Just a clump of cells

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I'm just not really sure what further point you're trying to make here. What implications does this have for the original post's assertion that a human in the womb is still a human?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm just not really sure what further point you're trying to make here. What implications does this have for the original post's assertion that a human in the womb is still a human?

Since nature doesn't give a damn why should you? The OP calls a person what nature flushes down the toilet time and again. So, who should we follow, nature or the OP? One knows the truth, and one doesn't. There is no right to life, just life and death, and a clump of cells isn't a person, it is a potential person, at best, which matters greatly in this case.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I'm just not really sure what further point you're trying to make here. What implications does this have for the original post's assertion that a human in the womb is still a human?

Since nature doesn't give a damn why should you? The OP calls a person what nature flushes down the toilet time and again. So, who should we follow, nature or the OP? One knows the truth, and one doesn't. There is no right to life, just life and death, and a clump of cells isn't a person, it is a potential person, at best, which matters greatly in this case.

Because I'm unconcerned with what's natural. I'm concerned with what's ethical. That's what the entire discussion is about: is an unborn human a person and is it morally acceptable to end their life? I reject the appeal to nature fallacy as exactly that. It doesn't matter if it's natural or not. Rape is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally. Killing rivals to sex or resources is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally. Cheating on your partner is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally all the time. This doesn't make any of these things acceptable to do or to condone. Appeal to nature - RationalWiki and Logical Fallacy Appeal to Nature may be helpful.

How exactly are you defining "person"? I think it might help to know how your definition differs from the one I gave above. If you don't recognize a right to life, then is taking someone's life without cause morally acceptable to you? If so, then why? You're not depriving them of any of their rights. One would think you would just be exercising your own.

 

[FA_Q2]

Alexia Pearce looks at her three-year-old son Nathan every day and feels the same rush of guilt. Guilt that she chose to let him live when he was born too early, just 23 weeks into her pregnancy. "If I'd known then what I know now about what extremely premature babies have to go though, I would not have chosen that for my little boy.

"I would have wanted them to give him to me and for him to pass away in my arms. I find the whole issue of what he has been put through, what he continues to be put through, very difficult. I feel very guilty that I took that decision, postponing the inevitable."

Nathan still faces a premature death because of the range of his conditions and disabilities. He had to have 22 blood transfusions in his first three months of life, just to replace the blood that was taken from his tiny body for tests. Like all extremely premature babies, he had to be given a cocktail of drugs to support his underdeveloped lungs and other organs, one of which kept his heart safely sealed but as a side-effect left him profoundly deaf.

"He can't walk or talk. He's oxygen dependent, although hopefully that might change. He has chronic lung disease, cerebral palsy and global developmental delay. He has diabetes inspidus and his thermostat is a bit wonky so he gets hot and cold."

It is, says Pearce, a great taboo to wonder if she should have let her son go when he was born so fragile and weak, but one that she feels strongly that she should break. "More people need to be aware of what these little chaps go through," she said.

"He was there with lines coming out of his arms, needles in every limb and his abdomen, but by then it's too late to go back. You can't just say 'Switch off the machines and give him to me, let him go, stop this'. I felt it, though, I still do. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

"I have no regrets that what has happened has happened. Now this most gorgeous little thing is here and I absolutely adore him. I am so glad I have got to know him. But that doesn't stop me knowing that all I have done is postpone the inevitable. He's not expected to live a very long life. I don't think he'll make it to his teens. He's so frail.

"I do feel guilt over the choice I have made, even though it's all done with the best intention. No mother or father wants to see their child suffer. Because of the choices I have made I feel he has suffered, and still does."

Around 8% of British babies are born prematurely, compared with 13% in the United States. A premature baby is defined by the World Health Organisation as an infant born before 37 weeks of gestation. Of those babies, 93% will be born over 28 weeks, with good chances of survival but a one in 10 chance of being left with a permanent disability such as cerebral palsy, blindness or deafness.

For those, such as Nathan, who are born earlier, the odds are far, far shorter. And with the numbers of over-45s having babies doubling in a decade and IVF multiple births also on the rise, premature babies are becoming more common.

