What should abortion laws be?

[Bern80]

A restaurant is built. The ovens are on, the stoves are burning, the refrigerator is going, and yet, no food is being served, no patrons are dining, etc, etc.
Just because something CAN does not mean it DOES. There is a moment of magic when a business cuts the tape and lets in customers for the first time. Suddenly, it becomes ALIVE. Before this moment, it was merely a functional work in the making. Anything could have destroyed it from coming to that moment. In hurricane Katrina, don't you think that there might have been one company that was going to be ready to open its doors for the first time, to the public, and whoosh, all of that work and effort and diligence came to a screeching halt in a manner of hours.

There is nothing else that happens between the duration of time when the business is being built and formed and created, and the time it actually becomes ALIVE, by doing actual business, besides the act of opening the front doors and saying Welcome.

I cannot describe any better than this the difference between a fetus and a baby who takes a breath. All I can give you is this analogy, and hope that you can understand the concept that there is ALWAYS a solitary act of immense strength, generosity, and acceptance for something to truly become alive. It is divine and beautiful and not the kind of thing that can be attributed to a fetus, which can "die" because the woman was chopped in two or blown to bits by an accident with a fuel truck on the way to the hospital. If it was a baby, a person, it could be covered with something, or saved by something, some freaky weird occurance that many people chalk up to being a miracle, even if it's mother died.

Your analogy is what is subjective you are trying to corelate to what you are now calling an act of divine intervention I guess. I understand perfectly that that is how it think it works. The problem is it just isn't any evidence that is so. It is divine now? This the JD argument of the moment? You accept God's will at that point, but not second prior? And I am the subjective one?

Just because it has a brain, doesnt mean it thinks. Just because it has eyes, doesnt mean it sees. Just because it has ears, doesn't mean it hears. Just because it CAN be independent, doesn't mean it IS.

A fetus simply =/= a newborn, and the only thing separating the two is the one thing you cannot accept.. The breath.

I never argued the having those biological traits are what constitute personhood. THAT is a straw man argument.

Also, I am sick and damned tired of you "coming back" with some ridiculous "Oh you havent explained your case well enough." or some such thing. You Bern, have not listed a single medical journal to support your own claims, and all you have fucking done is try to SAY that based on your own personal and clearly subjective opinions, mine, and my medical journal research is "too difficult to understand" so you just brush it all off and constantly ask the same fucking questions over and fucking over, like a broken record. No, man- I am NOT going to spend the rest of MY life explaining and reexplaining this to you, just because you are to thick to fucking GET it. When you come back with something worth debating, and stop attacking my posts, probably out of a giddy trollish jolly you get from all of this, then I will talk again. Till then buzz off.

And I don't know how much more clearly it can be made for you. THE MEDICAL RESEARCH YOU POSTED DOES NOTHING FOR YOUR ARGUMENT. IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO YOUR ARGUMENT OF PERSONHOOD WHATSOEVER. SO FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP TRYING TO PRETEND IT HELPS YOUR POSITION.

I understand there are certain truths you don't accept. Fortunately for me that does not make them any less true. For example the truth is, like it or not, I don't have to prove my position to be right. All I have to do is prove yours wrong. That is getting easier by the moment since as far as i can tell now you are arguing that personhood requires divine intervention. Which unfortunately is impossible to know, making YOUR position the entirely subjective one.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Actually it is JD as usual attributing postions to people they don't have. Pretending that those of us who would like limitations to certain types of abortions are some sort of pregnant teenager hating monsters is a strawman (another concept JD needs to lookup considering the amount of times she has accused people of it), as is the notion that those of us with said position demand that all pregnant teens carry their pregnancies to term is pretty dishonest. The teenage brain is not developed enough for a teen to effectively grasp the consequences of what they do. Pretty hard to hold some deep seeded contempt for pregnant teens over that.

All that I anyway have ever contended is that the best decision be made for ALL parties involved. If done within a reasonable amount of time, that most certainly could include getting an abortion.

Oh, for God's sake, Cecile was the one who was whining about the teenage pregnancy rates, the murder rates, blah blah blah, as if anything she says has any semblance of truth TO it, anyways. I was talking to her, not you. But hey, go ahead and jump on the suicidal bandwagon of tossing ridiculous insults my way for no reason again- What do I care?? LOL!!

I told you the truth hurts more than anything. The FACT is you consistantly use terms incorrectly and make up definitions for them as you go along. By any objective observation you are a hypocrite. You have accussed me and others of straw man arguments several times, with out actually showing where or how I intentionally misrepresented your opinion. Then have the balls to resort to making straw man arguments yourself.

