Let us argue about abortion

[The Breeze]

They're not nearly enough abortions,

 

[The Breeze]

If you don't support abortion don't have one.

 

[koshergrl]

What, other than raw material, is needed for a human zygote to grow into a human being? By the way, it is actually possible for a trained individual to distinguish between the zygote of a dog and that of a monkey, yhe fact that I, personally, can not do so is irrelevant. Additionally, this thread is about induced abortions, not natural processes. Stop pretending they are equivalent.

Nothing more is needed. Just the zygote, nutrients, and right environment. And yet you still avoided the question as to whether you think a nut is a tree. Here let's try again, hoping you won't avoid even more things that demolish your claim:

Is this a tree? I'll give you a hint at the answers. It's either yes, or no.

As for the zygotes, you'd need to run their DNA to be able to differentiate the two. Neither you nor any fictitious "trained individual" you just made up can do so otherwise, as they appear exactly the same.

Additionally, this thread is about abortions and the loss of a fetus. Making an arbitrary line in the sand to claim things that work against your stance "don't count" is about as mature as shoving your fingers in your ears. One in four embryos are lost naturally. Do you find that to be the death of a human being?

A nut is not a tree.

But it's not a human, or even an animal, either.

What are these? They don't look like grown humans...what could they be?

 

[koshergrl]

Here's a 28 week old fetus...I guess at some point 4 weeks ago he *became* human:

 

[Noomi]

A human goes through a process before they can be called a person, just like a seed must go through a process in order to become a tree.

 

[Borillar]

Here's a 28 week old fetus...I guess at some point 4 weeks ago he *became* human:

Yes. That point is called "birth".

 

[Noomi]

Here's a 28 week old fetus...I guess at some point 4 weeks ago he *became* human:

He has been born, and is no longer a fetus, but a legal person.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh so it would have been okay to chop him up 20 minutes before he was born.

Got it.

Really nothing more needs to be said. You guys expose yourself.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I like when people refer to children as crotch droppings, because for me it paints a perfect picture without all the emotional baggage

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here's a 28 week old fetus...I guess at some point 4 weeks ago he *became* human:

He has been born, and is no longer a fetus, but a legal person.

because he either fell out of his mom's vagina or he was ripped out of her tummie by a baby doctor

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What, other than raw material, is needed for a human zygote to grow into a human being? By the way, it is actually possible for a trained individual to distinguish between the zygote of a dog and that of a monkey, yhe fact that I, personally, can not do so is irrelevant. Additionally, this thread is about induced abortions, not natural processes. Stop pretending they are equivalent.

Nothing more is needed. Just the zygote, nutrients, and right environment. And yet you still avoided the question as to whether you think a nut is a tree. Here let's try again, hoping you won't avoid even more things that demolish your claim:

Is this a tree? I'll give you a hint at the answers. It's either yes, or no.

As for the zygotes, you'd need to run their DNA to be able to differentiate the two. Neither you nor any fictitious "trained individual" you just made up can do so otherwise, as they appear exactly the same.

Additionally, this thread is about abortions and the loss of a fetus. Making an arbitrary line in the sand to claim things that work against your stance "don't count" is about as mature as shoving your fingers in your ears. One in four embryos are lost naturally. Do you find that to be the death of a human being?

If you cannot answer the question you should just admit it, pretending your question trumps mine only works if I play along.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

A nut is not a tree.

But it's not a human, or even an animal, either.

What are these? They don't look like grown humans...what could they be?

Perhaps you have problems with basic English grammar as well. The adjective you're using to muddy the waters now is "grown." A grown human is about 18 years old. We're not talking about grown humans. We're talking about humans. And I don't know what those things are. The ears confuse me. Are they bears? Or monkeys?

Oh and a 2 week old fetus is a nut.

Here's a 28 week old fetus...I guess at some point 4 weeks ago he *became* human:

It doesn't look like a 28 week old fetus. Maybe he was when he was born? Anyway, he became human when he was born. Ya know, that breathing thing and stuff. This really is a simple concept.

Oh so it would have been okay to chop him up 20 minutes before he was born.

Got it.

Really nothing more needs to be said. You guys expose yourself.

HAHAHAHA. I love when hicks make straw man arguments. No one chops up fetuses, especially 20 minutes before birth. What you're referring to is an illegal procedure. That means not legal. But don't let facts stop you from believing that it happens all the time!

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If you cannot answer the question you should just admit it, pretending your question trumps mine only works if I play along.

I saw where you previously asked a question, I answered it, I saw you stated I didn't answer it, and I pointed out where I answered it again for you. This repeated statement makes me believe we're talking about different questions. To which are you referring? I, unlike you, don't need to stick my fingers in my ears to preserve unsupported believe, and I'd be happy to answer your questions.

 

[koshergrl]

A nut is not a tree.

But it's not a human, or even an animal, either.

