Home - List All Discussions

Does a baby pee and poop in the womb?

Question please

by: ladyredhawk

Does a baby pee and poop in the womb?

reply from: AshMarie88

lol... What kind of question is this?
I don't know tho. They smile, they cry, they breathe, they "eat", they hiccup, and other stuff like that, so it may be possible.

reply from: AshMarie88

(Is it just me, or is it weird the last 2 new people have had the computer icon as their avatar, then they disappear? NewPoster1 has the same one.)

reply from: Shiprahagain

A baby's waste is taken away by the placenta and the mom "pees and poops" it out. But that is a good question LOL.

reply from: coco

I think then a pro choice advocate will argue that this proves that the mother is a host. It maybe but I still think stopping a pregnancy kills an infant

reply from: AshMarie88

I think then a pro choice advocate will argue that this proves that the mother is a host. It maybe but I still think stopping a pregnancy kills an infant
Actually, not all pregnancy terminations kill babies.
Birthing a baby terminates the pregnancy, but it's an okay termination.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I think then a pro choice advocate will argue that this proves that the mother is a host. It maybe but I still think stopping a pregnancy kills an infant
No, the mom isn't a host, b/c the baby isn't a parasite
A FETUS IS NOT A PARASITE
by Dr. Thomas L. Johnson

1.a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an
organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its
nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng,
T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
2.a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
3.a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.
b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually
cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not
maintained by the mother.
4.a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).
b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the
mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own
amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
5.a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
6.a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming
antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body
of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the
parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
7.a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
8.a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother,
remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.
[This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary
Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.

reply from: bradensmommy

I saw my son get an erection and then pee on the ultrasound so yeah it happens!

reply from: yoda

The "water" that fills the amniotic sac is waste water from the baby, from what I read. But no solid waste is usually generated until after birth, because there's no "fiber" in the nutrients that the placenta filters out from Mom's blood.

reply from: domsmom

Yeah, what yoda said. They urinate, and amniotic fluid is made up partly of urine, I have no idea the percentage, its small though. They usually wont poop (meconium) unless they're under stress. My last 2 had meconium (such a nicer word!) when the docs broke my water. This usually means the babes are under some kind of physiological stress; like from contactions during labor usually.

reply from: Mummyof4

"The amniotic fluid has many purposes. It helps to cushion hard blows and jolts to your belly in order to protect the baby while in the amniotic sac. It allows your baby the freedom to move while permitting symmetrical musculoskeletal development. It holds the temperature even so that your baby does not get too hot or two cold, even if you are extremely hot or cold.
Amniotic fluid also helps your baby develop his lungs. While in the womb your baby practices breathing by breathing in and out the water in the amniotic sac. The baby swallows and inhales the amniotic fluid and replaces the volume in the amniotic sac by urinating and exhaling the liquid. "
If the baby poops in the womb, there is something wrong. It can happen during delivery and there is a chance the baby can "breathe" it which would be BAD, but the doc's know what to do to help.
The amniotic fluid is not made up of pee, like Yodavader said. Also, to correct him (?), the baby does have poop in the bowels and excrets that shortly after birth if all goes well. (it is black and very sticky) And, like I said, it can poop in the womb, but that means something is very wrong. If your bag of waters breaks and it looks green, then the baby has pooped and you need to contact your doc ASAP.

reply from: faithman

Seems like talk about babies always ends at the poop issue. Further proof that womb children are persons, and just as full of it as the rest of us.

reply from: faithman

Seems like talk about babies always ends at the poop issue. Further proof that womb children are persons, and just as full of it as the rest of us.

reply from: Sigma

The fetus is in a parasitic relationship with the woman, however. It is generally detrimental to her physical health and cannot support it's own life-functions, at least during the time frame the vast majority of abortions are done.
It just isn't of a different species.

reply from: AshMarie88

The fetus is in a parasitic relationship with the woman, however. It is generally detrimental to her physical health and cannot support it's own life-functions, at least during the time frame the vast majority of abortions are done.
It just isn't of a different species.
It's LIKE a parasitic relationship, but it is NOT one.

reply from: Sigma

The relationship is a parasitic symbiotic relationship. Were the fetus a different species it would be a parasite, but is not because it is of the same species and the woman is reproducing. The fetus is not a literal parasite.
The relationship is a parasitic one, however.

