What should abortion laws be?

[Bern80]

Stop dodging the question. HOW far should the "fullest extent of the law" travel? 10 years? 20 years? Life? Death penalty?? What is your position on how long women who illegally abort should fucking be punished????

Why is the exact punishment so important to you? It isn't important to me. My contention is and always has been that abortion after a certain point for certain reasons should be considered a legal offense. Once it becomes a legal matter it is a matter for the courts. Punishment of which would be up to a judge. Lawyers can do their legal finagling to decide the charge and the judge or jury or will decide the sentence based on the sentencing guidelines for that charge.

I dont think that saying "Oh it is okay to abort for any reason at allis up to 3 months- and as late as is needed for the woman's life, but at any other time , it is murder, because I subjectively declare that the fetus has magically turned into a fetus-person, and in ANY other case besides the ones I deem worthy, it is MURDER, so that woman should ROT in PRISON for those ones!!!" is AT ALL logical. Can you SEE why?? It's fucking STUPID, that is WHY.

The only one here who believes in magical occurances, whether you recognize it or not, is you. Read on......

What fucking circumstances??? She, in your own words, and the words of your ilk, committed "murder", not manslaughter- and what fucking circumstances anyways??? Jesus Christ! What the FUCK. Can you BE more elusive about punishment, and defining her punishment? You are CLEARLY adamant that late term abortion is MURDER, and then when asked what the punishment should be, you start saying "manslaughter", a lesser charge, and "oh it depends on the circumstances". Whose circumstances??? The fetus-person's or the woman's??? Holy mother of God, this is, by FAR, the most irrational load of horseshit I have ever laid eyes on.

What is irrational about it? If I got my way and abortion under the circumstances I deemed were prosecutable I can say what I think the charge should be or the punishment should be. But what I want will be irrelevant. It first hinges on an unborn child being given legal status as a human being. Let's look at that for a second. IF that happened why would someone not be permitted to be charged just as someone who takes an adult life? I can't think of a reason. That being the case the court procedings would forsesabley play out just as if someone had taken an adult life. Lawyers would hagle over the charges and if convicted a judge or jury would set a sentence.

After it BREATHES its FIRST breath, if it dies as a result of negligence by ANYONE, then it is MURDER. Fucking lather, rinse, and repeat for only the five hundredth time in this thread alone.

Christ.

A person can be simply TAKEN OFF of life support, and ZEALOTS LIKE YOU will sit there and admonish the family, the courts- whomever is available to make that decision- and call it fucking murder as well, so I really don't know why I am SOOOOOO surprised about this.

Presuming AGAIN. There's a slight (by slight I mean major if you didn't catch the sarcasm) difference between an unborn child and a person on life support. Getting to the breathing thing shortly.......

Well, I have heard that bullshit story before, and would have to correct you on many points:
Yes you are capable of independent thinking
No religion has not gone past you, unnoticed..
Yes, religious people, or people whose moral compass was affected in some way, by religion, HAVE had a part of your life, and a big role in teaching you, from a young age, that murder and death are bad things.
The media also has had a hand in your belief system, like it or not, because they have drilled into your head as well, that killers are bad, wanted by the police, and therefore killING is bad too.

NOT ONE person on this planet can try to pretend that religion and their belonging to a group (Earth, being 85% religious) has played ZERO role in the development of their personal moral compass. That is total bullshit.

Also, what PART of the Earth you live in can play a MAJOR role in one's personal values. In Japan, men are more likely to look down on women. The men enter a room first, all the way down to the youngest man in the family (the male baby, who enters in FRONT of the mother carrying him), through to the Oldest woman (after the youngest man) and down to the youngest female entering last. If you were raised in Japan, women would never be addressed first in a room, and would be the least likely person you chose when seeking a new employee.
In Islamic society, one's life is put second to everything else. Life is not counted as "sacred". In fact, Islamic people would rather be KILLED than RAPED. Rape is the ultimate disgrace that can be done to the human body, in that culture. If you grew up in that culture, you would think FAR differently about RAPE and death than you do here. (We all would!)

That is called CULTURAL AGREEMENT. If you are within a group, or a culture of that group, then TO BELONG, one IS subjected to developing specific beliefs, based on whatever the GROUP believes.

I do agree that you are a free thinker- just don't try to kid yourself that you came up with the whole "death is bad news" and "killing is wrong" mindset

I grew up in a 'traditional' catholic family. I also somehow managed to turn out hyper objective somehow. Objective enough anyway to recognize that organized religion doesn't make much sense. And certainly not naive enough to believe that that there wasn't some political hagling over what got in the bible or what the church says god said. Of course I didn't come up with the whole killing is bad thing. There just plain aren't that many original ideas or thoughts left in the world to claim as one's own. But I can still separate what I have been TOLD is right from what IS right. maybe I just agreed with you there. Regardless I don't see the point in bringing up the religous aspect.

And if she belly flops off of a high dive, and claims that she did not know that the amniotic sac was not strong enough to maintain the fetus' status of growth... ?? Then what..

If this were to become a legal issue I believe there is fairly ample precedent that ignorance rarely works as a defense. Saying I didn't know belly flopping of the high dive would be bad for my pregnancy is really the same as saying I didn't know the gun was loaded. True story: A high school classmate of mine posed for some 'dramatic' pictures with his handgun in which he pointed it straight at the photographers lense. Gun goes off, photographer dies. Horrific accident of course, but by YOUR argument that person should not be held criminally accountable for anything (he was convicted of manslaughter if memory serves).

Oh and the man that beats on the woman, causing her to have a miscarriage- is he a murderer too? How about the 16 year old who is an inexperienced and unlicensed driver, who T-bones her car, causing her to miscarry when she is late term??? She lives, but her fetus-person is miscarried/ stillborn. Does that 16 year old get the death sentence also???

Once you wrap your head around the idea of an unborn child being granted legal status as a human being, just assume it for arguments sake, these question actually become a lot easier to answer, not harder. If you and your friend were in a car, you're driving, and you get in an accident, she's killed, you live. What would be the legal ramifications to you?

THINK about the possible reprocussions for what you are implying.. and the lack of logic that goes with it. It absolutely does NOT make sense.

You are due for an overwhelming dose of your own advice. I have stated this before. YOU need to consider the beliefs that your position requires. If you objectively looked at those I think you would see the ridiculousness of your postion. Case in point below.

I have answered that question enough times already. After her born child takes a breath of air.
And you have not brought up a single argument that has AT ALL conferred to me that fetuses can possibly be sentient, because those studies are all inconclusive. It is only, then, an OPINION, or a leap of faith, at best, that fetuses have any kind of sentience whatsoever. Sorry, bubs, but a leap of faith that contradicts ALL evidence is 100% subjective.

Thank you for illustrating my point here so very well. This is where you fail in a truly epic sense and show you aren't the great logician you think you are. First off I'm not the one that has to be right. You are. My position has room for error. Yours doesn't. Again I don't really have to prove myself right all I have to prove is you're wrong. Objectively speaking if it came out the absolute truth was on your side. That a baby simply can't be considered a human being before it takes it's first breathe and thus a woman can't be charged with anything, I'd get over it and accept it. But if absolute truth was on my side I think you would not accept it. I think you would continue to rationalize reasons why killing a human being before birth is okay.