While the latest figures show that 39% of babies born at 24 weeks are now surviving with help from medical advances, the chances of those children suffering no serious ill-effects in later life are low – around six in 100. Last year, researchers from University College Hospital, London, found that premature babies were more sensitive to pain. All pre-term babies are more at risk of a lower IQ, poorer cognitive functioning, learning disabilities and behavioural problems such as attention deficit disorder than full-term babies.

It makes the area of where to draw the line a difficult one for medical professionals. Dr Bob Welch, neonatal consultant at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, said: "It's uncomfortable for all of us, all of the time. When I first started in this area in 1980, basically babies born at 28 weeks weren't even looked at as possibly viable. Now you expect most babies born after 26 weeks to survive and survive quite well.

"But you are always saying 'Am I doing the right thing?' Personally, I don't like resuscitating before 24 weeks, but at the end of the day it's what the family want. Some will accept the inevitable, and some will want to push on. Likewise with the babies. Some come out screaming and demanding to live, others are much more lifeless. Many survivals will come at a cost, but of course all parents are hoping their baby is the one who beats the odds."

For Pearce, Nathan is a much-loved part of her family, a family that against the odds has managed to stay together. She was moved to talk about her situation after watching a BBC2 documentary earlier this month that provoked questions about the resources being poured into neonatal units.

"I can't come at it from an NHS financial point of view, but I come at this from a human cost point of view," she said. "My other little boy is amazing with Nathan. He can always make him laugh and he wants to help care for him, helping to bathe him and change his nappies. It has made him a very kind little boy. But I never wanted him to go through this either. One day he had a full-time mum and the next I'm at the hospital all the time. He's coped with it so admirably so far. Our lives just changed so dramatically; that's the human cost."

Statistics show that many marriages founder under the strain of having a disabled child and of mourning for the child that was expected, but Pearce and her husband have managed to come through it together. "There's no question that you put your relationship last; your focus is on your children and it's tough.

"You hear about 'miracle babies' or 'little fighters' and people have such a romantic view about premature babies – 'Oh, there's an incubator for a little while and then they go home and everything is rosy'. It's not."

"Obviously every life deserves a chance, every life. But you wouldn't put an adult through that. You wouldn't put an animal through it. If an adult required that level of medical intervention then someone would be taking the family aside and suggesting gently that the machines are switched off."



Pearce had no warning of her own premature birth, brought about by a sudden complication in the pregnancy, a placental abruption, and had none of the risk factors – she doesn't drink or smoke, isn't obese and her first son, Dominick, now five, was born at full term.

"You're in pain, you're bleeding, you're at the hospital and they whirl in, you get a chat, they're talking to us about statistics but none of it is getting through to my mind and you are like a rabbit in the headlights. All I could say was if he comes out and he's not looking good, let him go. But if he comes out looking as though he is up to facing the process, and at that stage I had no idea what those processes would be, then please save him. My key thing was suffering. That was the only thing I was sure about in my head. They said 'No, no, he won't suffer' but I know now that's not true: they do suffer."

She is keen to stress that she feels no resentment over the way she was treated by the medical staff. "I'm not saying the doctors were gung-ho about it, they weren't at all. I think they all have the same questions about what they are doing every day: 'Are we doing the right thing? Just because we can, should we?' "I was treated with the utmost dignity and respect. So I don't feel betrayed in any way, but I feel it was obvious what the outcome would be. I remember when I was taken to the incubator to see him for the first time. I was howling and wailing, I thought it was so unnatural, so hideous, it didn't look right. When you give birth, it's a natural process and this wasn't like that.

"Birth and death are the most natural processes a body can go through and Nathan's birth and treatment was so far removed from that. Strange birth, choices to be made, difficult bonding. I had to wait six weeks to hold my son and when I did he was still attached to a ventilator and I had many nurses around me. It was all so clinical."

An advocate or counsellor figure would, she feels, help the mother think more clearly about the situation.

"I am not saying that I think pregnant women should be deluged with information about it," she said. "These days you get so much information that there is already so much to be paranoid about. It's a fine balance, overloading pregnant mums – after all, you can't prevent a premature birth.

"I had so many people coming in and out, you're in a haze. I think it would be helpful if there had been an advocate. When we got a counsellor a few days after the birth it saved my sanity."