reply from: AshMarie88

The relationship is a parasitic symbiotic relationship. Were the fetus a different species it would be a parasite, but is not because it is of the same species and the woman is reproducing. The fetus is not a literal parasite.
The relationship is a parasitic one, however.
If it's a parasitic relationship then it must also mean there is an actual parasite involved.
There isn't tho, so it's not actually that relationship.

reply from: yoda

Have you noticed that siggy likes to be technical at times (when he thinks it's to his advantage), and colloquial at other times (like now)?
Technically, no gestating baby of any animal species is a parasite, because it's of the same species. But in the vernacular/colloquial sense, almost anyone can be a "parasite" if they live off someone else.
So siggy wants to have it both ways, of course..... right now he's pretending not to know the technical definition of a parasite....... isn't he cute when he's playing dumb?

reply from: Sigma

The relationship is generally defined as one member has a benefit while the other has a detriment in a close ecological relationship. This does accurately apply to the pregnancy relationship.
A parasite, however, would have to be of a different species.

reply from: bradensmommy

The relationship is generally defined as one member has a benefit while the other has a detriment in a close ecological relationship. This does accurately apply to the pregnancy relationship.
A parasite, however, would have to be of a different species.
Finally you are admitting that an unborn child is not a parasite. I am being serious in my post because I believe in your past posts you have said something similar to a fetus being a parasite. You and I both know that is not true.

reply from: Sigma

If you ask me directly I would have told you before. The fetus is not a literal parasite. I cite that the relationship is a parasitic one because it seems to me that pro-life people tend to romanticise pregnancy. It does have detrimental ramifications to the woman.

reply from: bradensmommy

If you ask me directly I would have told you before. The fetus is not a literal parasite. I cite that the relationship is a parasitic one because it seems to me that pro-life people tend to romanticise pregnancy. It does have detrimental ramifications to the woman.
Well, unless you have been pregnant, been in labor, and had a baby come out of your vagina you know nothing about pregnancy. I'm on my second child and being pregnant is wonderful. Its a shame that alot of people who are pro-choice men and women who have never been pregnant want to think pregnancy is a 9 month sentence. I think if you ever had a living being in your womb you'd think otherwise.

reply from: Sigma

First off, shouldn't it be up to the woman who is pregnant whether or not her pregnancy is wonderful? Wouldn't you hate it if someone came up to you and said "Pregnancy isn't wonderful, what are you talking about!". Some women might feel the same if you came up to them and said "Pregnancy isn't ______, it's wonderful!"
Just as others cannot tell you what pregnancy is or isn't, you cannot tell other women what pregnancy is or isn't to them. Some do not want to be pregnant. Give others the respect you ask for.
Secondly, are you telling me that unless I have been pregnant I cannot have an opinion on abortion?

reply from: bradensmommy

First off, shouldn't it be up to the woman who is pregnant whether or not her pregnancy is wonderful? Wouldn't you hate it if someone came up to you and said "Pregnancy isn't wonderful, what are you talking about!". Some women might feel the same if you came up to them and said "Pregnancy isn't ______, it's wonderful!"
Just as others cannot tell you what pregnancy is or isn't, you cannot tell other women what pregnancy is or isn't to them. Some do not want to be pregnant. Give others the respect you ask for.
Secondly, are you telling me that unless I have been pregnant I cannot have an opinion on abortion?
Sigma, unless you are raped you CHOSE to have sex. What happens when you have sex? It doesn't matter if you were using protection or not, there is still that possibility. Pregnancy is different for every woman but you should not have one opinion about it, especially if you never have been pregnant.
You have an opinion on abortion but you do not have an opinion on pregnancy unless you have experienced it for yourself. You do not know if its wonderful or if it sucks. There have been times where I wished the baby was already out but NO I would never have the option to kill it just because I wanted the baby out now, that is a very selfish answer to the problem. The first trimester is a pain but afterwards it is better.
Pregnancy was both a pain (literally) and a joy for me and for my friends. If you are a woman, I would never want you to become pregnant because you seem too selfish and full of negativity about something like this. The baby wouldn't live to see his/her birth because of your attitude.
You may have an opinion on abortion but you won't have one on pregnant. It is not a prison sentence so stop treating it as such.
I really wish you would stop having such negative remarks about pregnancy, it really is not that bad.