Here's where the logic comes in and only having to prove you wrong. A human being is a human being only after it takes it's first breathe you say. That requires a belief that somehow breathing triggers consciousness or sentients. You complain about my lack of evidence, but the evidence you would have to show is that somehow that split second act triggers the level of consciousness or sentients that only then makes you classify killing the child as murder. THAT is the part of your reasoning that is wholly illogical. I think you would be hard pressed to show that that first breathe not only starts the lungs, but also CAUSES some neurological function in that split second that causes the child to achieve a level of conciousness that was somehow observably not there a split second before. THAT is what you would have to show for your position to be correct. I'll certainly listen to the evidence if you can provide it. But objectively speaking I think you would have to objectively admit that those events occuring within that split second are highly unlikely.

Or choose another argument, but the act of breathing all by itself is a really bad one. Breathing is an involuntary action. It isn't something the baby learns, it just does it. You could argue that it being a human being before birth really isn't important to you from a legal perspective, but then you have to explain away a list of other things.

You are, at some point, going to HAVE to admit, that if the woman carrying a fetus dies, or loses oxygen, or has an accident, then that fetus is prone and subjected to her injuries, and therefore may not be taken care of by anyone or "rescued" from the plight that the woman is experiencing. In any BORN child, this is a very different story, and YOU have to admit that to YOURSELF. This is THE hardest thing for pro lifers who want fetuses to have rights and entitlements to admit, that the "right to life" in no way promises some "entitlement" to live. The comparison of responsibility that ANYONE (out of 6.5 billion) can take for a born child is just not applicable to a SINGLE someone having to maintain optimal health, and remain alive as some responsibility to a fetus, for the fetus to survive, even considering any problems the fetus is causing her, and try to say that the fetus is the equivalent to a born child. You KNOW this, you just cant admit it.

Sure I can admit it. The issue here is perspective. Having the position you have you don't look at a lot from the babies perspective (even after it's born it seems). Thinking that a mother dieing and leaving her child behind and that someone will step in time before the child dies from simple lack of care is wishful thinking and an argument made simply because it's the most convenient one to make. You are still talking about who takes responsibility. I am talking about the child's level of dependence. It is dependent on others to survive, period. It really doesn't care from whom or from how many people that care comes from. You like to saying woman should not have to suffer an unchosen pregnancy. Maybe you need to consider the prespective of whether the child would choose you as a mother.

Allelujah!!!! Sooooooooooo... Now an embryo is not a "human life", and neither is an early term FETUS, and all of this is based on SCIENCE!! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Looks like you just made a breakthrough in the direction of reality. Congrats!!! =)

I didn't say anything different than I've said or should be intuitevly obvious to the most casual observer before. I never said there is human life in an early term fetus or that there shouldn't be abortions under any circumstances.

How so???

Point to ONE salesperson/ chairperson/ spokesperson who is not a fucking PERSON.

Not what i said. The above is a true statement.

And stop dodging that question too- Name ONE fetus who is a spokesperson/ chairperson or salesperson, as per your dictionary definition.

This is an untrue statement. And not something i said, but you did. You said, and I could be paraphrasing, that you have never met a fetus person. Great. That would only be true if all person's were in the group ______person. Thus your statement is irrelevant. Just because somethin is not a _____person, does not mean it is not a person.

 

[eots]

Dedicated to JD 28


i used to hang around in bars
i'd let myself get picked up by jocks with sports cars
i'd let them take me back to their place
where i'd suck and fuck and fuck and suck and sit on their face
then i got knocked up in the 80's
so i went to a clinic for ladies
the doctor stuck a suction hose up my ****
the he scraped and sucked and sucked and scraped till he killed that little runt
now its the late 90s
and what is really such a laugh
is AIDS killed all the junkies and the queers
but i'm still here cause i washed my needles out with bleach
and never went to one of those roman fucking bathes
ooowww wee oooweee ...dream date of the 90's

Dream Date Of The 90's Lyrics
Songwriters: N/A

 

[JD_2B]

Stop dodging the question. HOW far should the "fullest extent of the law" travel? 10 years? 20 years? Life? Death penalty?? What is your position on how long women who illegally abort should fucking be punished????

Why is the exact punishment so important to you? It isn't important to me. My contention is and always has been that abortion after a certain point for certain reasons should be considered a legal offense. Once it becomes a legal matter it is a matter for the courts. Punishment of which would be up to a judge. Lawyers can do their legal finagling to decide the charge and the judge or jury or will decide the sentence based on the sentencing guidelines for that charge.

So, in other words, you can be specific to the T as to when personhood begins, in your own mind, which you know is entirely subjective, but if the courts were to make a ruling that said the exact same thing I have been saying throughout this whole thread, that a woman has a right to privacy, regardless of any perceptions of sentience involved, then the courts would be wrong???
And at the same time, THE RULING that IS IN EXISTENCE is not good enough for you, either, because it allows for abortion on demand during the 4th month also???
Yeah I think I would want you to at least be clear with what the charges would be. To want something to be illegal, and criminal, you should at least know what fucking law was broken first.

I dont think that saying "Oh it is okay to abort for any reason at allis up to 3 months- and as late as is needed for the woman's life, but at any other time , it is murder, because I subjectively declare that the fetus has magically turned into a fetus-person, and in ANY other case besides the ones I deem worthy, it is MURDER, so that woman should ROT in PRISON for those ones!!!" is AT ALL logical. Can you SEE why?? It's fucking STUPID, that is WHY.

The only one here who believes in magical occurances, whether you recognize it or not, is you. Read on......

OKAY!! What-EV!

What is irrational about it? If I got my way and abortion under the circumstances I deemed were prosecutable I can say what I think the charge should be or the punishment should be. But what I want will be irrelevant. It first hinges on an unborn child being given legal status as a human being. Let's look at that for a second. IF that happened why would someone not be permitted to be charged just as someone who takes an adult life? I can't think of a reason. That being the case the court procedings would forsesabley play out just as if someone had taken an adult life. Lawyers would hagle over the charges and if convicted a judge or jury would set a sentence.

Under what fucking circumstances??? And why the fuck would a 30 week gestated fetus get fucking RIGHTS that a 29 week fetus should not also enjoy?? That, a fetus who, at the 29th week, 6th day, 11th hour, 59th minute and 59th second, did not also have?
Do you SEE how your argument is illogical?? Do not apply some rhetoric to emotional appeal to MINE, if you cannot apply that to your own.

Presuming AGAIN. There's a slight (by slight I mean major if you didn't catch the sarcasm) difference between an unborn child and a person on life support. Getting to the breathing thing shortly.......

Logistically speaking, yeah. A building can lose power, which would fuel the person's life support.. A woman can lose life, which also fuels the life support. The ONLY difference is that the person who was on life support can have one or two people breathing FOR them, and pumping their heart FOR them, and still survive. You have to admit, this is not the case with a fetus.

I grew up in a 'traditional' catholic family. I also somehow managed to turn out hyper objective somehow. Objective enough anyway to recognize that organized religion doesn't make much sense. And certainly not naive enough to believe that that there wasn't some political hagling over what got in the bible or what the church says god said. Of course I didn't come up with the whole killing is bad thing. There just plain aren't that many original ideas or thoughts left in the world to claim as one's own. But I can still separate what I have been TOLD is right from what IS right. maybe I just agreed with you there. Regardless I don't see the point in bringing up the religous aspect.

The religious aspect did not "determine" my opinions on this.. but to say that religion does not have some kind of effect on EVERYONE, even the atheists, is just lying to ones self.
Anyways, I didn't start quoting bible scriptures. I said that I believe that there IS indeed an invisible divine force at work, at birth, that gives us all life.

I have to finish this response later.. Sorry. =)


*******************************************************


EDITED TO RESPOND FULLY..