Andy Cole is the chief executive of the charity Bliss, which campaigns on behalf of premature and sick babies. He said: "The decisions facing parents of these very tiny babies are extremely challenging. Sadly, most 23-week babies will not survive, but a significant number do. Doctors and nurses provide amazing care to these vulnerable babies. However, we know that around 50% of units do not provide counselling to their parents. It is crucial that families receive the support they need at this incredibly difficult time."

But for Alexia Pearce, it's important for families to fully understand too that the difficult times do not end when the baby leaves the incubator. "When you go into labour that early, nobody is a winner," she said. "I'm not saying stop people from having their premature baby resuscitated. I'm not saying babies shouldn't be saved. I am saying that the myth that there is a happy ever after needs to be explored and it's important that we talk about it.

"Science is moving on so fast but until we can invent an amniotic sac, there is a big cost to these babies and nature is still against their survival."
Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I d known then what I do now I d have wanted him to die in my arms Society The Guardian

More features
Topics

• Premature birth
  
• Health

Wow.

So you think (and this person things) that a hard life should simply be done away with. I think that the vast majority of severely disabled people would vehemently disagree with you. Of course, support for killing children certainly makes sense when you view life with such little regard.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Alexia Pearce looks at her three-year-old son Nathan every day and feels the same rush of guilt. Guilt that she chose to let him live when he was born too early, just 23 weeks into her pregnancy. "If I'd known then what I know now about what extremely premature babies have to go though, I would not have chosen that for my little boy.

"I would have wanted them to give him to me and for him to pass away in my arms. I find the whole issue of what he has been put through, what he continues to be put through, very difficult. I feel very guilty that I took that decision, postponing the inevitable."

Nathan still faces a premature death because of the range of his conditions and disabilities. He had to have 22 blood transfusions in his first three months of life, just to replace the blood that was taken from his tiny body for tests. Like all extremely premature babies, he had to be given a cocktail of drugs to support his underdeveloped lungs and other organs, one of which kept his heart safely sealed but as a side-effect left him profoundly deaf.

"He can't walk or talk. He's oxygen dependent, although hopefully that might change. He has chronic lung disease, cerebral palsy and global developmental delay. He has diabetes inspidus and his thermostat is a bit wonky so he gets hot and cold."

It is, says Pearce, a great taboo to wonder if she should have let her son go when he was born so fragile and weak, but one that she feels strongly that she should break. "More people need to be aware of what these little chaps go through," she said.

"He was there with lines coming out of his arms, needles in every limb and his abdomen, but by then it's too late to go back. You can't just say 'Switch off the machines and give him to me, let him go, stop this'. I felt it, though, I still do. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

"I have no regrets that what has happened has happened. Now this most gorgeous little thing is here and I absolutely adore him. I am so glad I have got to know him. But that doesn't stop me knowing that all I have done is postpone the inevitable. He's not expected to live a very long life. I don't think he'll make it to his teens. He's so frail.

"I do feel guilt over the choice I have made, even though it's all done with the best intention. No mother or father wants to see their child suffer. Because of the choices I have made I feel he has suffered, and still does."

Around 8% of British babies are born prematurely, compared with 13% in the United States. A premature baby is defined by the World Health Organisation as an infant born before 37 weeks of gestation. Of those babies, 93% will be born over 28 weeks, with good chances of survival but a one in 10 chance of being left with a permanent disability such as cerebral palsy, blindness or deafness.

For those, such as Nathan, who are born earlier, the odds are far, far shorter. And with the numbers of over-45s having babies doubling in a decade and IVF multiple births also on the rise, premature babies are becoming more common.

While the latest figures show that 39% of babies born at 24 weeks are now surviving with help from medical advances, the chances of those children suffering no serious ill-effects in later life are low – around six in 100. Last year, researchers from University College Hospital, London, found that premature babies were more sensitive to pain. All pre-term babies are more at risk of a lower IQ, poorer cognitive functioning, learning disabilities and behavioural problems such as attention deficit disorder than full-term babies.

It makes the area of where to draw the line a difficult one for medical professionals. Dr Bob Welch, neonatal consultant at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, said: "It's uncomfortable for all of us, all of the time. When I first started in this area in 1980, basically babies born at 28 weeks weren't even looked at as possibly viable. Now you expect most babies born after 26 weeks to survive and survive quite well.

