping moron who can't mind his own fucking business, then you might have an argument.

It's one thing to say you should take care of a child, it's another to say, YOU MUST take care of this child whether you want to or not.

You see, this is what you guys never get to. Exactly how do you enforce your policy once you make it? Are you going to send pregnant women to jail for having abortions? Or even thinking about having one?

I posted on page 17 a recounting of how the dictator of Romania tried to do exactly that, and failed miserably. Birth rates actually DROPPED.

 

[g5000]

Nope.

Life would indicate viability outside the woman's body.

Which in most cases, is simply not the case, at least not until the third trimester.

At what age does a child outside the womb remain "viable" without the need of another human being? 4,5,6?

Up to what age may we kill them for being in need of another for sustenance?

Oh maybe you mean "breathing" on its own- not actual viability-viability- but independent breathing. But that's just silly -every human being goes through the fetal stage and you do know that in this stage you don't breathe... The fetus is exchanging gases and is very viable and capable of doing this. It has set up its own circulatory system to be compatible with its mother's. They both involuntarily, but are scientifically destined to- exchange gases via diffusion.

The fetus becomes viable the moment it attaches to the uterus. At this point the fetal human IS viable- it is alive. Medical abortions can kill it- But location should never be an excuse to kill another human being.

Fetuses aren't people. Sorry.

But this is a pretty silly argument. If you could take the fetus out of the woman it's in and put it inside a dumb-ass bible thumping moron who can't mind his own fucking business, then you might have an argument.

It's one thing to say you should take care of a child, it's another to say, YOU MUST take care of this child whether you want to or not.

You see, this is what you guys never get to. Exactly how do you enforce your policy once you make it? Are you going to send pregnant women to jail for having abortions? Or even thinking about having one?

I posted on page 17 a recounting of how the dictator of Romania tried to do exactly that, and failed miserably. Birth rates actually DROPPED.

This is not Romania. Try again.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, the abortionist was jailed, not the mother. This has already been explained, so I don't know where you got the idea it has not been.