reply from: Sigma

You're absolutely right. In fact, even if I were pregnant I never would be able to tell you how good or bad it is for you.
This may be. I wouldn't want anyone to have children if they are at a point in life where they're selfish. Pregnancy and motherhood do require a degree of selflessness. I applaud that you are so selfless, I really do. I respect mothers that put their all into raising their children.
I know it comes across that way, but I really don't have a bad opinion about pregnancy. I just don't think that anyone can tell a woman what her pregnancy is or isn't. To some pregnancy is not pleasant at all and isn't worth going through. To you and many women pregnancy has its pain but it is ultimately worth it. It completely depends on the woman.

reply from: galen

I have to say that Siggy gets to have an opinion just like every one else.. pregnancy is not always the best thing for everyone.
That said...
Bradensmommy is correct that with the exception of rape every woman who is pregnant did commit the act to get her that way. in this day and age you can not say you do not know sex=pregnancy. sooooo its definately not an excuse for abortion to be legal. if you don't want a baby don't have sex.. pretty simple really.
even for vader .
Mary

reply from: Sigma

I see. The pregnant woman, then, 'volunteered' in the sense that she chose to have sex and ran the risk of getting pregnant. This is not an argument that because the fetus is an innocent human life, then all abortion must be prohibited. Rather it suggests an argument that the woman is 'responsible' for the pregnancy, that she loses at least her moral right to claim that its continuation interferes with her autonomy. This same moral view would seem to require an exception from any ban on abortion not only when the pregnancy resulted from a sex act forced upon a woman but also when it resulted from the failure of a conscientiously used, ordinarily effective means of birth control. With no intent to become pregnant, and a conscientiously performed act to prevent this pregnancy would require the same exception that rape would require.
This of course suggests that your argument is not in response to the voluntary nature of a woman's pregnancy, but the voluntary nature of the sex act in which she engaged. This, in turn, suggests that your views are driven less by the 'innocence' of the fetus as it is by the supposed 'guilt' of the woman. Pregnancy, it would seem at the conclusion of this reasoning, is then legislated as a consequence of this guilt, but pregnancy should not be used as punishment for voluntary sex.

reply from: galen

death should never be legislated as punishment for the fetut's mother's irresponsibility, or ( in the case of rape, the fathers). moraly i can have it both ways... I am not a lawyer and i do not live my life that way.
And Yes she volunteers every time she acts in a way that will possibly result in the conception of a child. that's a fact of nature. she came into this world a woman... if she does not ever wish to bear children she can either not have sex or be sterilized... those are the only 2 sure fire ways pregnancy won't occur. otherwise she gambles... and when you loose gambleing there are consequences to those actions...one should not be the death of an innocent. The child does not conn its way into her womb. she commits an act that places it there... should the child die because she was in love ( or heat)?
but we have had this argument before.
mary

reply from: Sigma

Death is not legislated. The legislature is not involved at all. That's the way it should be. To disallow abortion would be legislating pregnancy as a consequence to this 'guilt' of the woman's when she engaged in sex. But sex is not a crime.
Perhaps she should, but this never (I hope) can be enforced by law. A woman's reproductive organs are her own. The gov't cannot tell her who may use them. You're right, we've had the argument before.

reply from: bradensmommy

Sigma, you are not getting the point. Everyone has a responsibility. Unfortunately we can get rid of responsibilities by "removing the problem". If my son got his girlfriend pregnant, I truly believe it is his responsibility to do what is right. I hope his girlfriend makes the right choice and takes responsibility for her decision to have sex with my son. I cannot make the girlfriend keep the child but I can help her in her decision on what to do. I would hope next time if they decide to have sex that they will be more careful.
Pregnancy is not a punishment for anything. When a couple has sex either consentually or not, once the sperm gets in the egg it is fertilized just like when pollen arises, it will hit flowers to produce more flowers. That is the cycle of life. OMG, I feel like I'm a sex ed teacher...
But EVEN if a woman is raped she needs to go to the doc ASAP, if she gets the Plan B drug or the morning after then thats her decision. If she waits til the baby has a heartbeat, well then yeah, that is definately murder and not right.
I know you have some kind of heart, I'd like to see it once on this board.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

The fetus is in a parasitic relationship with the woman, however. It is generally detrimental to her physical health and cannot support it's own life-functions, at least during the time frame the vast majority of abortions are done.
It just isn't of a different species.
No, in a parasitic relationship, the host either slowly dies by the parasite eating off of it or the host gets seriously ill from the parasite eating off of it. Anyways, parasites don't belong in women's bodies, whereas a baby does.

reply from: galen

Consequences are not punishments... they are the end result of prior acts..
if i mix together batter to make a cake.. i get a yummy treat and dishes to wash. Neither are a punishment or reward necissarily they are both consequences.
mary

reply from: bradensmommy

well, the cake is yummy but washing the dishes is the consequence of making the yummy food!
People who take responsibilities for their actions are good people.

reply from: Sigma

I agree. Would you agree that the gov't does not exist to enforce personal responsibility?
I know how pregnancy occurs, but thank you
Your stance is that this life should not be killed. That is defensible, and I also believe there is a point where it cannot be morally (imo) killed. Why, though, does a heartbeat mean it cannot be killed? I would believe that after it has the brain to be conscious we have a morally responsibility since it then has a capacity for thought (along the I think therefore I am mentality I guess), but a heartbeat doesn't seem important enough to say "This is a new person". Someone could be brain dead but have a heartbeat, after all.

reply from: Sigma

A parasite that kills the host is a pretty poor parasite That is predation. A parasite wants the host to live so the parasite can live off that host.
The fetus 'belongs' in the woman's body in what way?

reply from: Sigma

It is when they become an unwanted legal consequences because of a previous act that it becomes a punishment for that act.
Now imagine the police coming in if you do not wash your dishes. The fact that you made a cake means you have to wash the dishes, legally. Washing the dishes, if unwanted, becomes a punishment for you making a cake.

reply from: galen

yes but we don't tear the brain dead people limb for limb even when we have proof that they feel pain. dead is dead.. its not alive.. brain dead is not the same as in the process of growing up. One is a begining with a period of life ahead of it. one is bilogically functioning , but not ever going to resurrect.
mary

reply from: Sigma

That's true, we don't. However, if we did, is it the same as if we tore me limb from limb? Legally, I mean, since I'm not sure you'd mind if I were (j/k)
When someone is brain dead, they no longer are morally the same as someone who is capable of thought, desires and feelings. That is why I assign importance to the brain instead of the heart.
Well, lets say that we clone the brain of a brain dead patient and put that brain in the living body. Did we resurrect the same person? I would say no, it is now a different person. The personality that was is gone. What we have now is someone with the same DNA and body who has an infantile mind ready to learn and grow anew.

reply from: bradensmommy

I agree. Would you agree that the gov't does not exist to enforce personal responsibility?
I know how pregnancy occurs, but thank you
Your stance is that this life should not be killed. That is defensible, and I also believe there is a point where it cannot be morally (imo) killed. Why, though, does a heartbeat mean it cannot be killed? I would believe that after it has the brain to be conscious we have a morally responsibility since it then has a capacity for thought (along the I think therefore I am mentality I guess), but a heartbeat doesn't seem important enough to say "This is a new person". Someone could be brain dead but have a heartbeat, after all.
Right, and some people claim that life begins at conception and others believe it starts when the heart beats. Scientific claim states that it does start at conception. I have done the research which is why I'm not pro-choice. I would never want a woman to have an abortion but you have stated (without saying) that you don't mind.
Do you still want women to have an abortion or would you like them less often?

reply from: LetFreedomRing

No, there are some parasites that kill their hosts, even if they are idiots
It belongs in the woman's body meaning that there is a special part in the female body made especially for carrying children, and that a woman's body is built for childbearing.

reply from: Sigma

What? Why are you talking about 'when life begins'? I agree that it is alive at conception, but we're talking about when it cannot be morally killed. You stated that after the heart begins beating it is morally wrong, and I'm asking you why the heartbeat is significant.
I don't want any woman to have an abortion. I don't think the gov't should have the authority to stop women from getting them. I want women to stop wanting to get them, so that would put me in the second category.