What are these? They don't look like grown humans...what could they be?

Perhaps you have problems with basic English grammar as well. The adjective you're using to muddy the waters now is "grown." A grown human is about 18 years old. We're not talking about grown humans. We're talking about humans. And I don't know what those things are. The ears confuse me. Are they bears? Or monkeys?

They're human beings, at a different developmental stage than you. That's why they look alien. But it doesn't lessen their humanity; they just need to grow a little.

I imagine their little minds function right at about the same level yours does, though.

Oh and a 2 week old fetus is a nut.

No, but you certainly are.

Here's a 28 week old fetus...I guess at some point 4 weeks ago he *became* human:

It doesn't look like a 28 week old fetus. Maybe he was when he was born? Anyway, he became human when he was born. Ya know, that breathing thing and stuff. This really is a simple concept.

Oh so it would have been okay to chop him up 20 minutes before he was born.

Got it.

Really nothing more needs to be said. You guys expose yourself.

HAHAHAHA. I love when hicks make straw man arguments. No one chops up fetuses, especially 20 minutes before birth. What you're referring to is an illegal procedure. That means not legal. But don't let facts stop you from believing that it happens all the time!

It certainly does.

Would you like a link to some photos?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Possibility of something happening in a one in 6 billion rate does not make for decent politics. Gather all the information on 22 week old births. Note how ridiculously rare they are. Note how all of them have terrible health problems. Note how "viability" is reliant on the full extent of every artificial life support measure we have.

Translation, "thinking makes my head hurt, don't ask me hard questions."

This thread is not about political options, it is about abortion itself. I am not advocating political options here, I am challenging you to argue about the issue. As of yet, all you can do is argue about semantics and laws.

What, specifically, is different about the child inside a mother who wants an abortion from one inside one who doesn't? Provide scientific evidence to support your position.

Straw hominem: using the word "translation" to make up stances that have nothing to do with what's been said or hold any point of their own. Intelligence level: 2nd grade hick.

Staw homiinem? Do you think mixing metaphors with fracked up language makes you look smarter than the idiot down the street?

If you are so smart, why is it so hard to answer a question that is phrased using 6th grade level English?

I answered your question quite directly, in that you can select whatever line in the sand you'd like, but it's still a line in the sand regardless of 25 weeks or 22 weeks. I assumed you were smart enough to expand my use of the term "decent politics" to DECISION MAKING, but I assume too much about you, as usual. But to dumb it down for you, the difference is irrelevant. If you want to claim viability ought to be at 22 weeks, you're just moving the line in the sand. But it still exists, which tends to make your question moot.

Do you honestly think that metaphors are a sign of intelligence? I am not issuing a challenge to meet at dawn with pistols, I am attempting to get a person who claims to be smarter than someone else to answer a question. Since you had trouble with the concept that I picked 25 out of the air I went back to a simpler question. if I had know you were going to fixate on the numbers I wouldn't have used them in the first place.

Good use of asking a question. I'm glad you're finally coming around. But the underlying argument is that the above line in the sand is based on an actual development, in that fetal viability is an appropriate state to deem a physiologic change towards becoming a developed human fetus, whereas conception is not. In fact conception is rather arbitrary from an anatomy, physiology, viability, and developmental perspective. The ONLY change at conception is a genetic one, but both sperm and egg are human cells, as is a zygote.

It is not a line in the sand, it was a hypothetical question. My belief is that life begins at conception, giving you 20 weeks off of that just makes me look stupider than you. Put whatever numbers you feel necessary to obsess over into the question and explain what, medical or scientifically, is different about a baby just because the mother wants it? Is there some sort of chemical her body releases that changes that child into a real human?

If you are one quarter as smart as I am you will have no problem answering that question. If you are half as smart as you think you are it might be beyond your metal capacity.

Your mixed metaphors always amuse me. But what you are claiming is that the possible development into a human is equivalent to being a human, when such is not true. It is effortless to prove this concept when applying it to, well, anything else. Is an acorn a tree even though it will one day become a tree? You avoid the answer because you know it is NO. So why do you believe the zygote of other living things are equivalent to the "hatched" form? You see unlike you who makes incompatible comparisons like fetuses to computers, likening an umbilical cord to a power cord, or likening humans to parasites, my comparisons can usually be broken down into distinct common aspects. In this case the point is simple: zygotes of higher order species are not an independent member of that species, but rather contain the potential to develop into such a role.

Mixed metaphors? Excuse me? Did I talk about lines on cloud nine and miss it?

You have provided absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion that a baby is not human, all you can do is post pictures of acorns and ask me if they are fungi. Until you provide me with evidence, beyond your simple assertion, that the definition of human needs something more than I give it, perhaps a soul that is added after said human starts to breathe, you are not doing anything to convince anyone that passed 5th grade biology.

You do remember learning that tadpoles are frogs, don't you?