"But you are always saying 'Am I doing the right thing?' Personally, I don't like resuscitating before 24 weeks, but at the end of the day it's what the family want. Some will accept the inevitable, and some will want to push on. Likewise with the babies. Some come out screaming and demanding to live, others are much more lifeless. Many survivals will come at a cost, but of course all parents are hoping their baby is the one who beats the odds."

For Pearce, Nathan is a much-loved part of her family, a family that against the odds has managed to stay together. She was moved to talk about her situation after watching a BBC2 documentary earlier this month that provoked questions about the resources being poured into neonatal units.

"I can't come at it from an NHS financial point of view, but I come at this from a human cost point of view," she said. "My other little boy is amazing with Nathan. He can always make him laugh and he wants to help care for him, helping to bathe him and change his nappies. It has made him a very kind little boy. But I never wanted him to go through this either. One day he had a full-time mum and the next I'm at the hospital all the time. He's coped with it so admirably so far. Our lives just changed so dramatically; that's the human cost."

Statistics show that many marriages founder under the strain of having a disabled child and of mourning for the child that was expected, but Pearce and her husband have managed to come through it together. "There's no question that you put your relationship last; your focus is on your children and it's tough.

"You hear about 'miracle babies' or 'little fighters' and people have such a romantic view about premature babies – 'Oh, there's an incubator for a little while and then they go home and everything is rosy'. It's not."

"Obviously every life deserves a chance, every life. But you wouldn't put an adult through that. You wouldn't put an animal through it. If an adult required that level of medical intervention then someone would be taking the family aside and suggesting gently that the machines are switched off."



Pearce had no warning of her own premature birth, brought about by a sudden complication in the pregnancy, a placental abruption, and had none of the risk factors – she doesn't drink or smoke, isn't obese and her first son, Dominick, now five, was born at full term.

"You're in pain, you're bleeding, you're at the hospital and they whirl in, you get a chat, they're talking to us about statistics but none of it is getting through to my mind and you are like a rabbit in the headlights. All I could say was if he comes out and he's not looking good, let him go. But if he comes out looking as though he is up to facing the process, and at that stage I had no idea what those processes would be, then please save him. My key thing was suffering. That was the only thing I was sure about in my head. They said 'No, no, he won't suffer' but I know now that's not true: they do suffer."

She is keen to stress that she feels no resentment over the way she was treated by the medical staff. "I'm not saying the doctors were gung-ho about it, they weren't at all. I think they all have the same questions about what they are doing every day: 'Are we doing the right thing? Just because we can, should we?' "I was treated with the utmost dignity and respect. So I don't feel betrayed in any way, but I feel it was obvious what the outcome would be. I remember when I was taken to the incubator to see him for the first time. I was howling and wailing, I thought it was so unnatural, so hideous, it didn't look right. When you give birth, it's a natural process and this wasn't like that.

"Birth and death are the most natural processes a body can go through and Nathan's birth and treatment was so far removed from that. Strange birth, choices to be made, difficult bonding. I had to wait six weeks to hold my son and when I did he was still attached to a ventilator and I had many nurses around me. It was all so clinical."

An advocate or counsellor figure would, she feels, help the mother think more clearly about the situation.

"I am not saying that I think pregnant women should be deluged with information about it," she said. "These days you get so much information that there is already so much to be paranoid about. It's a fine balance, overloading pregnant mums – after all, you can't prevent a premature birth.

"I had so many people coming in and out, you're in a haze. I think it would be helpful if there had been an advocate. When we got a counsellor a few days after the birth it saved my sanity."

Andy Cole is the chief executive of the charity Bliss, which campaigns on behalf of premature and sick babies. He said: "The decisions facing parents of these very tiny babies are extremely challenging. Sadly, most 23-week babies will not survive, but a significant number do. Doctors and nurses provide amazing care to these vulnerable babies. However, we know that around 50% of units do not provide counselling to their parents. It is crucial that families receive the support they need at this incredibly difficult time."