If this were to become a legal issue I believe there is fairly ample precedent that ignorance rarely works as a defense. Saying I didn't belly flopping of the high dive would bad for my pregnancy is really same as saying I don't know the gun was loaded. True story: A high school classmate of mine posed for some pictures 'dramatic' pictures with his handgun in which he pointed it straight at the photographers lense. Gun goes off, photographer dies. Horrific accident of course, but by YOUR argument that person should not be held criminally accountable for anything (he was convicted of manslaughter if memory serves).

Ummmm Just because someone points a gun at another person, and pulls the trigger, does not mean that they did it on purpose. There are often hunting accidents, and other types of gun related accidents, that do not have the intent required to get a murder/ manslaughter conviction, or any kind of conviction for that matter.
Same goes with pregnant belly flopping, and speeding in one's car, even. The implication of any risk involved is neither consent to the risk, nor is it an indicator of some kind of malicious intent. YOUR comparison is FAR different from anything sport related. YOUR comparison is between a SPORT and an intentional, malicious act. Fucking get a grip.

Once you wrap your head around the idea of an unborn child being granted legal status as a human being, just assume it for arguments sake, these question actually become a lot easier answer, not harder. If you and your friend were in a car, you're driving, and you get in an accident, she's killed, you live. What would be the legal ramifications to you?

Nothing as long as there was no INTENT, you fucking dipshit.

Now it is YOUR turn.. Imagine fetuses had rights. If a pregnant woman was speeding, knowing that speeding also has a risk of injury to it, and had an accident, (even if it was caused by faulty brakes, or a deer in the road, or whatever- but the bottom line being that would have been avoided had the woman not been speeding) then if her 8 month gestated fetus dies, YOUR implications of fetuses having RIGHTS and ENTITLEMENTS, and being otherwise considered "US Citizens", by all definition that you are implying.. Then would that not be negligent homicide??

And then WHAT about the 11 week pregnant woman who walks into an abortion clinic, and pays someone to erase her condition of being pregnant?? You can NOT sit there and LOGICALLY SAY that the former is MURDER or MANSLAUGHTER, or any other form of homicide, when you ALSO sit there and (to be Politically correct, no doubt) say that the latter is not the same fucking thing, based on a few lousy months/weeks/days/hours of gestation, computing to a change in "trimester".

How the fuck do you think that infants become people in the first place?? Or, to put it in YOUR terms, how do you think that 8 month fetuses gain "personhood"??? How on EARTH can you place MORE value on a fetus, based SOLELY on gestation and "quickening", a ridiculous, and GROSSLY ANTIQUATED NOTION, than on a fetus that has not yet been "felt"!!!!!???!!!???!!

And AGAIN- in the life of the mother scenarios- WHY would it be somehow BETTER for the doctors to save a woman's life, when they can just as easily C-Section the fetus?? YOU are the one calling THIS VERY FETUS a person, and wanting it to have the rights of citizenship.. Why do YOU think that there is a "Health" RIGHT that women have, that their "fetus-people" suddenly LOSE, just because the women's lives may be in danger???

It is absolutely ridiculous!!!

You are due for an overwhelming dose of your own advice. I have stated this before. YOU need to consider the beliefs that your position requires. if you objectively looked at those I think you would see the ridiculousness of your postion. Case in point below.

Who fucking cares?? It is THE WOMAN'S UTERUS, and NOT YOURS TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR. Stop trying to be everyone's FATHER FIGURE. I don't give a shit whether the fucking fetus was 11 years old and had the brain capacity of a genius, and could potentially solve all of the worlds problems, if it is inside of MY BODY.. It's SIZE and MENTAL CAPACITY mean NOTHING to MY livelihood, if I DO NOT WANT IT IN ME.

Men do not get to poke their little wieners inside of a woman without FULL consent, including if a woman decide AFTER the sex STARTED that they do not want that part of a man's body within her own. If she THEN says NO, then he NEEDS TO PULL THE FUCK OUT, OR, in my state, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHOOT THE MOTHERFUCKER, EVEN IF WE ARE NOT THE ONES BEING RAPED, and are just WATCHING. This is BASIC fucking AUTONOMY, and HUMANITARIANISM. Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY has any fucking RIGHT to tell someone that they have no right to remove something from their body, including with the use of force, for reasons of UNWANTEDNESS. Nobody.

Thank you for illustrating my point here so very well. This is where you fail in a truly epic sense and show you aren't the great logician you think you are. First off I'm not the one that has to be right. You are. My position has room for error.

No- Your position totally LACKS evidence, and is based on "tradition"- the hundreds of years of people believing that a fetus's reflexive actions in the uterus, is somehow related to thinking. YOU have ZERO margin for error here, ALSO, because YOU have to PROVE that a zygote/ embryo/ fetus can survive even if the mother does not, despite the fact that infants can be cared for by ANYBODY. No margin for error there. Prove it. Should be easy, since you are sooooo dead set on it.

Yours doesn't. Again I don't really have to prove myself right all I have to prove is you're wrong. Objectively speaking if it came out the absolute truth was on your side. That a baby simple can't be considered a human being before it takes it's first breathe. I'd get over it and accept it. But if absolute truth was on my side I think you would not accept it. I think you would contine rationalize reasons why killing a human being even before birth is okay.

Here's where the logic comes in and only having to prove you wrong. A human being is a human being only after it takes it's first breathe you say. That requires a belief that somehow breathing triggers consciousness or sentients. You complain about my lack of evidence, but the evidence you would have to show is that somehow that split second act triggers the level of consciousness or sentients that only than makes you classify killing the child as murder. THAT is the part of your reasoning that is wholly illogical. I think you would be hard pressed to show that that first breathe not only starts the lungs, but also CAUSES some neurological function in that split second that causes the child to achieve a level of conciousness that was somehow observably not there a split second before. THAT is what you would have to show for your position to be correct. I'll certainly listen to the evidence if you can provide it. But objectively speaking I think you would have to objectively admit that those events occuring within that split second are highly unlikely.

The LAW is on our side already... So it is REALLY YOUR case that would need a preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, proving that some woman, somewhere, killed a "sentient" fetus, and not just some reflexive growing human-looking blob of tissue and bone that happens to have human DNA. YOU have to prove sentience. YOU brought it up, YOU prove it. WE do not want women to be criminalized, and have already seen all of your ilk's failed attempts at proving sentience through all of the inconclusive studies and emotional rhetoric... which is proof enough for us.

Or choose another argument, but the act of breathing all by itself is a really bad one. Breathing is an involuntary actions. It isn't something the baby learns, it just does it. You could argue that it being human being before birth really isn't important to you from a legal perspective, but then you have to explain away a list of other things.

Thumb sucking is an involuntary action, as is all of the kicking and jabbing that occurs. Nobody said that the baby "leans" to breathe, but you do make a good point, that I can use: Fetuses do the action of "breathing", taking in and expiring amniotic fluid. THIS is definitely involuntary, and something that cannot be replicated, once the infant takes a breath of air. This is not ACTUAL breathing.. However, the FIRST breath of air, does indeed take some coaxing sometimes, and is generally an effect of a LABORED AND VOLUNTARY RESPONSE TO OXYGENATED AIR, and a COLDER ENVIRONMENT. One can easily argue that respiration, in and of itself, is involuntary, but NOT when it comes to that extra special, highly DIFFICULT first breath.