reply from: Sigma

Such as?
This would not be the norm of parasitism. Parasites generally do not kill their hosts, even if they are a detriment to the hosts.
Yes, a woman's body can indeed accomodate the fetus. Her uterus, however, does not belong to the developing fetus. It belongs to the woman. She does not have to share it.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/pests/e1229w.htm

You're right, she doesn't. She doesn't HAVE to have sex and get pregnant, you know.

reply from: Sigma

Parasitism is a type of symbiosis. Parasites are not pathogens for being parasitic, they would only be labelled a pathogen if they cause a disease. Parasites do not generally kill their hosts by being parasitic.
Very true. Having sex does not mean her uterus now belongs to the fetus, however. Her uterus still belongs to her, and she still does not need to share it if she does not wish to. Having sex, whether she has to or not, does not affect this.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

But sex is connected to pregnancy. You can't just have sex and expect not to get pregnant, even if you're using every type of contraception out there. The womb is an unborn child's home, it's place of living. Killing it is infringing upon it's rights.

reply from: galen

i agree w/ LFR.
mary

reply from: Sigma

Realistically, yes you can. Since the chance of getting pregnant when using 2 or more types of birth control is effectively zero, it would be an aberration to get pregnant in that situation. It is perfectly reasonable to not expect or intend to become pregnant and yet have sex. They are not the same thing.
It is the fetus' nothing. It belongs to the fetus in no fashion whatsoever. It is the woman's uterus. Unless she signs a legal document allowing the fetus to reside there you have no basis claiming it belongs to the fetus in any way, shape or form.
It isn't the government's property to give to whom they see fit. She may determine who uses her uterus.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

No, the chances aren't zero. Close to zero, but not quite. There's still a chance, no matter how many contraceptives you use, that the woman can get pregnant. People have gotten pregnant while using both the pill and the condom plenty of times.
The baby is SUPPOSED to be there. It's not supposed to be in the stomach, it's not supposed to be in the lungs, it's supposed to be in the womb. That why women HAVE wombs, and different pelvises from men- the fact remains that a woman's body was built to carry children. To say a baby doesn't belong in the uterus is like saying blood doesn't belong in arteries.

reply from: galen

She determines who uses her uterus by determining if and when she has sex. the 'reasonable expectation ' not to get pregnant is illogical. You cannot reasonably expect an imperfect method of contraception to work 100% of the time if it is not 100% effective. therefore the woman who has sex can reasonably expect that at some point in her life she will get pregnant. it is a risk you take every time you have intercourse...unless you are sterilized. you can no more stop breathing than you can stop your body from functioning the way nature intended it to.
Mary

reply from: Sigma

That's why I said effectively zero. There are few things in life where the risk is zero.
With a low risk, it absolutely is reasonable to not expect to become pregnant. It is acceptable to have sex purely for pleasure. A woman does not have to allow her reproductive organs to be used for anything besides sex.
Agreed, when a woman has a healthy pregnancy the fetus won't be anywhere but in the womb. Her body can accomodate her becoming pregnant. This does not translate into any sort of obligation.

reply from: galen

Low risk does not = no risk... and because there is another life at stake once that risk is realized, she is at that point under obligation to the fetus.
once again... the fetus did not conn its way into her womb... she helped to put it there..
mary

reply from: Sigma

Well, no, she cannot control whether she conceives, nor can she control whether the conceptus implants. If she could unwanted pregnancy would become a moot point.
'Reasonable expectation' is how we all live our lives, galen. 'Reasonable' appears in the law for a reason. In many cases the risk of something happening is nowhere near zero, but it is what we can 'reasonably expect' to happen that would determine our fault in the situation.
It doesn't work like that. During any particular act of sex, the chance of becoming pregnant is effectively zero. Taking the culmative times she has sex to make a conclusion in this way is invalid. It would be like saying choking is completely expected every time we eat something because there is a chance of choking every time we put something in our mouths (I mean, really! Who thought making our breath and food go through the same tube was a good idea?).
Yet we try to do that when we try to bring down a fever. We try to change the way our bodies react to things all the time.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

You're right, someone has every right to have sex without specifically trying to get pregnant (in marriage). But it is illogical to be sure you won't get pregnant. There is still a chance the woman will get pregnant, therefore sex will always be related to pregnancy.
I know that. Not all women have to have children. But once she conceives, she already HAS a child. You're obliged to not commit murder, however. Abortion is murder.