What do you expect from a woman who thinks it's more important that she not get stretch marks than that a human should live so that she can keep getting those awesome guys she likes- the ones who use her for her pussy and beat her (as she stated in a mysteriously vanishing post, she's been with several of them).

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Just because something CAN does not mean it DOES. There is a moment of magic when a business cuts the tape and lets in customers for the first time. Suddenly, it becomes ALIVE.

How do you manage to keep out-stupiding yourself?

Just because it has a brain, doesnt mean it thinks.

Just look at you

A fetus simply =/= a newborn, and the only thing separating the two is the one thing you cannot accept.. The breath.

Fetal breathing movements and other tests of fetal wellbeing: a comparative evaluation.

Sounds like fetuses 'breath' the neonatal fluid.

Let me google that for you

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree I always find the arguments weak when someone insists on a teenager having a baby. If she decides to that should be her decision with (or even without) consultation with her family.

Abortion is not about the good vs the bad. Rather its about the less of 2 evils. Abortion of a teenage fetus in 95% of the cases is by far the less of the 2 evils.

Actually it is JD as usual attributing postions to people they don't have. Pretending that those of us who would like limitations to certain types of abortions are some sort of pregnant teenager hating monsters is a strawman (another concept JD needs to lookup considering the amount of times she has accused people of it), as is the notion that those of us with said position demand that all pregnant teens carry their pregnancies to term is pretty dishonest. The teenage brain is not developed enough for a teen to effectively grasp the consequences of what they do. Pretty hard to hold some deep seeded contempt for pregnant teens over that.

All that I anyway have ever contended is that the best decision be made for ALL parties involved. If done within a reasonable amount of time, that most certainly could include getting an abortion.

Oh, for God's sake, Cecile was the one who was whining about the teenage pregnancy rates, the murder rates, blah blah blah, as if anything she says has any semblance of truth TO it, anyways. I was talking to her, not you. But hey, go ahead and jump on the suicidal bandwagon of tossing ridiculous insults my way for no reason again- What do I care?? LOL!!

Shockingly (well, shocking to people with no moral compass, anyway), I don't consider the solution to teen pregnancy to be converting them to baby killers. Dead babies are not EVER the solution to any problem. It stuns me that I even have to utter that sentence, rather than living in a society where dead babies are just ruled out as a matter of course.

Oh, and you're mistaken about there being no reason why so many people are insulting you. YOU are the reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are projecting, Cecile.

A pregnant teen is in a lose lose situation, with bitches like you. If she so much as gewts pregnant, you will be a **** and tell her she is a whore, and worthless, etc. If she takes responsibility for her actions and aborts, you will be an even bigger **** and call her worse names.

Um, no, I don't tell women they're worthless whores for getting pregnant, particularly not if they take responsibility for their actions. However, if they selfishly kill an innocent baby for their own convenience and then have the utter, narcissistic gall to sit around telling me how proud they are of believing that they are the only person who matters, then I definitely tell them that they are worthless whores, because they are. And if you can't handle that, too freaking bad. I'll take my non-baby-killing bitchiness over your "I need the freedom to fuck any drunk loser I pick up in a bar" bitchiness any day of the week, especially if we're talking about setting an example for teenagers. If nothing else, I don't have to turn an Internet message board into my own personal group therapy session in order to justify my past to myself.

You stupid little dimbulb, You have said in other forums on here (in not so many words, but as a whole) that you would go to such lengths as to hurt your own children, if they chose to take the responsibility for the condition they had imposed on them and aborted. You clearly think that having an abortion is irresponsible, and that anyone who chooses to abort must be a whore who fucked some drunk loser or a whole plethora of them to get that way. It is, in your retarded little pea brain, entirely impossible for someone to be IN A RELATIONSHIP and have sex, and get pregnant and SIMPLY UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE NOT READY FOR KIDS, YOU SHRIVELED UP OLD CUNTWRINKLE.

IF I gave a shit what some psychotic person like yourself thought of MY abortion, why the fuck would I put MY picture on the board, for you to be forced to SHOW your regal cuntliness by saying all of these preposterous things to me while looking me directly in the eyes. You are one sick bitch, that's for sure.

Bottom line- A **** is a fucking ****.. LOL!!!

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself . . . because I'll be happy to do it for you. It's nice to know you can finally admit your role in the world, though.