This is because premature infants lack the antioxidants needed to be able to survive the birth, so they need a special mixture of oxygen and other components which give them antioxidant powers, or else they will suffer from chronic pulmonary toxicity disorders, lung injury, etc, which can also happen in full term infants who are treated with high concentrations of O2, as shown in the PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL JOURNAL ARTICLE BELOW:

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/170/3/313

Also, it appears that breathing for newborns IS something that IS labored, just like someone with emphysema (who exerts as much as 75% of their energy, focusing on breathing) for the first 3 to 8 days after birth. HENCE, breathing is, right after birth, a VOLUNTARY, or at least, MORE VOLUNTARY THAN NOT, activity. You can see THIS medical journal peer reviewed article as MORE fucking proof.

http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/6984504

Of course, you would probably refer to THIS study, that wishes to help increase the tissue in livers and lungs of fetuses, using some ridiculous scientific process of chemical enhancements, etc.. and claim that since it CAN be done, that it SHOULD be done.. which is lame as fucking hell, because even if those lungs grew faster, even this study has not tested the effects of a larger lung mass on post birth lung function and compared it to those involuntary breathing movements of adults..

http://ajplung.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/285/3/L569

How is that? Got enough PROOF now???? Even pro life scientists are trying desperately to look for ways to make abortion illegal, through ridiculous and inconsequential studies on tissue growth.

Sure I can admit it. The issue here is perspective. Having the position you have you don't look at a lot from the babies perspective (even after it's born it seems). Thinking that a mother dieing and leaving her child behind and that someone will step in time before the child dies from simple lack of care is wishful thinking and an argument made simply because it's the most convenient one to make. You are still talking about who take responsibility. I am talking about the child's level of dependence. It is dependent on others to survive, period. It really doesn't care from whom or from how many people that care comes from. You like to saying woman should not have to suffer an unchosen pregnancy. Maybe you need to consider if the child would choose you as a mother.

Fuck off. If that was not a vicious insult to the kind of person I am, or kind of mother I AM, in spite of you knowing NOTHING ABOUT ME PERSONALLY, just because I take the political and legal position to support a woman's right to choose, and understand a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do, then I don't know what is. Fuck off, I say!!! You JUST NEED TO SAY THOSE THINGS TO JUSTIFY YOUR NOT BEING CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT A FETUS CANNOT BE CARED FOR BY JUST ANYONE, AND AND AND AND AND AND AND THAT THE MOTHER MUST LIVE FOR IT TO EVEN BE CARED FOR BY ONE.
Tough shit, and fuck off to ya!

I didn't say anything different than I've said or should be intuitevly obvious to the most casual observer before. I never said there is human life at an early term fetus or that there shouldn't be abortions under any circumstances.

Whatever. Yeah you did..

How so???

Point to ONE salesperson/ chairperson/ spokesperson who is not a fucking PERSON.

Not what i said. The above is a true statement.

And stop dodging that question too- Name ONE fetus who is a spokesperson/ chairperson or salesperson, as per your dictionary definition.

This is an untrue statement. And not something i said, but you did. You said, and I could be paraphrasing, that you have never met a fetus person. Great. That would only be true if all person's were in the group ______person. Thus your statement is irrelevant. Just because somethin is not a _____person, does not mean it is not a person.

I made a TYPO in regards to PRO's DEFINITION OF PERSON, INCLUDING THE WORDS CHAIRPERSON, ETC. Fuck the fuck off, ASSHOLE.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The religious aspect did not "determine" my opinions on this

FYI- I consider it to be at the point of taking it's first breath, because the bible defines it that way.

 

[Douger]

Simple. Do as ye will and harm none.
Food for thought.

For the wingnuts. There "supposedly" is no life until breath.............
Read your owners manual.

 

[JenT]

NOT a literal verse.You were not a mistake, for all your days are written in My book…

Specifically, 120, as was told to Moses when the flood was in the planing stages. Again, this is not a verse to mean that even one person was being spoken directly about. This is God saying that MAN is not a mistake, in general.

Which any doctor, or mother can do, also, so no relevance here, either.

This is another thing that any mother and father could say to their children.

How could this be a literal verse, unless you can visualize God with knitting needles, and those needles being thrust into a woman's body?
However, I do not discount that God has a plan and that he knows which pregnancies will come to term, and which will not.​

All of the above that you're parsing over are from "Father's Love Letter"
Father's Love Letter Instrumental Version
They are not exact quotes but are what the prophets are writing about as God sees us.​

Never even heard of it until today, but it appears to be a poem, a lovely one, but one based on a variation of scriptural order, which puts the context of the meaning of verses in a different light than they were intended.
Also, the only quotes in that poem that apply to the unborn, were verses being told to people of significant stature to God.



Baloney.
Life is actually depicted in different contexts within the bible, actually. There is the "now" life- the life of the flesh, and the "later" life, which is the life some have after we are all resurrected, together, as a whole.

In fact, the breath of life, in the context of flesh is literal:
Genesis 2:7
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Genesis 7:22
Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
Job 12:10
In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.
Job 19:17
My breath is offensive to my wife; I am loathsome to my own brothers.
Job 32:8
But it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.
Psalm 104:29
When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust.
Psalm 150:6
Let everything that has breath praise the LORD. Praise the LORD.
Isaiah 42:5
This is what God the LORD says— he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:
Isaiah 57:16
I will not accuse forever, nor will I always be angry, for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me— the breath of man that I have created.
Jeremiah 10:14
Everyone is senseless and without knowledge; every goldsmith is shamed by his idols. His images are a fraud; they have no breath in them.
Jeremiah 38:16
But King Zedekiah swore this oath secretly to Jeremiah: "As surely as the LORD lives, who has given us breath, I will neither kill you nor hand you over to those who are seeking your life."
Lamentations 4:20
The LORD's anointed, our very life breath, was caught in their traps. We thought that under his shadow we would live among the nations.
Ezekiel 37:6
I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.' "

Need I go on?? I can, if you wish me to.



All over the place!!

Also- Several verses declaring that a stillbirth is better, for reasons not highlighted in red:
Ecclesiastes 6:3
A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he.

From The Message- which explains it in clearer terms:
Ecclesiastes 6:3
Say a couple have scores of children and live a long, long life but never enjoy themselves—even though they end up with a big funeral! I'd say that a stillborn baby gets the better deal. It gets its start in a mist and ends up in the dark—unnamed. It sees nothing and knows nothing, but is better off by far than anyone living.
Job 10:18
"So why did you have me born? I wish no one had ever laid eyes on me! I wish I'd never lived—a stillborn, buried without ever having breathed. Isn't it time to call it quits on my life? Can't you let up, and let me smile just once Before I die and am buried, before I'm nailed into my coffin, sealed in the ground, And banished for good to the land of the dead, blind in the final dark?"
Jeremiah 20:14
Curse the day I was born! The day my mother bore me— a curse on it, I say! And curse the man who delivered the news to my father: "You've got a new baby—a boy baby!" (How happy it made him.) Let that birth notice be blacked out, deleted from the records, And the man who brought it haunted to his death with the bad news he brought. He should have killed me before I was born, with that womb as my tomb, My mother pregnant for the rest of her life with a baby dead in her womb. Why, oh why, did I ever leave that womb? Life's been nothing but trouble and tears, and what's coming is more of the same.
Luke 1:15
"He'll drink neither wine nor beer. He'll be filled with the Holy Spirit from the moment he leaves his mother's womb. He will turn many sons and daughters of Israel back to their God. He will herald God's arrival in the style and strength of Elijah, soften the hearts of parents to children, and kindle devout understanding among hardened skeptics—he'll get the people ready for God."
John 3:3Jesus said, "You're absolutely right. Take it from me: Unless a person is born from above, it's not possible to see what I'm pointing to—to God's kingdom." 4"How can anyone," said Nicodemus, "be born who has already been born and grown up? You can't re-enter your mother's womb and be born again. What are you saying with this 'born-from-above' talk?"
5-6Jesus said, "You're not listening. Let me say it again. Unless a person submits to this original creation—the 'wind-hovering-over-the-water' creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new life—it's not possible to enter God's kingdom. When you look at a baby, it's just that: a body you can look at and touch. But the person who takes shape within is formed by something you can't see and touch—the Spirit—and becomes a living spirit.
Psalm 22:9
And to think you were midwife at my birth, setting me at my mother's breasts! When I left the womb you cradled me; since the moment of birth you've been my God. Then you moved far away and trouble moved in next door. I need a neighbor.
Psalm 139:13
Oh yes, you shaped me first inside, then out; you formed me in my mother's womb. I thank you, High God—you're breathtaking! Body and soul, I am marvelously made! I worship in adoration—what a creation! You know me inside and out, you know every bone in my body; You know exactly how I was made, bit by bit, how I was sculpted from nothing into something. Like an open book, you watched me grow from conception to birth; all the stages of my life were spread out before you, The days of my life all prepared before I'd even lived one day.