But for Alexia Pearce, it's important for families to fully understand too that the difficult times do not end when the baby leaves the incubator. "When you go into labour that early, nobody is a winner," she said. "I'm not saying stop people from having their premature baby resuscitated. I'm not saying babies shouldn't be saved. I am saying that the myth that there is a happy ever after needs to be explored and it's important that we talk about it.

"Science is moving on so fast but until we can invent an amniotic sac, there is a big cost to these babies and nature is still against their survival."
Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I d known then what I do now I d have wanted him to die in my arms Society The Guardian

More features
Topics

• Premature birth
  
• Health

Wow.

So you think (and this person things) that a hard life should simply be done away with. I think that the vast majority of severely disabled people would vehemently disagree with you. Of course, support for killing children certainly makes sense when you view life with such little regard.

You are an twerp, what I support is that women are allowed to choose to carry on or abort. I have no interest in your other asinine comments.

 

[JoeB131]

The human life cycle goes: zygote > morula > blastocyte > embryo > fetus > infant > toddler > child > adolescent > adult.

There's a much simpler definition.

If she wants it, it's a "baby".

If she doesnt' want it, it's "that problem I need to take care of on Tuesday".

 

[JoeB131]

Wow.

So you think (and this person things) that a hard life should simply be done away with. I think that the vast majority of severely disabled people would vehemently disagree with you. Of course, support for killing children certainly makes sense when you view life with such little regard.

there are also disabled people who have filed "Wrongful Life" suits.

 

[JoeB131]

Rape is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally.

No, they don't. Animals don't rape. That's a uniquely human thing.

Cheating on your partner is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally all the time.

Animals aren't monogamous, so they can't "Cheat". How many fallacies are you coming up with here?

Here's the reality. We need abortion because unlike most of history, we don't have an infant mortality rate of 50% today. Back in the oldy days, people had six kids and only two of them survived into adulthood. That was the normal, even for famous people. (Wolfgang Mozart and his wife Constanza had six children, only two of whom grew to adulthood.)

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Rape is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally.

No, they don't. Animals don't rape. That's a uniquely human thing.

Cheating on your partner is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally all the time.

Animals aren't monogamous, so they can't "Cheat". How many fallacies are you coming up with here?

Here's the reality. We need abortion because unlike most of history, we don't have an infant mortality rate of 50% today. Back in the oldy days, people had six kids and only two of them survived into adulthood. That was the normal, even for famous people. (Wolfgang Mozart and his wife Constanza had six children, only two of whom grew to adulthood.)

You're advocating abortion as a means of population control?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rape is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally.

No, they don't. Animals don't rape. That's a uniquely human thing.

Cheating on your partner is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally all the time.

Animals aren't monogamous, so they can't "Cheat". How many fallacies are you coming up with here?

Here's the reality. We need abortion because unlike most of history, we don't have an infant mortality rate of 50% today. Back in the oldy days, people had six kids and only two of them survived into adulthood. That was the normal, even for famous people. (Wolfgang Mozart and his wife Constanza had six children, only two of whom grew to adulthood.)

You're advocating abortion as a means of population control?

Can you imagine???
That suggestion that you just nailed comes from morons or totalitarians.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Rape is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally.

No, they don't. Animals don't rape. That's a uniquely human thing.

Cheating on your partner is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally all the time.

Animals aren't monogamous, so they can't "Cheat". How many fallacies are you coming up with here?

Here's the reality. We need abortion because unlike most of history, we don't have an infant mortality rate of 50% today. Back in the oldy days, people had six kids and only two of them survived into adulthood. That was the normal, even for famous people. (Wolfgang Mozart and his wife Constanza had six children, only two of whom grew to adulthood.)

You're advocating abortion as a means of population control?

Can you imagine???
That suggestion that you just nailed comes from morons or totalitarians.

What's next? Forced sterilization?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rape is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally.

No, they don't. Animals don't rape. That's a uniquely human thing.

Cheating on your partner is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally all the time.

Animals aren't monogamous, so they can't "Cheat". How many fallacies are you coming up with here?

Here's the reality. We need abortion because unlike most of history, we don't have an infant mortality rate of 50% today. Back in the oldy days, people had six kids and only two of them survived into adulthood. That was the normal, even for famous people. (Wolfgang Mozart and his wife Constanza had six children, only two of whom grew to adulthood.)