Justify your own desires to hurt your children over your own pathological desires to kill all who dare to disagree with you, you fucking ****. Again, I do not care, lol

Given that you felt the need to tell the entire Internet how you screw around with abusive losers, killed your own baby because he had the gall to show up at a time that was not convenient to you, and have only allowed your other child to live because his timing is better, but are apparently subjecting him to ANOTHER abusive loser that you happen to be bumping uglies with, I think it's clear to everyone sane which one of us is most literally a "fucking ****".

But by all means, continue to think badly of me, because I would never, EVER want something like you to approve of me. You are the textbook definition of "example of what not to do".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, the attitude is "if they can't speak up for themselves, we don't give a rat's ass what they think about it."

Prove that they can think... Guess what? They CANT. And the only websites or "studies" on this shit that you people will ever find are on religion and pro life sites that are designed to feed false propaganda to people like you.

Science has come so far as to prove that fetuses do not need anesthesia, as they do not feel pain, and this is PROVEN. There is NO reason to believe that they can THINK.

We don't have to prove that they think. After all, you've proven that you CAN'T, but I assume you still think we should view your worthless, loser-humping life as worth something.

Face it, honey, "the right to screw worthless bastards" isn't exactly the Bill of Rights when it comes to getting people enthused.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, for God's sake, Cecile was the one who was whining about the teenage pregnancy rates, the murder rates, blah blah blah, as if anything she says has any semblance of truth TO it, anyways. I was talking to her, not you. But hey, go ahead and jump on the suicidal bandwagon of tossing ridiculous insults my way for no reason again- What do I care?? LOL!!

I told you the truth hurts more than anything. The FACT is you consistantly use terms incorrectly and make up definitions for them as you go along. By any objective observation you are a hypocrite. You have accussed me and others of straw man arguments several times, with out actually showing where or how I intentionally misrepresented your opinion. Then have the balls to resort to making straw man arguments yourself.

What do you expect from a woman who thinks it's more important that she not get stretch marks than that a human should live so that she can keep getting those awesome guys she likes- the ones who use her for her pussy and beat her (as she stated in a mysteriously vanishing post, she's been with several of them).

But hey, if it wasn't for "women" like JD, Yukon would have to settle for inflatable dates ALL the time.

 

[Yukon]

JD,

My child don't waste your time with facts. These people only believe in "invisable" people who live in the sky, and burning bushes issuing orders. In fact they are hate filled, Nazi zealots who want you and I and everyone to think, do, and act EXACTLY as they say.

 

[GHook93]

Sperm and eggs don't "like" anything, because they aren't organisms, and are incapable of thought or emotion. Biology 101.

Sperm and eggs are "alive" no? Sperm does have instinct to find the egg!

I find your attitude of "killing someone is okay, because once they're dead, they don't know the difference" to be intriguing, to say the least.

That is twisting what I said. I am a firm support of abortion in the 1st term! The second term only in the special circumstances (rape, incest or mother's life is in danger). And only in the 3rd term under the rarest circumstances (mother's life is in danger or a genetic defect is discovered).

See you don't see view the sperm and egg as alive, when technically both are. My opinion is I don't consider a fetus in as a person (in the first trimester) in the same sense you do, so I don't see it as murder.

However, in the context of putatively responding to my post, it's irrelevant and non-responsive. You appear to feel that death is better than adoption.

No rather, I feel its best to allow a women to choose freely (during the first trimester and limit it as the pregnancy goes on).

I have 3 kids myself and never thought about abortion. Nevertheless, I still think its a right people should have.

I pointed out that real, living people who were adopted would be very surprised by that opinion. I didn't say anything about what fetuses, aborted or not, might think.

I have a few cousins who have been adopted and they are firm (to my dismay) liberal Democrats. They support abortion. So go figure.

 

[JD_2B]

JD,

My child don't waste your time with facts. These people only believe in "invisable" people who live in the sky, and burning bushes issuing orders. In fact they are hate filled, Nazi zealots who want you and I and everyone to think, do, and act EXACTLY as they say.

Aint that the truth! Honestly, the more facts I give them, the worse of a person I seem to become, lol.. Its quite entertaining, though!!

 

[Bern80]

JD,

My child don't waste your time with facts. These people only believe in "invisable" people who live in the sky, and burning bushes issuing orders. In fact they are hate filled, Nazi zealots who want you and I and everyone to think, do, and act EXACTLY as they say.