The fact that we even talk about fetuses using the term "potential" should tip you off. Are you aware of the definition? "possible, as opposed to actual". A fetus has the potential to become a human. It is not actually a human.

We? Is there a mouse in your pocket?

I have never once used the phrase potential human being to describe a fetus, stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Hey you asked if you would tell someone if a fetus wasn't really a baby. Except it's not really a baby. It's a fetus. This the terminology difference. Don't get all hurt and avoid the actual point because I sarcastically used the term "I dunno" in a sentence.

I asked that of a woman I have argued with before because I hoped it would make my point with her. You jumped in because you are dumber than dog shit, one of the joys of posting on the internet.

If you claim humans absolutely cannot survive without intestinal organisms, and fetuses do not have intestinal organisms, it's safe to conclude you just shot your own argument in the foot in that you made the case that a fetus is not a human because it has no intestinal organisms. Unfortunately the only correct part of that quote was you knowing very little about biology, because that's not the case. I won't give you too much crap here because you honestly admitted your limits, which I appreciate. But we can actually kill off all the bacteria in our gut with antibiotics and keep going. Regardless, humans are definitely not parasites. Well, most of us.

Are you trying to tell me that intestinal flora is not necessary to human life? That every doctor on the planet is wrong, and that you are the only person on the entire Earth that understands the WAY THINGS WORK?

Why don't I believe that?

Unlike you, I don't claim to be perfect, I meant embryonic sac.

Nice to see that, despite your superior intelligence, you don't actually have an answer to my question though.

As to what I can only interpret to be your intended question, there are a number of physiologic changes that occur

Those sound mechanical, not something that magically happens to change a non human into a human. What makes a baby not alive simply because you refuse to accept it is alive?

I don't claim to be perfect my dear hick. I only claim to be smarter than you. As for not having an answer to your question, you did see that the very next line I wrote was addressing what I thought was your intended question, right? You may want to read the full post, or at least the following paragraphs, before claiming I'm ignoring your point.

Yet you continuously say things that are so stupid that rdean wouldn't be caught dead saying them.

What, specifically, is the difference between what you says is a viable, yet non human, fetus, and a human. You expecting me to believe that expelling fluid form the lungs makes us human, is almost as absurd as rdean spouting his 6% statistic every time I challenge him on something. On top of that, it would mean that people using liquid ventilation are no longer human, something I do not believe.

Do you believe something SHOULD magically happen to change a non human into a human? Perhaps that's the difference in our perspectives: you believe a human comes into being because of magic. And I do believe babies are alive, being the things that exist after birth. We've gone over this. A fetus is living tissue, non-viable as a baby for the majority of pregnancy.

My mocking of your position should not be construed as a belief in magic. You are the one that insists that there is a difference, I am the one that thinks they are the same. You insist I am wrong, yet offer no explanation of what the difference is. I mock you, and you pretend that makes me stupid.

Gotta love the way your brain works.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A human goes through a process before they can be called a person, just like a seed must go through a process in order to become a tree.

What, precisely, is that process, and where in it does one become human?

 

[ZimothyTahn]

So you're saying our dna changes back and forth between different types of animals during gestation?

Why don't you link the studies to that, skippy. I find it immensely amusing you think I'm a dummy. Please cite and link an instance when an embryo developing in a woman's uterus spontaneously "flips" into something besides a human.

my mistake. i misunderstood entirely what you were saying. and my link isn't germane therefore. see how that works? we own up to fucking shit up. no biggie.

anyway, call it a zygote, call it fred, i don't give a fuck. no one is a murderer for getting an abortion before the fetus can live outside the mother's body. the only people who think that are backwards religious people. and frankly, who gives a fuck what they think. they believe in santa claus in the sky.

What on earth does misunderstanding what I said (yet you called me the dummy, hahaha) have to do with your outlandish assertion that human embryos change into non-humans during development?

Weirdo. Btw, you're offensive. I think I'll report you.

it doesn't. that's why i apologized. i misunderstood. see how that works? of course you don't.

oh no! you're going to report me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[zeke]

The scumbags are still trying to prove they aren't scumbags.

What did Einstein say about insanity....[/QUOTE]

Einstein says that if you are insane.....that you have "GoneBezerk".

Hope that helps.

Did your moms doctor drop you on your head when you were born. Just curious.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

A human goes through a process before they can be called a person, just like a seed must go through a process in order to become a tree.

What, precisely, is that process, and where in it does one become human?

I've explained the anatomic, physiologic, and other processes that contribute. You were confused and thought it was a magical process. You used the word magical. Magic. MAGIC! HAHAHAHA.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a 28 week old fetus...I guess at some point 4 weeks ago he *became* human:

28 weeks is 7 months. There is no constitutional right to abort a 28 week old fetus.

You, however, would consider it justice to send a woman to prison for the rest of her life for aborting this: