Liberals now calling fetus an "organ of her own body"

[Zoom-boing]

The same can be said for fetuses where the mom has negative blood and the fetus doesn't.


I always find it amusing when hicks can no longer engage in debate and instead need to make these over-exaggerated statements to make themselves feel better. "OMG THAT GUY THINKS BABIES ARE TAPEWORMS AND LUNCH NOW BECAUSE I CANT FOLLOW A SIMPLE CONTRASTING EXAMPLE!!!!" Hilarious.

Fetuses are NOT separate beings from the mother. This is fact. If you SEPARATE a fetus from the mother early, that tissue DIES. This is pretty much an irrefutable litmus test for if something is separate or not. There really isn't a better indicator of separability past COMPLETE DEMISE.

As for the question about charging someone for crimes against two people, that discussion gets into a deeper understanding of why murder is wrong. Seeing as most of you can't follow simple contrasting examples, I doubt you possess much understanding of deeper ethical discussions. But to negate the entire pretext altogether: law is not biology. If a judge deems a pregnant woman a space alien, it doesn't have much bearing on the separability of mother from fetus.

YOU state that fetus and woman are NOT two separate beings. Following your (ill)logic then surely someone who kills a pregnant woman would be charged ONE count. You. Are. Wrong.

You think so? In the history of America you have brought ONE case forward that shows that. ONE. And she was near term, meaning the fetus could be separated and survive. Can you offer a single example of the same thing occurring when a woman was 2 weeks pregnant? Nope. Even law shows you to be wrong, and biology makes you look like a fool for trying.

But again, this entire topic of why charge someone with two deaths for killing a near term pregnant woman continues to miss the basic fundamentals of ethics. You can't even comprehend the basics of why things are right or wrong, let alone the biology behind them. How can I or others expect you to understand something advanced like this?

January, 2012:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also called "Ethen's Law," went into effect December first. Under the law, anyone causing the death of an unborn child, except in the case of abortion, can be charged with murder.

Someone who murders a pregnant woman can charged with two counts of murder. The law covers a woman in any stage of pregnancy, from conception, and an attacker doesn't need to know the woman was pregnant in order to be charged.

Danielle Watson was two months pregnant when she was murdered while closing the Flying Biscuit Café at StoneCrest shopping center Friday night in Ballantyne.

She had just heard her baby's heartbeat for the first time Monday, said her boyfriend Keith Smith, and they planned to get married next Sunday.

Two days after the murder, Smith said he's glad the new law is in place.

"Thank God for it," said Smith. "I hoped from the beginning when I found out it would be two counts. It should be."

Suspect could face 2 murder charges under new law | WCNC.com Charlotte

Two counts. Why? Because two human beings were killed. Abortion kills one human being, the fetus.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So, if the baby survives ATTEMPTED murder --- then it's what again?

Why is it that everytime the libs don;t like the rules they just create more labels so they can rewrite the rules?

So Noomi, if you go to have an abortion and the baby survives, you just say it was a normal birth, God I cant say how stupid that is.

fetuses don't survive abortions. Ever. Please have some basic understanding of the concept before calling someone else stupid. You make yourself look ridiculous.

Tell that to the survivors.

Home - The Abortion Survivors Network


Gianna Jensen is another abortion survivor.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ]Gianna Jessen Abortion Survivor in Australia Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

Oh, I know. You'll go on about the term abortion being used rather than botched abortion.

 

[Zoom-boing]

No part of the woman's body is gone? OK I guess I do need to explain menstruation to you after all.

Each month, a woman's outer uterus produces a new specialized tissue, being the inner uterus. For simplicity's sake, think of this inner portion like its own organ, with its own newly created blood supply, and function that is unlike other areas of the body, including the outer uterus. Now follow me here, as it's clearly the part you don't understand. Each month, the woman LOSES the entirety of that new tissue system. The exception is if an embryo implants. If that's the case, that new tissue system is invaded by the embryo, and the two fuse together. Instead of being lost during menstruation, the woman loses it at the end of birth, and the process repeats itself.

So in summary, a major specialized portion of the woman's body is LOST when a fetus is removed. After all, if that weren't the case, the burrowing implantation of placenta into uterus would result in holes.

So you can keep believing that there are two separate beings, but they're not. All of biology shows they are neither separate nor separable. They have common DNA but there are differences. That's as best you get.

So ask yourself: if all of biology proves you wrong, why do you continue to hold onto these false beliefs? It's ok to accept truth. Everyone else knows you're wrong already. I recommend you accept it and move past it.

Again, you fail to read what I wrote.

When a woman has an abortion or gives birth no part of her body is gone. The fetus is not a part of her body, the fetus is a separate being. Umbilical cord and placenta are temporary only present during pregnancy. Lining of uterus leaves every month via her period.

Lining of uterus leaves her body every month and is also gone when she has an abortion. You want to hold on to that as the part of a woman that is gone when she has an abortion, have at it. I already stated that she loses it. You are stretching beyond belief in stating that a fetus and woman are one. You. Are. Wrong.

What she is aborting is a human being that was conceived in and developing inside of her body. It is not HER body that is being aborted, it is not HER body whose life is ending, it is not HER body that will no longer exist when an abortion happens. Deny all you want, this is fact.

Here. Read. Learn.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...d-fetus-separate-individuals.html#post7052703

No, it is not her body being aborted. It is the fetus.

Correct.

That still does not mean they are separate.

Yes, it does. When the egg is fertilized a new human being is created, comes into existence, one that did not exist prior to that fertilization, one that has its own set of genetic code, own blood type, own brain, own heart beat, own nervous system, damn even their own fingerprints.

You can apply your logic to an appendix. Just because you can REMOVE something and have that tissue die does not mean it is separate while attached.

Does an appendix have its own separate set of genetic code? No. Is it a developing human being? No.

But as I have told you countless times now, the fetus is attached to the mother, inseparable before maturation, to the point where the placenta is fused to the mother. The two tissues literally growing into one another, invasively, to ensure premature separate is prevented.

The placenta is fused, not the fetus. The umbilical cord and placenta are the bridge between two separate individual beings .... woman and fetus.

Because separation equals death.

Death of the separate human being that resides in a woman's uterus when she is pregnant, the fetus.





.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's a part of a woman's body which makes it her property, like every other part of her body.

Yeah, so is her nose/vagina/mouth but prostituion and drug use are illegal....so is necrophila and beastiality and incest.....

If the fetus is part of a woman's body, and if the fetus has no standing or rights as a person,

then a woman has every right to remove it or have it removed from her body.

A fetus is not part of a woman's body, it is a separate living human being that resides within and develops in the woman's body. Yes, the law says she can abort (terminate, end the life of) that human being residing within her body.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

YOU state that fetus and woman are NOT two separate beings. Following your (ill)logic then surely someone who kills a pregnant woman would be charged ONE count. You. Are. Wrong.

You think so? In the history of America you have brought ONE case forward that shows that. ONE. And she was near term, meaning the fetus could be separated and survive. Can you offer a single example of the same thing occurring when a woman was 2 weeks pregnant? Nope. Even law shows you to be wrong, and biology makes you look like a fool for trying.

But again, this entire topic of why charge someone with two deaths for killing a near term pregnant woman continues to miss the basic fundamentals of ethics. You can't even comprehend the basics of why things are right or wrong, let alone the biology behind them. How can I or others expect you to understand something advanced like this?

January, 2012:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also called "Ethen's Law," went into effect December first. Under the law, anyone causing the death of an unborn child, except in the case of abortion, can be charged with murder.

Someone who murders a pregnant woman can charged with two counts of murder. The law covers a woman in any stage of pregnancy, from conception, and an attacker doesn't need to know the woman was pregnant in order to be charged.

Danielle Watson was two months pregnant when she was murdered while closing the Flying Biscuit Café at StoneCrest shopping center Friday night in Ballantyne.

She had just heard her baby's heartbeat for the first time Monday, said her boyfriend Keith Smith, and they planned to get married next Sunday.

Two days after the murder, Smith said he's glad the new law is in place.

"Thank God for it," said Smith. "I hoped from the beginning when I found out it would be two counts. It should be."

Suspect could face 2 murder charges under new law | WCNC.com Charlotte

Two counts. Why? Because two human beings were killed. Abortion kills one human being, the fetus.

And?

What does this have to with privacy rights concerning abortion, where the state is prohibited from interfering with a woman’s right to decide to have a child or not?

For perhaps the third or fourth time: you’re confusing civil law (privacy rights, abortion) with criminal law (murder).

This is the primary reason why abortion is indeed not ‘murder.’

 

[Sunshine]

Abortion control must be returned to the states and they can do what they want with it.

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Noam Chomsky: The fetus is an 'organ' of woman?s body

Thu Apr 04, 2013

DUBLIN, April 4, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Noam Chomsky, the most cited academic in the world, said that an unborn baby is “an organ” and a part of the mother's “own body” during a recent guest lecture at an Irish college.

"There is a strong debate at the moment with regards to a woman's right to control an organ of her own body - namely the fetus,” Chomsky said during a question and answer session at University College Dublin on Tuesday night. “There is legislation being enacted in several U.S. states to define personhood as a fertilized egg.”

"Pretty soon you can imagine legislation prohibiting the washing of hands because thousands of cells are flaked off that could be turned into a stem cell and you can grow a fetus - so you're killing a person,” he said.

“It's attacks on women's rights," he concluded

Groovy. Surgeons generally will not excise a healthy organ. They aren't really into throwing away their medical licenses that way.

 

[Noomi]

Because they haven't reached a developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb.

And why it that the woman's fault? Why should she be forced to carry it inside her until it can survive??

 

[Noomi]

Yeah, so is her nose/vagina/mouth but prostituion and drug use are illegal....so is necrophila and beastiality and incest.....

If the fetus is part of a woman's body, and if the fetus has no standing or rights as a person,

then a woman has every right to remove it or have it removed from her body.

A fetus is not part of a woman's body, it is a separate living human being that resides within and develops in the woman's body. Yes, the law says she can abort (terminate, end the life of) that human being residing within her body.

It cannot be separate but attached. That is a physical impossibility.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

So conjoined twins are a physical impossibility? If a conjoined twin kills the other, does it count as suicide or is it akin to having an appendectomy?

 

[Noomi]

So conjoined twins are a physical impossibility? If a conjoined twin kills the other, does it count as suicide or is it akin to having an appendectomy?

Not the same thing. When born, both can be dependent on the other, or one can be dependent, depending on where they are conjoined.

If one conjoined twin killed the other, chances are both of them would die.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

So conjoined twins are a physical impossibility? If a conjoined twin kills the other, does it count as suicide or is it akin to having an appendectomy?

Not the same thing. When born, both can be dependent on the other, or one can be dependent, depending on where they are conjoined.

It totally is. You would never argue that because two conjoined twins are attached they're not two separate entities. So why do you argue differently in the case of the unborn? Dependency has zip to do with anything since it doesn't affect whether or not we're dealing with two entities or one.

If one conjoined twin killed the other, chances are both of them would die.

Unsurprisingly, you avoided the question. Answer it, please.

 

[Noomi]

So conjoined twins are a physical impossibility? If a conjoined twin kills the other, does it count as suicide or is it akin to having an appendectomy?

Not the same thing. When born, both can be dependent on the other, or one can be dependent, depending on where they are conjoined.

It totally is. You would never argue that because two conjoined twins are attached they're not two separate entities. So why do you argue differently in the case of the unborn? Dependency has zip to do with anything since it doesn't affect whether or not we're dealing with two entities or one.

If one conjoined twin killed the other, chances are both of them would die.

Unsurprisingly, you avoided the question. Answer it, please.

Two people who are conjoined are not separate, but they are considered two different people, regardless of whether they share the same body. Abby and Britney Hensel have two heads, one body, but they are considered as two different people, but I wouldn't call them separate - both depend on the other to survive. If one died, the other would die too - they cannot be separated.

You asked what would happen if one twin killed the other - I didn't avoid your question, I gave you a truthful answer - both of them would die. If one twin killed the other, it wouldn't be suicide, it might be seen as murder, and even if the twin survived, he or she could argue self defense as the reason for the killing.

Now, if one twin killed themselves, and that resulted in the death of the other twin, would it be a murder suicide, a suicide, or just a murder?

 

[tinydancer]

Because they haven't reached a developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb.

And why it that the woman's fault? Why should she be forced to carry it inside her until it can survive??

Noomi, I know you aren't a horrid soul. I know we've talked abortion before. I've told you I can understand the sad but true stories out there.

What should we do if we were to come together? How could we at least make the world work under horrid circumstances?

I'm not being flippant here. My solution truly would be absolutely free birth control.

Yes I'm conservative in my old age well maybe not over cougar years

Free birth control as to avoid any unwanted pregnancies. I guarantee you Planned Parenthood would lobby against it.

There's great money to be made at the abortion clinics.

See what you and I would come up against?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

No worries on the siamese thing. Even in your mistake you still make a coherent argument. Haha.

Now, as to the morality of the subject, I think you hit a correct concept but that it is somewhat unfinished. There is a clear decision in that because the idea of the one that is ‘loved’ where the other has none and we do regularly ‘euthanize’ animals that have no one that cares about them. The only thing I would add though is that we are programmed through biology to care for a child even when they are not ours. I do agree with your point though that the abortion debate does center on that ‘love’ aspect for children as well as the potential development into fully away and cute babies and is a core reason that we tend to argue vehemently for protections of children. I can say for my part, there is nothing on this planet, nothing, that is more valuable than my two children and looking at them it is hard to accept the death of other children. Taken outside of the abortion debate, Sandy Hook is a good example where I would barely bat an eye at the death of 30 adults (hundreds die every day and there is nothing that I can do about it) but the death of so many children was heart wrenching.

I completely agree. There is a group mindset of caring for children, and sociology shows us that historically and currently it takes a village to raise a child. We're used to wanting to care for others' children. But that is quite different than turning it to action and actually raising all of those children. And that's one of the other problems that pro-life crowd can't quite grasp: they're not actually caring for the children they want to ensure come into this world. They think somehow, magically, these children are always well cared for. But the fact remains that the number of children waiting for adoption always far exceeds those actually adopted every single year without fail.

That might be the ultimate example but it is irrelevant what example is used. Either way, that organism is its own organism and distinctly not human. I will admit that I am at the end of my understanding of biology here as I am no biologist but, as I understand it, mitochondria ARE separate autonomous organisms that have simply lost the ability to survive without the host:
Endosymbiont - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In that respect, that is exactly what a fetus is and neither is different than a bacterium.

I think this is where our beliefs differ. I see the mitochondria as NOT separate, nor distinct. But without it, no humans. OK my brain is hurting now too. Let's move away? haha

Nor do I but if you have just one cell then that is a person (at least to me) as any other definition speaks to me as a philosophical matter and NOT a scientific one. If we were to define human then, what would your definition be?

Well, that's the problem. I couldn't provide one. And keep in mind that inability to provide one doesn't negate my ability to disagree with yours.

I think one of the things that gets my hung up, and probably many others, is that the word human is both a noun and adjective. Which is why I say an early fetus is human but not a human. haha

At the end of the day, i care about person above human, if that makes sense.

 

[Noomi]

Because they haven't reached a developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb.

And why it that the woman's fault? Why should she be forced to carry it inside her until it can survive??

Noomi, I know you aren't a horrid soul. I know we've talked abortion before. I've told you I can understand the sad but true stories out there.

What should we do if we were to come together? How could we at least make the world work under horrid circumstances?

I'm not being flippant here. My solution truly would be absolutely free birth control.

Yes I'm conservative in my old age well maybe not over cougar years

Free birth control as to avoid any unwanted pregnancies. I guarantee you Planned Parenthood would lobby against it.

There's great money to be made at the abortion clinics.

See what you and I would come up against?

I would be a strong supporter of free birth control, and anyone who rallied against that would be an idiot - including PP, if they showed opposition to it.
I cannot believe that anyone would care more about making money from abortions than about preventing them.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

It's a part of a woman's body which makes it her property, like every other part of her body.

Yeah, so is her nose/vagina/mouth but prostituion and drug use are illegal....so is necrophila and beastiality and incest.....

If the fetus is part of a woman's body, and if the fetus has no standing or rights as a person,

then a woman has every right to remove it or have it removed from her body.

Haha. Let's assume a fetus is a unique individual and has rights under the constitution. OK so some dude, young as he may be, forces himself inside a woman without consent, against her will. Shall we call it rape? Assault? Hahaha.

 

[buckeye45_73]

And why it that the woman's fault? Why should she be forced to carry it inside her until it can survive??

Noomi, I know you aren't a horrid soul. I know we've talked abortion before. I've told you I can understand the sad but true stories out there.

What should we do if we were to come together? How could we at least make the world work under horrid circumstances?

I'm not being flippant here. My solution truly would be absolutely free birth control.

Yes I'm conservative in my old age well maybe not over cougar years

Free birth control as to avoid any unwanted pregnancies. I guarantee you Planned Parenthood would lobby against it.

There's great money to be made at the abortion clinics.

See what you and I would come up against?

I would be a strong supporter of free birth control, and anyone who rallied against that would be an idiot - including PP, if they showed opposition to it.
I cannot believe that anyone would care more about making money from abortions than about preventing them.

Well I am opposed to free birth control....it costs money to R&D it, it costs money to produce it (like the jobs of manufacturing it), so i'd rather people pay for their shit....nothing wrong with that...why do liberals think everything should be free.....if they dont make money off of it, how do they pay the people manufacturing it?

 

[Noomi]

Noomi, I know you aren't a horrid soul. I know we've talked abortion before. I've told you I can understand the sad but true stories out there.

What should we do if we were to come together? How could we at least make the world work under horrid circumstances?

I'm not being flippant here. My solution truly would be absolutely free birth control.

Yes I'm conservative in my old age well maybe not over cougar years

Free birth control as to avoid any unwanted pregnancies. I guarantee you Planned Parenthood would lobby against it.

There's great money to be made at the abortion clinics.

See what you and I would come up against?

I would be a strong supporter of free birth control, and anyone who rallied against that would be an idiot - including PP, if they showed opposition to it.
I cannot believe that anyone would care more about making money from abortions than about preventing them.

Well I am opposed to free birth control....it costs money to R&D it, it costs money to produce it (like the jobs of manufacturing it), so i'd rather people pay for their shit....nothing wrong with that...why do liberals think everything should be free.....if they dont make money off of it, how do they pay the people manufacturing it?

Because free birth control means people would be more likely to use it, and abortion would decline (hopefully) which would be what the pro lifers want.

 

[jasonnfree]

Why doesn't the pro fetus crowd start a fund to adopt babies of pregnant women that would normally have an abortion ? Because that's putting their money where their mouths are. Talk is cheap. Funny, the fetus pro life crowd didn't mind bush/cheney murdering Iraqi babies at all. They even voted again for these murdering skunks after knowing there were no WMD's and it was all a setup. These are the same hypocrites that would rather see children lose food stamps or medical care if it means raising taxes on billionaires.

By the way if a pregnant woman gets in a car pool lane and has no passengers in her car except the child she's carrying, she can be ticketed. Spend your time changing this law maybe instead of endless wasted hours whining about Obama and fetuses, you cheapskate, lazy armchair computer warriors.

 

[jasonnfree]

Yeah, so is her nose/vagina/mouth but prostituion and drug use are illegal....so is necrophila and beastiality and incest.....

If the fetus is part of a woman's body, and if the fetus has no standing or rights as a person,

then a woman has every right to remove it or have it removed from her body.

A fetus is not part of a woman's body, it is a separate living human being that resides within and develops in the woman's body. Yes, the law says she can abort (terminate, end the life of) that human being residing within her body.

Then offer to adopt some of the babies, maybe even give the mom a few grand to boot if she has the baby.