You're advocating abortion as a means of population control?

Can you imagine???
That suggestion that you just nailed comes from morons or totalitarians.

What's next? Forced sterilization?

Funny you should mention that....

The fascist that Obama chose as his Science Czar suggested exactly that.


John P. Holdren’s advocacy for a global planetary regime to enforce forced abortion, government `seizure of children born out of wedlock, and mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy, Obama’s top advisor also called for,”Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.”
Holdren added that the sterilant must meet stiff requirements in that it must only affect humans and not livestock.

“It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock,” wrote Holdren with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will “seems to horrify people” and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much, amidst the myriad of other totalitarian Dr. Strangelove style ideas that are put forward in the book as a way to carry out an aggressive agenda of population reduction.» Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply Already Happening Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rape is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally.

No, they don't. Animals don't rape. That's a uniquely human thing.

Cheating on your partner is natural. Animals (including humans) do it naturally all the time.

Animals aren't monogamous, so they can't "Cheat". How many fallacies are you coming up with here?

Here's the reality. We need abortion because unlike most of history, we don't have an infant mortality rate of 50% today. Back in the oldy days, people had six kids and only two of them survived into adulthood. That was the normal, even for famous people. (Wolfgang Mozart and his wife Constanza had six children, only two of whom grew to adulthood.)

You're advocating abortion as a means of population control?

Can you imagine???
That suggestion that you just nailed comes from morons or totalitarians.

What's next? Forced sterilization?

Funny you should mention that....

The fascist that Obama chose as his Science Czar suggested exactly that.


John P. Holdren’s advocacy for a global planetary regime to enforce forced abortion, government `seizure of children born out of wedlock, and mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy, Obama’s top advisor also called for,”Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.”
Holdren added that the sterilant must meet stiff requirements in that it must only affect humans and not livestock.

“It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock,” wrote Holdren with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will “seems to horrify people” and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much, amidst the myriad of other totalitarian Dr. Strangelove style ideas that are put forward in the book as a way to carry out an aggressive agenda of population reduction.» Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply Already Happening Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

A rightwing myth. Political C has lied again. That's twice this week.


Description misrepresented as endorsement Bludgeoning Obama s science advisor with a 1977 textbook bioephemera

 

[NYcarbineer]

And to what would that be relevant?

I mean Summit has Mickey Thompson Drag Radials on sale too... but I didn't think this was the place to mention it... because we're not discussing racing. So I wonder, why you'd inform us your irrelevance... again?

Were they not Christians?

The Pilgrims were Separatists

What kind of dumbass answer is that? The Pilgrims were Christians. They were Protestants. They believed abortion was allowable until the time of quickening.

Now how is that Christians could make that determination?

Why don't you take some time to educate yourself on Pilgrims being Separatists and what Separatists were instead of acting like a hysterical loon.

Who gives a fuck, Judaism allows abortion and without Judaism Christianity would not exist.

Plus we have no recorded opinion from Jesus Christ on abortion, so anyone trying to apply a Christian standard to the anti-abortion position is just making shit up.

 

[DriftingSand]

I'm going to be flatly blunt. The pro-Abortion crowd is dead wrong about human biology. A human is a human inside the womb and out. This video is proof of such. This is the unborn child of a French couple who watch in amazement at the vigorous movement of the baby in the womb. To say the child isn't viable while in the womb is wrong, simply put. To say the child is not a real person until after birth is also wrong, this one seems real enough to me.

Timing is everything in this case. A pan of batter isn't a cake. It needs time and heat. Same with a human.

And that neonate is ready to pop. Find out why I called it that.

About that batter:

1) There can be no cake without it.
2) Just because it hasn't been baked doesn't make it less important or valuable than the finished product.
3) Only an idiot would set out to mix the batter then just throw it down the drain.
4) The batter contains the exact elements that the cake does.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, they don't. Animals don't rape. That's a uniquely human thing.

Animals aren't monogamous, so they can't "Cheat". How many fallacies are you coming up with here?