It is at the very least helpful for JD that we have people like yourself to show her text book defintions of actual straw man arguments.

Much appreciated.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

JD,

My child don't waste your time with facts. These people only believe in "invisable" people who live in the sky, and burning bushes issuing orders. In fact they are hate filled, Nazi zealots who want you and I and everyone to think, do, and act EXACTLY as they say.

The only thing funnier (and more pathetic) than that post is that JD(who believes in invisible people and talking bushes) thanked you for it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Sperm and eggs don't "like" anything, because they aren't organisms, and are incapable of thought or emotion. Biology 101.

Sperm and eggs are "alive" no? Sperm does have instinct to find the egg!

Damn, you're stupid...

See you don't see view the sperm and egg as alive, when technically both are.

She didn't say they weren't alive. She said they aren't organisms.

I have 3 kids myself

Fuck. Who let that happen?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

JD,

My child don't waste your time with facts. These people only believe in "invisable" people who live in the sky, and burning bushes issuing orders. In fact they are hate filled, Nazi zealots who want you and I and everyone to think, do, and act EXACTLY as they say.

Aint that the truth! Honestly, the more facts I give them, the worse of a person I seem to become, lol.. Its quite entertaining, though!!

He attacks you and you applaud him?

 

[JD_2B]

A restaurant is built. The ovens are on, the stoves are burning, the refrigerator is going, and yet, no food is being served, no patrons are dining, etc, etc.
Just because something CAN does not mean it DOES. There is a moment of magic when a business cuts the tape and lets in customers for the first time. Suddenly, it becomes ALIVE. Before this moment, it was merely a functional work in the making. Anything could have destroyed it from coming to that moment. In hurricane Katrina, don't you think that there might have been one company that was going to be ready to open its doors for the first time, to the public, and whoosh, all of that work and effort and diligence came to a screeching halt in a manner of hours.

There is nothing else that happens between the duration of time when the business is being built and formed and created, and the time it actually becomes ALIVE, by doing actual business, besides the act of opening the front doors and saying Welcome.

I cannot describe any better than this the difference between a fetus and a baby who takes a breath. All I can give you is this analogy, and hope that you can understand the concept that there is ALWAYS a solitary act of immense strength, generosity, and acceptance for something to truly become alive. It is divine and beautiful and not the kind of thing that can be attributed to a fetus, which can "die" because the woman was chopped in two or blown to bits by an accident with a fuel truck on the way to the hospital. If it was a baby, a person, it could be covered with something, or saved by something, some freaky weird occurance that many people chalk up to being a miracle, even if it's mother died.

Your analogy is what is subjective you are trying to corelate to what you are now calling an act of divine intervention I guess. I understand perfectly that that is how it think it works. The problem is it just isn't any evidence that is so. It is divine now? This the JD argument of the moment? You accept God's will at that point, but not second prior? And I am the subjective one?

I don't specifically believe in God, in the traditional sense. I am agnostic. I do however believe that something important happens in that moment that could not possibly happen without a supreme being/ paranormal force.

Just because it has a brain, doesnt mean it thinks. Just because it has eyes, doesnt mean it sees. Just because it has ears, doesn't mean it hears. Just because it CAN be independent, doesn't mean it IS.

A fetus simply =/= a newborn, and the only thing separating the two is the one thing you cannot accept.. The breath.

I never argued the having those biological traits are what constitute personhood. THAT is a straw man argument.

You never argue anything. Thats your problem. All you do on here is bitch about other people's arguments, without gving any input of your own. You are a common troll.

Also, I am sick and damned tired of you "coming back" with some ridiculous "Oh you havent explained your case well enough." or some such thing. You Bern, have not listed a single medical journal to support your own claims, and all you have fucking done is try to SAY that based on your own personal and clearly subjective opinions, mine, and my medical journal research is "too difficult to understand" so you just brush it all off and constantly ask the same fucking questions over and fucking over, like a broken record. No, man- I am NOT going to spend the rest of MY life explaining and reexplaining this to you, just because you are to thick to fucking GET it. When you come back with something worth debating, and stop attacking my posts, probably out of a giddy trollish jolly you get from all of this, then I will talk again. Till then buzz off.

And I don't know how much more clearly it can be made for you. THE MEDICAL RESEARCH YOU POSTED DOES NOTHING FOR YOUR ARGUMENT. IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO YOUR ARGUMENT OF PERSONHOOD WHATSOEVER. SO FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP TRYING TO PRETEND IT HELPS YOUR POSITION.

I understand there are certain truths you don't accept. Fortunately for me that does not make them any less true. For example the truth is, like it or not, I don't have to prove my position to be right. All I have to do is prove yours wrong. That is getting easier by the moment since as far as i can tell now you are arguing that personhood requires divine intervention. Which unfortunately is impossible to know, making YOUR position the entirely subjective one.

SAYING that medical research is not true does not MAKE it untrue, you fucking zit. It certainly does not PROVE it wrong. Try adding something to the discussion on here, rather than acting like a pathetic whiny troll. You have dont nothing to further discusson on this topic, and everything to verily halt it from going further. You are NOT objective, you are a fucking retarded whiny little bitch, and as far as message boards go, you are a troll.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Don't waste your time on Proletarian or Cecile. Prolet has posted all of ONE opinion,

Yes, unlike you, I don't don't chave to change my argument every time someone points out that a dog



When another user asserted that a later point in time would be more in accordance with the available evidence, I simply asked for the poster's source so I could consider the poster's information. Such was not posted to my knowledge.

Both seem to be victims of the anti abortion haters of america, who do nothing but cause people to believe things that are not fact based, or scientific/ peer reviewed,

says the woman who thinks her dog can get her pregnant and dead babies grow

This peer reviewed genetics study shows that Humans and Dogs share the same ancestry. I can assure you, it may not be possible TODAY, but it has been possible in the past, as these recent genetics study show.

Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog : Article : Nature

 

[Bern80]

JD,

My child don't waste your time with facts. These people only believe in "invisable" people who live in the sky, and burning bushes issuing orders. In fact they are hate filled, Nazi zealots who want you and I and everyone to think, do, and act EXACTLY as they say.

Aint that the truth! Honestly, the more facts I give them, the worse of a person I seem to become, lol.. Its quite entertaining, though!!

What facts? You have not once supported your postion that personhood begins with the first breath with anything closely resembling a fact.

The legality of the issue is not fact based evidence of personhood.

Divine intervention is not fact based evidence of personhood.

What is hilarious is watching someone continually have to change their rationalization for a position. A woman can have an abortion anytime because the child is not autonomous, because it hasn't taken a breath yet, because divine intervention hasn't taken place. The list goes on and on. None of that changes the fact that you haven't been able to tell us why a person becomes a person at the point in time you defined. It is certainly convenient for your position on abortion, but there isn't any fact based evidence there to show that it was somehow less of a person mere seconds before.

None of this has to be subjective at all. If personhood is your qualifier for justifying when abortion can take place then all you have to do is show how a fetus does not meet that criteria of person as it is defined. One of the definitions of peson is 'a living human'. You agreed the fetus is human. That leaves alive. What does it mean to be alive? So ya look up the defintion for that word and explain why a fetus doesn't fit it.

What is somewhat more baffling is that this debate about when person becomes a person is only relevant if that matters to you from a legal perspective. You said it wouldn't. If for arguments sake we knew the truth was that a fetus is person sometime before birth, killing it should still not be a legal offense, you said. Correct me if I'm wrong. Which further begs the question why you continue to debate personhood. Why you continue to proport that you have evidence of this phenomenon that you don't.

[=SAYING that medical research is not true does not MAKE it untrue, you fucking zit. It certainly does not PROVE it wrong. Try adding something to the discussion on here, rather than acting like a pathetic whiny troll. You have dont nothing to further discusson on this topic, and everything to verily halt it from going further. You are NOT objective, you are a fucking retarded whiny little bitch, and as far as message boards go, you are a troll.

I'll add simply by suggesting that you read for comprehension. I did not say the authors of what you posted were wrong in what they wrote. I said YOU are wrong in believeing what they wrote supports your postion s of personhood.

How to best spell this out for you.....

You're postion is that personhood begins with the first breath. You posted articles that you claimed support that position. These articles talked about lung development. I accepted what was written as fact. What I don't accept via simple observation is that what they wrote speaks to YOUR definition of personhood. it simply doesn't.

I don't specifically believe in God, in the traditional sense. I am agnostic. I do however believe that something important happens in that moment that could not possibly happen without a supreme being/ paranormal force.

Then our religous beliefs are actually quite similar. If that is what you believe less any other quantifiable evidence are you not forced to admit that your defintion of when abortion is justified, is at best just as subjective as anyone elses? That is why I am serious when I ask are you interested in finding the truth or just rationalizing a belief?