And the piece de resistance:
Hosea 9

14 O Lord, what should I request for your people?
I will ask for wombs that don’t give birth
and breasts that give no milk. 15 The Lord says, “All their wickedness began at Gilgal;
there I began to hate them.
I will drive them from my land
because of their evil actions.
I will love them no more
because all their leaders are rebels.
16 The people of Israel are struck down.
Their roots are dried up,
and they will bear no more fruit.
And if they give birth,
I will slaughter their beloved children.”

NIV:
Hosea 9
14 Give them, O LORD—
what will you give them?
Give them wombs that miscarry
and breasts that are dry. 15 "Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal,
I hated them there.
Because of their sinful deeds,
I will drive them out of my house.
I will no longer love them;
all their leaders are rebellious.
16 Ephraim is blighted,
their root is withered,
they yield no fruit.
Even if they bear children,
I will slay their cherished offspring."




No shit, but that doesn't mean that he is not accurate about when life begins.. I believe I have illustrated that adequately enough.


No, see- You are not seeing the big picture here. The Bible is the inspired word of God, and everything in it is approved by God, and everything that is NOT written in it does not belong, due to God's disapproval.



How is is out of context? The point of the verse is that we are all living by the grace of God, and that life would not exist without God's breath (which is the same in all of us- it is the atmosphere, we all breathe, together, as one) The only thing else it is saying is that although we all go back to dust in our fleshy forms, humans have an added gift, the Holy Spirit within us, which goes upwards.



There are loads of verses that refer to the fetus as a baby, but they are not relevant to when life begins, as I have already illustrated.



That has nothing to do with being bored. That was simply an enlightened moment for him, an understanding of the meaning of life..

That again says nothing about when life begins.
​

Yes this is about the transitioning between the life of the flesh and the life of the spirit. Believe it or not, on judgment day, everyone can decide for themselves, whether they want to choose God or Death. This is not saying that people "trade in" their bodies. It is saying that they give their flesh to God, with trust and faith, that "Jesus takes the wheel", so to speak, and whatever happens to the body becomes irrelevant, when the time of the final death and resurrection arrives.



Not explicitly. Christ's life was given so that everyone else did not have to die, and remain dead for an eternity. The good news is still in the future tense, but it will be caused by the past tense of the Crucifixion.



What EVER, and HOW ever you want to explain the story to yourself, those two KNEW that the punishment for sin was death, even before they CHOSE death over God. They had no reason to trust anyone but God, who made them. They CHOSE, and they KNEW what the RESULTS would be, WHEN they chose. And stop DEFENDING Satan in that. They knew what they were doing. Satan needed only to say a few words, and Adam and Eve just went along with it, in a defiant act against God's ONLY command to them.



Then maybe you should stop posting biblical bullshit on a public forum, missy.





And to have too many children, children that you do not want, is the same as vanity, as Ecclesiastes says, also.

I'm sorry, is that what you got out of what I was saying?

You're right, it doesn't entitle us to sin. But that's why Christ came, to break us free from the sins of the past and to do our best to follow Him out of love and gratitude for what He did for us.

Our past includes our whole lives.. but he came not only to break us free from our sins, but also to rescue us from eternal death.

23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me. (John 14)

Right. He does say "not mine, but the Father's who sent me", and yet I bet you call Jesus God, too, lol..
​

Do you honestly call this debate? All you did was quote every verse that had the word "breath" in it, but they had nothing to do with the subject or add a shred of credence to your claims whatsoever.

I asked you, where does it say God caused a miscarriage and you put mountains of text up where people in the Bible used the word but not one of them talks about God causing a miscarriage.

Are you going to improve or should I just put you on ignore? I have far better things to do than spend time reading Scriptures that are falsely wielded as though they support a pov that they simply don't.​

 

[JenT]

btw, the closest you came to actually posting a Scripture that was relevant, you blew up to be huge.

The actual text reads:

"And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the LORD."

Writing it as though it means breath comes before life is just wrong and a misrepresentation.

 

[eots]

can you imagine a real conversation with this wind bag..she responds with a ratio 100 words to every one...it would be so overwhelming listen to her yap on without a breath..you would just give up..which I am sure she would consider some kind of validation her inane arguments are some how correct

 

[JD_2B]

The religious aspect did not "determine" my opinions on this

FYI- I consider it to be at the point of taking it's first breath, because the bible defines it that way.

Ugh.. I do make a lot of errors when I am typing. I meant "And", rather than "because".

Anyways, the moment YOU decide to lend anything to this discussion besides a lot of sarcasm and trolling, please let me know. =)

 

[JD_2B]

can you imagine a real conversation with this wind bag..she responds with a ratio 100 words to every one...it would be so overwhelming listen to her yap on without a breath..you would just give up..which I am sure she would consider some kind of validation her inane arguments are some how correct

The medical journals prove that I am correct. ;-)

 

[JD_2B]

btw, the closest you came to actually posting a Scripture that was relevant, you blew up to be huge.

The actual text reads:

"And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the LORD."

Writing it as though it means breath comes before life is just wrong and a misrepresentation.

The actual text?? Are you seriously implying that there is only one translation of the bible??

Actually, my linked verses were compiled from a variety of sources, but I believe the one I listed that one from was NIV.

And PS-

Sinews = TENDONS
"bring up flesh upon you"= cover you in skin
Put breath into you = breathe into you
And you shall live= After all that other stuff listed BEFORE.


Split hairs all you want, baby girl- it is not the bible's translation that amounts to a fetus being either a person or alive. ;-)

 

[JD_2B]

Do you honestly call this debate? All you did was quote every verse that had the word "breath" in it, but they had nothing to do with the subject or add a shred of credence to your claims whatsoever.

That is not true- All of those verses are interrelated.

I asked you, where does it say God caused a miscarriage and you put mountains of text up where people in the Bible used the word but not one of them talks about God causing a miscarriage.

Oops I guess YOU missed Hosea. I posted that one also. It is also present throughout Exodus, and don't try to say that this is the exception to the rule.. LOOK at this example of MANDATORY abortion, for women who cheat on their husbands...

Numbers 5:12-31 (see your Bible for the entire thing)
" . . . If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, . . . and she be defiled, . . . . Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, . . . . And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: . . . and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse . . . and say unto the woman, . . . . if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband . . . . And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter. . . . . . And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot . . . . And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed .

Furthermore, another primary bible based reason why many Christians believe that a fetus (or embryo) is alive, is because of this verse

. . . the life [soul] of the flesh is in the blood . . ." Leveticus 17:11

However, it says that the life of the flesh is IN the blood, not that it IS the ACTUAL blood. It took a long time to understand this verse, for many people, after the development of the microscope, to see that the blood carries oxygen and nutrients. There are two types of blood, but I would not think that this verse meant that "the life of the soul is in the type-A antibodies" or "the life of the flesh is because of the coagulating properties of blood".. Nooo, it is said THAT way, because blood carries AIR.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies. They have venom like the venom of a serpent. ... Let them vanish like water that runs away, like grass let them be trodden down and wither. Let them be like the snail which dissolves into slime, like the untimely birth that never sees the sun." (Psalms 58:3-8)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Exodus 21:22-25

Fetuses don't have teeth.. and never in history have.

Furthermore, God called for the MANDATORY killings of all of the FIRSTBORN BABIES..
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"And Moses said, 'Thus says the Lord: About midnight I will go forth in the midst of Egypt and all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die; from the first-born of Pharaoh who sits upon his throne, even to the first-born of the maidservant who is behind the mill; and all the first-born of the cattle.'" (Exodus 11:4-5)[/FONT]

In addition, here is another order from God
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
"...go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:3. See also Deuteronomy 2:34 and 3:6; Joshua 10:28-40, 11:10-12, 14, 15, 20 and 21; and Judges 21:10-12.)

And finally, the worthlessness of babies less than a month old, by God:

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"...all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward..." (Numbers 3:40)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"If the person is from a month old up to five years old, your valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver." (Leviticus 27:6)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]

Are you going to improve or should I just put you on ignore? I have far better things to do than spend time reading Scriptures that are falsely wielded as though they support a pov that they simply don't.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live." (Ezekiel 37:5)[/FONT]


My dear, you are welcome to ignore the bible. It won't bother ME one bit. God, on the other hand, might not be too happy...

 

[JenT]

btw, the closest you came to actually posting a Scripture that was relevant, you blew up to be huge.

The actual text reads:

"And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the LORD."

Writing it as though it means breath comes before life is just wrong and a misrepresentation.

The actual text?? Are you seriously implying that there is only one translation of the bible??

Actually, my linked verses were compiled from a variety of sources, but I believe the one I listed that one from was NIV.

And PS-

Sinews = TENDONS
"bring up flesh upon you"= cover you in skin
Put breath into you = breathe into you
And you shall live= After all that other stuff listed BEFORE.


Split hairs all you want, baby girl- it is not the bible's translation that amounts to a fetus being either a person or alive. ;-)

This is amazing.

If it wasn't alive, you wouldn't have to KILL it, would you.

It is alive.

It is human.

And everything about who he or she will be is mapped out at conception.

He or she already is a fact, the only thing that will stop it is death.

Wombs of death was not the Creator's intention.

 

[Bern80]

I'm gonna parse this down some cause these are getting too long. If I cut out something you just gotta know, feel free.

So, in other words, you can be specific to the T as to when personhood begins, in your own mind, which you know is entirely subjective, but if the courts were to make a ruling that said the exact same thing I have been saying throughout this whole thread, that a woman has a right to privacy, regardless of any perceptions of sentience involved, then the courts would be wrong???
And at the same time, THE RULING that IS IN EXISTENCE is not good enough for you, either, because it allows for abortion on demand during the 4th month also???
Yeah I think I would want you to at least be clear with what the charges would be. To want something to be illegal, and criminal, you should at least know what fucking law was broken first.

I never defined when person hood begins , not 'to a T' anyway. If you need it cleared up for you yet again. I have simply stated that it is not logical to believe that someone attains person hood in some physiological sense immediately after conception. From that same physiological perspective, it is not logical to believe that a baby attains person hood, AGAIN from a physiological perspective, in the mere seconds of taking it's first breathe of O2.

Under what fucking circumstances??? And why the fuck would a 30 week gestated fetus get fucking RIGHTS that a 29 week fetus should not also enjoy?? That, a fetus who, at the 29th week, 6th day, 11th hour, 59th minute and 59th second, did not also have?
Do you SEE how your argument is illogical?? Do not apply some rhetoric to emotional appeal to MINE, if you cannot apply that to your own.

THIS IS THE EXACT SAME THING YOU ARE ARGUING. How can you be so blind as to not see that? YOU are arguing that a baby developed to 8 months, 7 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes (that would be pre-birth) has less rights than a baby that is developed to 9 months and 1 minute. OF COURSE I get that there would be no perceptible difference between 29 weeks and 6 days and 30 weeks. that isn't how development works. THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. And for god knows what reason you can't see that you are using the EXACT same argument you attribute to me as defense of abortion at a different specific point in time, that there is some measurable difference in physiology from one second to the next that makes abortion okay prior to that second, but not okay after it. YOU get the fucking grip and think for a damn second.

Ummmm Just because someone points a gun at another person, and pulls the trigger, does not mean that they did it on purpose. There are often hunting accidents, and other types of gun related accidents, that do not have the intent required to get a murder/ manslaughter conviction, or any kind of conviction for that matter.
Same goes with pregnant belly flopping, and speeding in one's car, even. The implication of any risk involved is neither consent to the risk, nor is it an indicator of some kind of malicious intent. YOUR comparison is FAR different from anything sport related. YOUR comparison is between a SPORT and an intentional, malicious act. Fucking get a grip

Nothing as long as there was no INTENT, you fucking dipshit

Now it is YOUR turn.. Imagine fetuses had rights. If a pregnant woman was speeding, knowing that speeding also has a risk of injury to it, and had an accident, (even if it was caused by faulty brakes, or a deer in the road, or whatever- but the bottom line being that would have been avoided had the woman not been speeding) then if her 8 month gestated fetus dies, YOUR implications of fetuses having RIGHTS and ENTITLEMENTS, and being otherwise considered "US Citizens", by all definition that you are implying.. Then would that not be negligent homicide??

oh yes it could. You could still be convicted of vehicular manslaughter. If it were shown that you committed some gross negligence (i.e drive drunk, was speeding, driving recklessly, etc.) you most certainly would be open to prosecution. If you drive drunk and kill your friend, regardless of your intent, you most certainly will be tried and probably do time.

And now it is you that is maybe starting to get it. That's exactly why I can't tell you what the punishment would be. Follow the parallel; sure we may know someone had, a late term abortion/was in a car accident and the passenger was killed. We don't know why, we don't know whether it was intentional or not, we don't know the level of negligence on the part of the mother/driver. Every case is different.

And AGAIN- in the life of the mother scenarios- WHY would it be somehow BETTER for the doctors to save a woman's life, when they can just as easily C-Section the fetus?? YOU are the one calling THIS VERY FETUS a person, and wanting it to have the rights of citizenship.. Why do YOU think that there is a "Health" RIGHT that women have, that their "fetus-people" suddenly LOSE, just because the women's lives may be in danger???

It is absolutely ridiculous!!!

You're really not comparing a decision about life and death and make the best possible decision in a bad scenario to making a decision based on what would be most convenient for you, are you?

Who fucking cares?? It is THE WOMAN'S UTERUS, and NOT YOURS TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR. Stop trying to be everyone's FATHER FIGURE. I don't give a shit whether the fucking fetus was 11 years old and had the brain capacity of a genius, and could potentially solve all of the worlds problems, if it is inside of MY BODY.. It's SIZE and MENTAL CAPACITY mean NOTHING to MY livelihood, if I DO NOT WANT IT IN ME.

Men do not get to poke their little wieners inside of a woman without FULL consent, including if a woman decide AFTER the sex STARTED that they do not want that part of a man's body within her own. If she THEN says NO, then he NEEDS TO PULL THE FUCK OUT, OR, in my state, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHOOT THE MOTHERFUCKER, EVEN IF WE ARE NOT THE ONES BEING RAPED, and are just WATCHING. This is BASIC fucking AUTONOMY, and HUMANITARIANISM. Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY has any fucking RIGHT to tell someone that they have no right to remove something from their body, including with the use of force, for reasons of UNWANTEDNESS. Nobody.