Here's the reality. We need abortion because unlike most of history, we don't have an infant mortality rate of 50% today. Back in the oldy days, people had six kids and only two of them survived into adulthood. That was the normal, even for famous people. (Wolfgang Mozart and his wife Constanza had six children, only two of whom grew to adulthood.)

You're advocating abortion as a means of population control?

Can you imagine???
That suggestion that you just nailed comes from morons or totalitarians.

What's next? Forced sterilization?

Funny you should mention that....

The fascist that Obama chose as his Science Czar suggested exactly that.


John P. Holdren’s advocacy for a global planetary regime to enforce forced abortion, government `seizure of children born out of wedlock, and mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy, Obama’s top advisor also called for,”Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.”
Holdren added that the sterilant must meet stiff requirements in that it must only affect humans and not livestock.

“It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock,” wrote Holdren with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will “seems to horrify people” and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much, amidst the myriad of other totalitarian Dr. Strangelove style ideas that are put forward in the book as a way to carry out an aggressive agenda of population reduction.» Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply Already Happening Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

A rightwing myth. Political C has lied again. That's twice this week.


Description misrepresented as endorsement Bludgeoning Obama s science advisor with a 1977 textbook bioephemera

Two lies in one post from NYLiar.

First....as you know, I never lie.

Secondly....let's prove that you are a lying low-life:

"• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience

Below you will find a series of ten short passages from Ecoscience. On the left in each case is a scanned image taken directly from the pages of the book itself; on the right is an exact transcription of each passage, with noteworthy sections highlighted. Below each quote is a short analysis by me.

Following these short quotes, I take a "step back" and provide the full extended passages from which each of the shorter quotes were excerpted, to provide the full context.

And at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans (and photos) of the full pages from which all of these passages were taken, to quash any doubts anyone might have that these are absolutely real, and to forestall any claims that the quotes were taken "out of context."

Ready? Brace yourself. And prepare to be shocked.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren "hides behind the passive voice" in this passage, by saying "it has been concluded." Really? By whom? By the authors of the book, that's whom. What Holdren's really saying here is, "I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies." And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there's no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for "compulsory population-control laws." In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that "the population crisis" has already become "sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what's especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals -- wrenching babies from their mothers' arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not -- but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way. Don't be fooled by the innocuous and "level-headed" tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they are expressed

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.


John Holdren Obama s Science Czar says Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet


Go to the link and see the scans of Holdren's book.


Destroyed the NYLiar again!
I love it!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Were they not Christians?

The Pilgrims were Separatists

What kind of dumbass answer is that? The Pilgrims were Christians. They were Protestants. They believed abortion was allowable until the time of quickening.

Now how is that Christians could make that determination?

Why don't you take some time to educate yourself on Pilgrims being Separatists and what Separatists were instead of acting like a hysterical loon.

Who gives a fuck, Judaism allows abortion and without Judaism Christianity would not exist.

Plus we have no recorded opinion from Jesus Christ on abortion, so anyone trying to apply a Christian standard to the anti-abortion position is just making shit up.

Oh I'm sure Jesus is pro abortion <eye roll>

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're advocating abortion as a means of population control?

Can you imagine???
That suggestion that you just nailed comes from morons or totalitarians.

What's next? Forced sterilization?

Funny you should mention that....

The fascist that Obama chose as his Science Czar suggested exactly that.


John P. Holdren’s advocacy for a global planetary regime to enforce forced abortion, government `seizure of children born out of wedlock, and mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy, Obama’s top advisor also called for,”Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.”
Holdren added that the sterilant must meet stiff requirements in that it must only affect humans and not livestock.

“It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock,” wrote Holdren with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will “seems to horrify people” and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much, amidst the myriad of other totalitarian Dr. Strangelove style ideas that are put forward in the book as a way to carry out an aggressive agenda of population reduction.» Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply Already Happening Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

A rightwing myth. Political C has lied again. That's twice this week.


Description misrepresented as endorsement Bludgeoning Obama s science advisor with a 1977 textbook bioephemera

Two lies in one post from NYLiar.

First....as you know, I never lie.

Secondly....let's prove that you are a lying low-life:

"• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience

Below you will find a series of ten short passages from Ecoscience. On the left in each case is a scanned image taken directly from the pages of the book itself; on the right is an exact transcription of each passage, with noteworthy sections highlighted. Below each quote is a short analysis by me.

Following these short quotes, I take a "step back" and provide the full extended passages from which each of the shorter quotes were excerpted, to provide the full context.

And at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans (and photos) of the full pages from which all of these passages were taken, to quash any doubts anyone might have that these are absolutely real, and to forestall any claims that the quotes were taken "out of context."

Ready? Brace yourself. And prepare to be shocked.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren "hides behind the passive voice" in this passage, by saying "it has been concluded." Really? By whom? By the authors of the book, that's whom. What Holdren's really saying here is, "I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies." And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there's no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for "compulsory population-control laws." In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that "the population crisis" has already become "sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what's especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals -- wrenching babies from their mothers' arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not -- but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way. Don't be fooled by the innocuous and "level-headed" tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they are expressed

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.


John Holdren Obama s Science Czar says Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet


Go to the link and see the scans of Holdren's book.


Destroyed the NYLiar again!
I love it!

He never endorses what you're claiming he endorsed. You lie. Repeatedly

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Pilgrims were Separatists

What kind of dumbass answer is that? The Pilgrims were Christians. They were Protestants. They believed abortion was allowable until the time of quickening.

Now how is that Christians could make that determination?

Why don't you take some time to educate yourself on Pilgrims being Separatists and what Separatists were instead of acting like a hysterical loon.

Who gives a fuck, Judaism allows abortion and without Judaism Christianity would not exist.

Plus we have no recorded opinion from Jesus Christ on abortion, so anyone trying to apply a Christian standard to the anti-abortion position is just making shit up.

Oh I'm sure Jesus is pro abortion <eye roll>

How do you know one way or another? Where do you nuts get the idea that you get the right to assign beliefs to Jesus your lord and savior,

just because you happen to like those beliefs?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Can you imagine???
That suggestion that you just nailed comes from morons or totalitarians.

What's next? Forced sterilization?

Funny you should mention that....

The fascist that Obama chose as his Science Czar suggested exactly that.


John P. Holdren’s advocacy for a global planetary regime to enforce forced abortion, government `seizure of children born out of wedlock, and mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy, Obama’s top advisor also called for,”Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.”
Holdren added that the sterilant must meet stiff requirements in that it must only affect humans and not livestock.

“It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock,” wrote Holdren with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will “seems to horrify people” and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much, amidst the myriad of other totalitarian Dr. Strangelove style ideas that are put forward in the book as a way to carry out an aggressive agenda of population reduction.» Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply Already Happening Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

A rightwing myth. Political C has lied again. That's twice this week.


Description misrepresented as endorsement Bludgeoning Obama s science advisor with a 1977 textbook bioephemera

Two lies in one post from NYLiar.

First....as you know, I never lie.

Secondly....let's prove that you are a lying low-life:

"• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience

Below you will find a series of ten short passages from Ecoscience. On the left in each case is a scanned image taken directly from the pages of the book itself; on the right is an exact transcription of each passage, with noteworthy sections highlighted. Below each quote is a short analysis by me.

Following these short quotes, I take a "step back" and provide the full extended passages from which each of the shorter quotes were excerpted, to provide the full context.

And at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans (and photos) of the full pages from which all of these passages were taken, to quash any doubts anyone might have that these are absolutely real, and to forestall any claims that the quotes were taken "out of context."

Ready? Brace yourself. And prepare to be shocked.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren "hides behind the passive voice" in this passage, by saying "it has been concluded." Really? By whom? By the authors of the book, that's whom. What Holdren's really saying here is, "I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies." And as we will see later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there's no need for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for "compulsory population-control laws." In fact, they spend the entire book arguing that "the population crisis" has already become "sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. But what's especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals -- wrenching babies from their mothers' arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not -- but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucratic way. Don't be fooled by the innocuous and "level-headed" tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they are expressed

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.


John Holdren Obama s Science Czar says Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet


Go to the link and see the scans of Holdren's book.


Destroyed the NYLiar again!
I love it!

He never endorses what you're claiming he endorsed. You lie. Repeatedly

He never spoke of pedophilia or even murderer for that matter. You think He's ok with it?