Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
Ask the normal mother who has priority.The woman, in the vast majority of cases, can take care of herself during the pregnancy. Not true for the baby. So the "priority" is the baby. No brainer. Doesn't mean we diminish the mother...she is precious but the concern is the child...in most cases. That's true no matter what Hillary says.
That absolutely diminishes her.
Ask any woman.
Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
I didn't say they don't attack the 'personhood' issue. I said / meant pro-abortionists do not feel the same way as Hillary and are pissed Hillary just gave pro-lifers 'ammo' by ADMITTING some BABIES (not fetus) being killed ARE 'Persons'.Oh? They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"? Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
I didn't say they don't attack the 'personhood' issue. I said / meant pro-abortionists do not feel the same way as Hillary and are pissed Hillary just gave pro-lifers 'ammo' by ADMITTING some BABIES (not fetus) being killed ARE 'Persons'.Oh? They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"? Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
I wasn't aware we were talking about Hillary and her personal positions. I could have sworn we were talking about an issue, not personality politics.
Thanks for defending me, Jake, right before proving how wrong you are regarding qualifying my statement. What you meant to say is that I would never be able to quantify my statement to your personal standard. Not my problem - I could care less what you think or what your standard is, Have a nice day.The meaningless opinion is what you are dishing Cecilie1200.
I asked him to qualify his rant. He won't because he can't.
Lying to yourself means nothing to the rest of us. You can't argue intelligibly is your problem. Always has been.Thanks for defending me, Jake, right before proving how wrong you are regarding qualifying my statement. What you meant to say is that I would never be able to quantify my statement to your personal standard. Not my problem - I could care less what you think or what your standard is, Have a nice day.The meaningless opinion is what you are dishing Cecilie1200.
I asked him to qualify his rant. He won't because he can't.
Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
Oh? They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"? Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person. In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
The law is what counts.Personhood and rights have nothing to do with science.Do you know why the pro-abortion side of the debate went to the fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument?
The pro-abortion side has not gone to the 'fuzzy-wuzzy, pseudo-philosophical "personhood" argument'. They are PISSED at Hillary for daring to say what she did. Opening the door to the consideration that a living being capable of surviving outside the womb is a 'PERSON' and thus worthy of rights - such as the right to LIFE, threatens everything Pro-Abortionists stand and have fought so hard for.
Oh? They don't try to frame every debate as being about "personhood"? Isn't that the heart of the "pissed off" you say they're feeling at Hillary, because she might have messed up their vague "based on feelz" argument?
I can't even remember the last time I had a debate with a pro-abort that didn't degenerate into "Well, I just can't see a blob of cells as a person. In my opinion, it may be alive, but it's only really a PERSON when [fill in the blank]", because they got their asses handed to them on the science.
You saying DNA dosnt matter, when it's your unique DNA that determines you are an individual, from momont of conception, untill you die. Saying other wise is just simply wrongDNA says no to that, once again dependence, dosnt qualify exsistsnceAn organism that requires another organism's body for every function of life is not a seperate organism.
DNA is irrelevant when it's growing in another beings body.
DNA is only irrelevant to idiots who think "I FEEL it should be this way" is meaningful.
Chiken stated a scientific fact. You retorted with a perception with no scientific basis. You "feelz" that life is determined like real estate: location, location, location. You "feelz" that the definition of "organism" should include a clause about dependence. It doesn't.
You're 0 for 2 so far.
DNA is irrelevant. There are species which can reproduce through cloning rather than male/female fertilization. The offspring it carries is genetically identical. Unique DNA does not give that organism any special rights to another's body.
The quilt of murdering your own baby is running deep on this thread.
Ten thousand threads attempting to justify murdering a baby will never help.
That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.except its unborn ones, right?The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens. Always.
illogical argument. Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't. Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being entitled to constitutional rights. Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
Birth.
So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does? Do you really believe that?
well technically the baby IS part of the mothers body. AND the fathers body. If you dont believe me do a DNA test.
however the moment the baby is born, then yes it is a seperate "organism" like the rest of us
No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense. Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them. I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
You are not a seperate organism until you are born. It's pretty obvious. If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
Show me the science, or stuff your baseless assertions where the sun don't shine.
I get almighty tired of uneducated dinks stating bullshit at me as fact.
I'm not to impressed with you either, but I'm an optimist.
You may get a happy from "cleverly" referring to women as "hosts", implying that babies are parasites, but the fact is that all you're really saying is that a fetus's natural environment is a womb. Just to clarify another thing you probably missed in biology class, ALL organisms die if you remove them from their natural environment.
A fetus takes it's entire life from the mother - oxygen, nutrition, removal of toxins etc. It does not function as an independent being until it's born. It has NO rights to the mother's body.
All organisms do not die when you remove them from their natural environment - that is false. For example, every domestic animal species was once a wild species, removed from it's natural environment and domesticated.
Let me spell this out for you: when I say "show me the science", I don't mean "tell me the half-assed assumptions you made that you think are logic". I mean SCIENCE. That is going to require you to find a source that is NOT YOU, because nothing you have to say is scientific in the slightest.
My you make demands, considering you're sole source thus far has been...well...you.
Ooh, look, more "This is how I perceive it, so it must be OBVIOUS, and LOGICAL, and that makes it SCIENCE!"
Let me show you how this is done, since education in anything but throwing tantrums clearly passed you by.
Organism - An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. Organism - Biology-Online Dictionary
See anything in there about dependence? Me neither.
"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
Hmmm. Looks like a scientific report that disagrees with you.
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
Still batting 0 with the embryologists, it seems.
So let's move on to natural environment, because you seem to think it's a difference between "outdoors" and "indoors".
All organisms are designed to live in a certain type of environment. Fish, for example, are designed to live underwater, and will die if you remove them from it. Likewise for marine mammals. Furthermore, those animals designed by nature to live in water can only do so in certain types: some can only live in freshwater, some only in salt. Some can only live in water at lighter pressures (near the surface, in other words), some are designed to live with greater pressure. If you remove any of them from the environment they're designed for, they will die.
Human beings are land animals, designed to live surrounded by air and subject to normal land gravity. If you remove a human from an environment surrounded by air, he will die. Likewise, if you remove humans from normal land gravity for any great length of time without compensating technology, it is also detrimental to their health and potentially life-threatening.
Also, land animals are designed for different types of environment on land. While penguins, for example, can survive quite happily in Antarctic conditions, very few other animals can without technological compensations. Meanwhile, penguins cannot live outside of that environment without human intervention.
Meanwhile, some animals are designed to live in one type of environment at one stage of their life cycle, and another at a different stage. Most tadpoles, for example, are aquatic. During that stage of their lives, they cannot live outside of water. When they leave that life stage and metamorphose into frogs or toads, their natural environment changes.
There are many species of organism for whom their natural environment is the body of another organism. If you remove them from that environment, they will die.
In the case of the fetuses of animals which birth live young, as humans do, their natural environment is the body of their progenitor until they outgrow that stage in their life cycle, at which time their natural environment changes.
This shouldn't be difficult for a leftist to grasp: it's an integral part of the environmentalist/animal rights platform. It's the reason why the EPA has regulations allowing it to seize control of specific pieces of land with endangered species on them: because those species can't live outside of THAT environment.
This is a sincere poll. I would appreciate honest answers. If you're willing, I would also appreciate your reasons. I will not criticize your choice. I would just honestly like to know where USMB posters stand on this issue.
First priority under what circumstance? If there's a circumstance where being pregnant is putting a woman's life a risk, most people on both sides of the debate can agree the woman's life is the first priority.
In other words, you don't believe the choice is totally up to the woman?
I'd say no more than we think the "choice" to kill any other human being resides solely with the killer-to-be.
Who has the right to force a woman to house a fetus in her body against her will?
who has the right to force a woman to feed, clothe, bathe, and nurture a child for 18 years? Why not just let the mother kill the kid whenever it becomes too inconvenient to keep it?
You ought to have sent your sermon about how three month old babies aren't human beings to BONOBO.The quilt of murdering your own baby is running deep on this thread.
Ten thousand threads attempting to justify murdering a baby will never help.
No matter how many times you attempt to equate terminating a pregnancy with murdering a child and it's not. Child is a living breathing entity. Ending a pregnancy is preventing the fertilized egg from becoming a child.
One third of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. God never intended every fertilized egg to end in a live birth.
Conservatives should focus their energies on providing for the already living children - ensuring better education opportunities for the poor to help them realize their potential. As it stands, conservatives care about children only as long as they are in t
That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.except its unborn ones, right?
illogical argument. Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't. Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being entitled to constitutional rights. Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
Birth.
So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does? Do you really believe that?
In Bibilical times, children under one year of age, weren't counted in the census.
Babies aren't aborted 5 seconds before birth. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester of pregnancy. Abortions which occur later in the pregnancy are usually because of fetal abnormalities or health risks to the mother.
Your deep quilt is showing.No, he isn't, not technically or in any other sense. Try to comprehend the difference between being related to someone, and being part of them. I share DNA with my brother and sister, but I can assure you I'm not part of THEM.
If you want to tell us what is "technical", Dr. Schweizer, why don't you explain the "technical" science that tells you a baby is a separate organism only from birth?
You are not a seperate organism until you are born. It's pretty obvious. If you were, you would not die upon being removed from your host.
Show me the science, or stuff your baseless assertions where the sun don't shine.
I get almighty tired of uneducated dinks stating bullshit at me as fact.
I'm not to impressed with you either, but I'm an optimist.
You may get a happy from "cleverly" referring to women as "hosts", implying that babies are parasites, but the fact is that all you're really saying is that a fetus's natural environment is a womb. Just to clarify another thing you probably missed in biology class, ALL organisms die if you remove them from their natural environment.
A fetus takes it's entire life from the mother - oxygen, nutrition, removal of toxins etc. It does not function as an independent being until it's born. It has NO rights to the mother's body.
All organisms do not die when you remove them from their natural environment - that is false. For example, every domestic animal species was once a wild species, removed from it's natural environment and domesticated.
Let me spell this out for you: when I say "show me the science", I don't mean "tell me the half-assed assumptions you made that you think are logic". I mean SCIENCE. That is going to require you to find a source that is NOT YOU, because nothing you have to say is scientific in the slightest.
Ooh, look, more "This is how I perceive it, so it must be OBVIOUS, and LOGICAL, and that makes it SCIENCE!"
Let me show you how this is done, since education in anything but throwing tantrums clearly passed you by.
You seem to be the only one throwing tantrums around here.
Organism - An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. Organism - Biology-Online Dictionary
See anything in there about dependence? Me neither.
"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
It says nothing one way or the other about "dependency". It also says nothing a out DNA. I have to laugh at your pretention to "science" since all you are doing is spouting quotes without context, which most likely means you cut and pasted them from a pro-life source, correct? Some of them are 40 years old even. Is this where you found them? (they're all there....) 41 Quotes From Medical Textbooks Prove Human Life Begins at Conception
Let's look at what constitutes an organism:
Homeostasis:
Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail.
...The control of body temperature in humans is a good example of homeostasis in a biological system. In humans, normal body temperature fluctuates around the value of 37 °C (98.6 °F), but various factors can affect this value, including exposure, hormones, metabolic rate, and disease, leading to excessively high or low temperatures. The body’s temperature regulation is controlled by a region in the brain called the hypothalamus. Feedback about body temperature is carried through the bloodstream to the brain and results in compensatory adjustments in the breathing rate, the level of blood sugar, and the metabolic rate. Heat loss in humans is aided by reduction of activity, by perspiration, and by heat-exchange mechanisms that permit larger amounts of blood to circulate near the skin surface.
Can a blastocyst maintain essential homeostasis necessary for survival? An embryo? A fetus? It can not regulate it's own body temperature the mother's body does that for it. It's referred to as a "developing organism" isn't it?
Hmmm. Looks like a scientific report that disagrees with you.
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
Still batting 0 with the embryologists, it seems.
...again..."the development of"... if it doesn't implant, it can not maintain life. Is a zygote an independent organism?
So let's move on to natural environment, because you seem to think it's a difference between "outdoors" and "indoors".
All organisms are designed to live in a certain type of environment. Fish, for example, are designed to live underwater, and will die if you remove them from it. Likewise for marine mammals. Furthermore, those animals designed by nature to live in water can only do so in certain types: some can only live in freshwater, some only in salt. Some can only live in water at lighter pressures (near the surface, in other words), some are designed to live with greater pressure. If you remove any of them from the environment they're designed for, they will die.
Human beings are land animals, designed to live surrounded by air and subject to normal land gravity. If you remove a human from an environment surrounded by air, he will die. Likewise, if you remove humans from normal land gravity for any great length of time without compensating technology, it is also detrimental to their health and potentially life-threatening.
Also, land animals are designed for different types of environment on land. While penguins, for example, can survive quite happily in Antarctic conditions, very few other animals can without technological compensations. Meanwhile, penguins cannot live outside of that environment without human intervention.
Meanwhile, some animals are designed to live in one type of environment at one stage of their life cycle, and another at a different stage. Most tadpoles, for example, are aquatic. During that stage of their lives, they cannot live outside of water. When they leave that life stage and metamorphose into frogs or toads, their natural environment changes.
There are many species of organism for whom their natural environment is the body of another organism. If you remove them from that environment, they will die.
I'm in total agreement with the above, though "natural environment" is much broader than you put forth.
In the case of the fetuses of animals which birth live young, as humans do, their natural environment is the body of their progenitor until they outgrow that stage in their life cycle, at which time their natural environment changes.
So..you are essentially saying it is a parasite.
...an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
This shouldn't be difficult for a leftist to grasp: it's an integral part of the environmentalist/animal rights platform. It's the reason why the EPA has regulations allowing it to seize control of specific pieces of land with endangered species on them: because those species can't live outside of THAT environment.
Fair point
That is the choice of the the mother, not the state.except its unborn ones, right?The state has the obligation for the welfare of its citizens. Always.
illogical argument. Either the unborn human being is a human being or it isn't. Tell us the exact moment when a fetus becomes a human being entitled to constitutional rights. Does it magically occur at 6 months, 9 months, the instant of birth, severing the umbilical cord?
Birth.
So, five seconds before birth the child has no rights but 5 seconds later it does? Do you really believe that?
Only a fool would argue that a fetus isn't a potential human being. I catch hell from the right to lifers, but I consider a fetus a baby when I can hear two heartbeats from a woman.
And you base that arbitrary standard on what science, exactly?
According to science, no one human being has two hearts.
Who said they did? The question was - and thank you so much for trying to dodge it - on what science do you base your arbitary opinion (as though the existence of life is a mere opinion) that "a fetus is a baby when I can hear two heartbeats"? What was the fetus before? And before you answer, please remember to show your science for THAT opinion, too.
You may not have noticed that I said when "I can hear two heartbeats." That does not include using ultrasound or a stethoscope.
"As early as the sixth week of pregnancy, when the embryo is four weeks old, a vaginal ultrasound may detect a fetal heartbeat and show it as a regular flutter, says the American Pregnancy Association. By the seventh week, detection of a heartbeat is likely. You can hear your unborn baby's heartbeat with a stethoscope by 17 to 20 weeks of pregnancy."
Amazingly enough, "But I'm counting it REALLY EARLY" in no way answers the questions.
One more time for the cojone-impaired, and let's see if you can address it head-on and honestly this time: on what science do you base your opinion that a fetus is a baby when it has a heartbeat? If it wasn't a baby before that, what was it? And whatever your answer to that second question, what is the science for THAT?