Then take some fucking responsibility and DO something about it BEFORE it gets to the point where you would even have to entertain the notion of whether or not you're choosing to kill another human being. You have every opportunity in the world to keep that thing you don't want from being in you.

But at least you have cleared one thing up. I am safe in saying at this point it really doesn't matter to you whether it would a human life you are killing or not from a legal perspective, correct? That is even if you conceded that it was a human life that you were killing before it was born you would still say that a woman should not be prosecuted for that? Further it would be fine with you if we continued this conversation with me referring to the child is a human life at some point pre-birth because again that is not an aspect you are concerned with legally where abortion is concerned. I want to be crystal clear on this because I have a suspicion and if it can be confirmed we can move on without going in circle

No- Your position totally LACKS evidence, and is based on "tradition"- the hundreds of years of people believing that a fetus's reflexive actions in the uterus, is somehow related to thinking. YOU have ZERO margin for error here, ALSO, because YOU have to PROVE that a zygote/ embryo/ fetus can survive even if the mother does not, despite the fact that infants can be cared for by ANYBODY. No margin for error there. Prove it. Should be easy, since you are sooooo dead set on it.

You kinda got real perturbed when you presumed that I was claiming to know the basis of your beliefs. Yet here you are doing the same to me. I try to refrain from name calling unless it's objectively accurate, so i feel safe in calling you a hypocrit.

The LAW is on our side already... So it is REALLY YOUR case that would need a preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, proving that some woman, somewhere, killed a "sentient" fetus, and not just some reflexive growing human-looking blob of tissue and bone that happens to have human DNA. YOU have to prove sentience. YOU brought it up, YOU prove it. WE do not want women to be criminalized, and have already seen all of your ilk's failed attempts at proving sentience through all of the inconclusive studies and emotional rhetoric... which is proof enough for us.


Thumb sucking is an involuntary action, as is all of the kicking and jabbing that occurs. Nobody said that the baby "leans" to breathe, but you do make a good point, that I can use: Fetuses do the action of "breathing", taking in and expiring amniotic fluid. THIS is definitely involuntary, and something that cannot be replicated, once the infant takes a breath of air. This is not ACTUAL breathing.. However, the FIRST breath of air, does indeed take some coaxing sometimes, and is generally an effect of a LABORED AND VOLUNTARY RESPONSE TO OXYGENATED AIR, and a COLDER ENVIRONMENT. One can easily argue that respiration, in and of itself, is involuntary, but NOT when it comes to that extra special, highly DIFFICULT first breath

.

I think we should just argue sentience for sentience sake rather than using it as a legal basis for abortion. I think that because unless I'm wrong in what I stated above whether the child is sentient or not pre-birth doesn't matter to you in terms of the legality of abortion. Agreed?

This is because premature infants lack the antioxidants needed to be able to survive the birth, so they need a special mixture of oxygen and other components which give them antioxidant powers, or else they will suffer from chronic pulmonary toxicity disorders, lung injury, etc, which can also happen in full term infants who are treated with high concentrations of O2, as shown in the PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL JOURNAL ARTICLE BELOW:

Discordant Extracellular Superoxide Dismutase Expression and Activity in Neonatal Hyperoxic Lung -- Mamo et al. 170 (3): 313 -- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

I don't see anything disagreeable there. What's your point?

Also, it appears that breathing for newborns IS something that IS labored, just like someone with emphysema (who exerts as much as 75% of their energy, focusing on breathing) for the first 3 to 8 days after birth. HENCE, breathing is, right after birth, a VOLUNTARY, or at least, MORE VOLUNTARY THAN NOT, activity. You can see THIS medical journal peer reviewed article as MORE fucking proof.

Perinatal development of N-acetyltransferase in hepatic and extrahepatic tissues of guinea pigs.

Ummm Guinea Pigs? Really? Your argument is on a house of cards, JD. Breathing seems to be one thing that actually does matter to you in terms when a child can be killed. But you see breathing, in of itself, doesn't make a lot of sense. If it were just breathing that mattered I could hold my breathe and it would then it be legal for someone to kill me. So there must be something else that you think breathing triggers that somehow makes abortion okay before that point, but not okay after. What would that be?

Fuck off. If that was not a vicious insult to the kind of person I am, or kind of mother I AM, in spite of you knowing NOTHING ABOUT ME PERSONALLY, just because I take the political and legal position to support a woman's right to choose, and understand a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do, then I don't know what is. Fuck off, I say!!! You JUST NEED TO SAY THOSE THINGS TO JUSTIFY YOUR NOT BEING CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT A FETUS CANNOT BE CARED FOR BY JUST ANYONE, AND AND AND AND AND AND AND THAT THE MOTHER MUST LIVE FOR IT TO EVEN BE CARED FOR BY ONE.
Tough shit, and fuck off to ya!

What I mean by that is exactly what I mean by dependence. A child has no say in the matter of who it's parents are. All it can do is hope that those parents do what is in their best interests. Your reaction to that proves my earlier point about you lack of objectivism. You claimed to be this rationale objective person. 'Fuck off's and 'asshole' are not the hallmarks of the objective. I told you before that I was the objective one and I proved it. The objective TRUTH can be more powerful than any 'fuck off' or 'asshole' that can be uttered. Being called names doesn't bother me because I know me and know they aren't a reflection of the truth.

A little more about me; I like to debate as you can see. I also like to be right. What I mean by right is on the side of the truth, which is different from a belief. That being the case there are all kinds of things in the course of conversation that do nothing to persuade people that your position is one of truth, and dear you have displayed an awful lot of those things.

-continuing to assert that someone's position is something other than what they have stated. Either call the person a liar and prove it or take their word for it. If you call them a liar and can't prove it you aren't any closer to showing your side is that of truth and you're probably further from it because from the perspective of everyone else you look childish and beaten.

- calling names and clear displays of emotion doesn't give one any credibility either. Yes I'm guilty of it too.

- an inabilityto objectively scrutinize one's own actions. This is the hardest one by far. People start throwing examples and scenarios around to bolster their argument then one of them hits a little too close to home. I don't believe what little I have stated about you and your situation has been inaccurate. If it has, believe me i want to know, because as I said above trying to argue things that aren't true or atriibute positions that don't exist is a waste of time. If they are factual, they simply are what they are. There shouldn't be any emotion attached to that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

can you imagine a real conversation with this wind bag..she responds with a ratio 100 words to every one...it would be so overwhelming listen to her yap on without a breath..you would just give up..which I am sure she would consider some kind of validation her inane arguments are some how correct

The medical journals prove that I am correct. ;-)

Would those medical journals be showing that the mother and fetus share the same blood supply? That a fetus is merely an organ of the mother's body, rather than an organism with a separate genetic structure? Or that humans and dogs can interbreed? Tell us, please, exactly which fascinating biological absurdity you've asserted here the medical journals prove correct.

 

[Bern80]

can you imagine a real conversation with this wind bag..she responds with a ratio 100 words to every one...it would be so overwhelming listen to her yap on without a breath..you would just give up..which I am sure she would consider some kind of validation her inane arguments are some how correct

The medical journals prove that I am correct. ;-)

Would those medical journals be showing that the mother and fetus share the same blood supply? That a fetus is merely an organ of the mother's body, rather than an organism with a separate genetic structure? Or that humans and dogs can interbreed? Tell us, please, exactly which fascinating biological absurdity you've asserted here the medical journals prove correct.

Good luck. She lost me when with the link about guinea pigs and I guess it's proof that babies (which are not guinea pgs) have to consciously think about breathing when their born. This is all i could read out of the link.

Hepatic and extrahepatic distribution and the perinatal developmental pattern of p-aminobenzoic acid (PABA)-N-acetyltransferase (E.C.2.3.1.5) in guinea pig liver, lung, and placenta were studied. In adult guinea pigs, kidney and small intestine enzyme specific activities were equivalent to hepatic activity. Lung enzyme activity was about 15% of that in adult liver. No sex differences in hepatic or extrahepatic distribution of enzyme levels were evident. The perinatal development study revealed that fetal as well as neonatal animals are capable of N-acetylation. The peak in liver and lung activity occur between 3 and 8 days after birth. Placenta has about 50% of adult liver activity for PABA-N-acetylation and it declines near term. These data indicate that extrahepatic organs of guinea pigs significantly contribute to PABA-N-acetylation.

Now I'm not med student, Maybe JD is.

Can someone give me the laymans terms for hepatic, extrahepatic, p-amniobenzoic acid (PABA)-N-acetyltranferase and how exactly they derived from that that HUMAN babies have to think about taking their first breath? Wrong link maybe? Conclusion I just can't see coming in the part of the paper that you can read that I can't? Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[JD_2B]

btw, the closest you came to actually posting a Scripture that was relevant, you blew up to be huge.

The actual text reads:

"And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the LORD."

Writing it as though it means breath comes before life is just wrong and a misrepresentation.

The actual text?? Are you seriously implying that there is only one translation of the bible??

Actually, my linked verses were compiled from a variety of sources, but I believe the one I listed that one from was NIV.

And PS-

Sinews = TENDONS
"bring up flesh upon you"= cover you in skin
Put breath into you = breathe into you
And you shall live= After all that other stuff listed BEFORE.


Split hairs all you want, baby girl- it is not the bible's translation that amounts to a fetus being either a person or alive. ;-)

This is amazing.

If it wasn't alive, you wouldn't have to KILL it, would you.

It is alive.

It is human.

And everything about who he or she will be is mapped out at conception.

He or she already is a fact, the only thing that will stop it is death.

Wombs of death was not the Creator's intention.

Apparently, considering the science and the verses and orders from God himself, that is not altogether true.

In any event, if you want to think of YOUR pregnancy as alive, and a person, etc, then that is your perogative.. But opinions are not legally binding. I would never bind YOU to your opinion that a blastocyst is a person, if you were to miscarry it, and cause you to have to have your body tested in all kinds of ways, because it suddenly became EVIDENCE.
On the same token, I respect all other women's personal opinions as well, and expect the same kindness to be reciprocal. 2/3 of all pregnancies result in miscarriage. Having a pregnancy that fails to complete is an act of NATURE. Whether it happens naturally or by some other source means nothing, then.
* That also does not give anyone a womb of death, as you so melodramatically put it.

 

[JD_2B]

The medical journals prove that I am correct. ;-)

Would those medical journals be showing that the mother and fetus share the same blood supply? That a fetus is merely an organ of the mother's body, rather than an organism with a separate genetic structure? Or that humans and dogs can interbreed? Tell us, please, exactly which fascinating biological absurdity you've asserted here the medical journals prove correct.

Good luck. She lost me when with the link about guinea pigs and I guess it's proof that babies (which are not guinea pgs) have to consciously think about breathing when their born. This is all i could read out of the link.

My link was just as valid, if not MORE valid, as the link that Proletarian gave on slaughtered pigs, and their harvested embryos, during his little bullshit rant about how embryo transfers are possible.
You obviously did not even LOOK at the journal article. At least I read the bullshit you guys post. The fact that you don't read mine is Clue #1 at your own ignorance.

Hepatic and extrahepatic distribution and the perinatal developmental pattern of p-aminobenzoic acid (PABA)-N-acetyltransferase (E.C.2.3.1.5) in guinea pig liver, lung, and placenta were studied. In adult guinea pigs, kidney and small intestine enzyme specific activities were equivalent to hepatic activity. Lung enzyme activity was about 15% of that in adult liver. No sex differences in hepatic or extrahepatic distribution of enzyme levels were evident. The perinatal development study revealed that fetal as well as neonatal animals are capable of N-acetylation. The peak in liver and lung activity occur between 3 and 8 days after birth. Placenta has about 50% of adult liver activity for PABA-N-acetylation and it declines near term. These data indicate that extrahepatic organs of guinea pigs significantly contribute to PABA-N-acetylation.

Now I'm not med student, Maybe JD is.

Can someone give me the laymans terms for hepatic, extrahepatic, p-amniobenzoic acid (PABA)-N-acetyltranferase and how exactly they derived from that that HUMAN babies have to think about taking their first breath? Wrong link maybe? Conclusion I just can't see coming in the part of the paper that you can read that I can't? Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Then read the part in BOLD PRINT. As I explained before, those are all scientific terms. If you SIMPLY read the BOLD print, you will understand. You can also find another place, near that sentence, that says (I believe this was what you chose to skip over) all the stuff that I explained to you, as well.

And no I do not need to be a fucking doctor to get the jist of the study. Nobody here needs to understand all the complex enzymatic terms listed, or the medications listed, to understand the plain english that is in this article, that you are choosing to make yourself ignorant of.

Sentence #1:

The role of glucocorticoids in the regulation of vitamin K-dependent carboxylase activity was investigated in fetal and adult lung.


Jump down to results:
The ADX-induced effect on carboxylase activity was paralleled by an overall enhancement of lung growth in the absence of endogenous glucocorticoids; ADX alone led to a 15% increase in lung mass over 6 days (Table 1), but previous studies reported normal lung morphology (34). In contrast, ADX had no significant effect on liver carboxylase activity or liver growth (data not shown), a tissue noted for its synthesis of the coagulation-related Gla proteins. Absolute liver activity was

10-fold higher than that found in lung, as has been previously described

(and a little further down, third paragraph of results)
specific Gla proteins produced by one cell population may influence growth and differentiation in the other cell type. Fetal type II cells isolated from embryonic day 19-20 embryonic lungs also responded to Dex with a 2.5-fold increase in activity

Then down, in the discussion section.. 4th paragraph..

The mechanism whereby dilation of conducting airway structures occurs with Dex treatment is unknown.

If MGP is important for normal branching morphogenesis and perhaps vasculogenesis, it is not clear why the MGP null mice are born with apparently functional lungs.

Does that help any?? I copied and pasted. No need to understand the study in full, to understand that it is an attempt at growing lung and liver tissue, and testing what elements need to be added to the equation for this to be plausible. Apparently, even though they can grow a whole HEART, they can't ever explain why the lungs function.

I realize that this is not specifically saying that God makes everyone breathe, and all that- but the evidence is very strongly in favor of it. Anyways, that is my belief, and my religion and scientific beliefs all go very much hand in hand. The two just cannot exist without each other.

 

[dilloduck]

sorta like men and women ?

 

[Bern80]

I'll keep this short cause I know you're just dieing to get at the other post. The first link you posted I get, didn't know that, but okay, makes sense. Not sure what you think it is evidence of as far as your position.

The paragraph I quoted is from the second link. I said that's all I can read because that's all I can read. I don't have the ability to view the entire article, but it along with the last link at the very least I can tell indicate how lungs develop. Okay, even though I don't really understand all of it, I'll assume those guys no what they're doing. What exactly is that you think these links do for your position that it's okay to kill a baby before it breathes, but not after?