You never argue anything. Thats your problem. All you do on here is bitch about other people's arguments, without gving any input of your own. You are a common troll.

Why is it you still can't hold yourself accountable for your actions? Why is it when called on making a straw man argumet you can't act like a grown up and admit to it? I have stated my argument several times. And I understand you don't like it, but one type of legitimate evidence for my position is showing that yours is wrong. My postion is pretty simple. It rests on the presumption that intentionally killing an innocent human being should be a legally punishable offense. IF a fetus at some point is a human being that killing it, born or not, should also be legally punishable. That can be countered a couple ways. Either factually and objectively show that a fetus is at no point in the pregnancy a human being. OR you can make the case that innocent human being or not, killing it should not be a legal offense.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The common ancestor was primates. Read the article. There is also evidence that suggests that humans and wolves procreated about 10,000- 14,000 years ago, which is thought to be how dogs were created in the first place. The only reason we don't know more than we do is because we lack sufficient technology to read the genetic sequences, in dogs and humans, because dogs have been reproduced so specifically within their breeds, that they have very breed specific genetics, and so each breed takes a lot of individual attention to check out their genomes.

PS- Don't respond to my posts if you dont agree and are just going to call me an idiot or something. My whole point to all that "dog- human breeding" comment was more of an illustration than anything. If a dog- human was inside of a person, would it then be a human being with rights?? Obviously that is beside the point, but I want to show how some people think that certain people have special rights over others. In your case, a fetus seems to have rights over a woman.

ctrl+f: 10,000

The current SNP map has sufficient density and an adequate within-breed polymorphism rate (

1/900 base pairs (bp) between breeds and

1/1,500 bp within breeds) to enable systematic association studies to map genes affecting traits of interest. Genotyping of

10,000 SNPs should suffice for most purposes.

Moreover, comparison of the boxer and standard poodle genome sequences reveals more than 10,000 insertion sites that are bimorphic, with thousands more certain to be segregating in the dog population16, 39. In contrast, the number of polymorphic SINE insertions in the human genome is estimated to be fewer than 1,000 (ref. 40).

The expected distribution based on 10,000 randomized trials

Whereas human association studies require >300,000 evenly spaced SNPs100, 106, 107, the fact that LD extends over at least 50-fold greater distances in dog suggests that dog association studies would require perhaps

10,000 evenly spaced SNPs.

The expected number of sets at a given z-score threshold was estimated by repeating steps (1)–(4) 10,000 times for groups of 4,950 randomly permuted gene sets.

The history of the domestic dog traces back at least 15,000 years, and possibly as far back as 100,000 years, to its original domestication from the grey wolf in East Asia1, 2, 3, 4. Dogs evolved through a mutually beneficial relationship with humans, sharing living space and food sources.

Nowhere does it say caveman got knocked up by wolves.
The dog is similarly important for the comparative analysis of mammalian genome biology and evolution. The four mammalian genomes that have been intensely analysed to date (human20, 21, 22, chimpanzee23, mouse24 and rat25) represent only one clade (Euarchontoglires) out of the four clades of placental mammals. The dog represents the neighbouring clade, Laurasiatheria26. It thus serves as an outgroup to the Euarchontoglires and increases the total branch length of the current tree of fully sequenced mammalian genomes, thereby providing additional statistical power to search for conserved functional elements in the human genome24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33. It also helps us to draw inferences about the common ancestor of the two clades, called the boreoeutherian ancestor, and provides a bridge to the two remaining clades (Afrotheria and Xenarthra) that should be helpful for anchoring low-coverage genome sequence currently being produced from species such as elephant and armadillo28.

Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog : Article : Nature

Nowhere did it say any of the things you said.

Did you read the article?

Reading Comprehension - Free Worksheets

Reading Comprehension - Printables & Worksheets

Reading Comprehension, Lesson Plans, Games and Worksheets

Reading Comprehension Worksheets

 

[Ipsl]

Its not my place to tell someone else to do to their body.

 

[Bern80]

Its not my place to tell someone else to do to their body.

Why do people keep making this asanine argument? Im pretty libertarian myself I don't believe in laws whos only purpose is to protect people from their own stupidity. Do whatever the fuck you want to do yourself. I don't give a shit. Stop with the sanctimonious drivel above. No one is arguing agaisnt it.

I, and socities governed by laws in general, give a shit when what you do to yourself starts to negatively effect OTHER people. This isn't about what I think woman should be able to do to themselves. It's about what they can do to OTHERS.