reply from: Sigma

That there is a life at stake does not always allow the gov't to be invasive about someone's rights to their body.
If, during a murder trial, there was a peice of evidence lodged in your body SCOTUS has ruled that invading your body to get that evidence is not justified, even if getting it would save the defendants life.

reply from: Sigma

Sex is related to pregnancy as crossing the street is related to being hit by a bus. There is always a chance of this happening and you are not at fault for that happening, provided you did what you could to reduce the chances (such as using a crosswalk, etc).
It is absolutely logical to judge the risk acceptable and do an activity when the risk is effectively zero.
Women do not have to bear children. She may abort the fetus to prevent this from occuring. Please prove that abortion is murder.

reply from: galen

we try to change the way we react....
Well yes and no.. the act of taking tylenol to bring down a fever does not end another's life.
------------------
She determines who uses her uterus by determining if and when she has sex.
Well, no, she cannot control whether she conceives, nor can she control whether the conceptus implants. If she could unwanted pregnancy would become a moot point.
She does controll wether or not she has sex. ( am excluding the rape exception because most AB are not about that )
--------------------------------
the 'reasonable expectation ' not to get pregnant is illogical.
'Reasonable expectation' is how we all live our lives, galen. 'Reasonable' appears in the law for a reason. In many cases the risk of something happening is nowhere near zero, but it is what we can 'reasonably expect' to happen that would determine our fault in the situation.
any 'reasonable' person knows that the act of intercourse can result in pregnancy. the risk of getting pregnant is not near zero and actually fluctuates given the person, the time of the month , etc. So yeah.. in the real worls a reasonable woman who has sex can expect to get pregnant.
mary

reply from: Sigma

Yes, but it does stop the body from doing something it naturally does.
Yes, she does. She cannot control whether it results in pregnancy, however.
Any reasonable person knows that crossing the street can end up with them hit by a bus.
A normal, reasonable, logical person knows this, but can acceptably and logically cross the street anyway while taking precautions to reduce the chance of this occuring. We do this every day and it is accepted as reasonable in society today. This is unacceptable only if the chance of adverse consequence occuring is great enough that it is almost certain the outcome would occur.
Using 2 or more methods of birth control reduce the chance of pregnancy to effectively zero.

reply from: galen

Using 2 or more methods of birth control reduce the chance of pregnancy to effectively zero.
really! tell that to my second son!
Any reasonable person knows that crossing the street can end up with them hit by a bus.
A normal, reasonable, logical person knows this, but can acceptably and logically cross the street anyway while taking precautions to reduce the chance of this occuring. We do this every day and it is accepted as reasonable in society today. This is unacceptable only if the chance of adverse consequence occuring is great enough that it is almost certain the outcome would occur.
And a normal reasonable person knows that they cannot be unhit by the bus once it has run them over... they still go through the same healing process as everyone else. they do not however go out and kill the next stranger they see... just because they might also be using the same ER.
Mary

reply from: LetFreedomRing

Getting hit by a bus isn't a natural consequence of crossing the street. Getting pregnant, with or without contraception, is.
Yes, it is logical. However, the couple should still remember that the woman could get pregnant. Unlikely, but possible. As long as there is even the tiniest percentage that a woman will get pregnant, sex will always be related to pregnancy.
I never said she had to get pregnant. But when she is pregnant, she already has a child. You can't prevent child bearing if you're already bearing a child.
Hmm... let's see... slaughtering an innocent person for personal gain... sounds like murder to me.

reply from: bradensmommy

I'm trying to understand how abortion is NOT murder? Anyone who truly thinks that needs to go and see how one is done.

reply from: faithman

Check out the site in signature

reply from: galen

yeah siggy likes to dodge that question... he gets to check morality at the door because the procedure is still legal.
mary

reply from: yoda

It's a technicality......... by definition, the word (in noun usage) refers to an illegal killing of a human being. Kinda like the Holocaust wasn't technically murder, because what they did was legal in Germany.
But abortion is most certainly a "murderous" act..... a barbaric, horrific act.....

reply from: yoda

Or maybe because siggy has no morals?

reply from: galen

no i think he does have a few... they are just buried in the muck of his leagalize.
mary

reply from: AshMarie88

If abortion is not murder, then no innocent person would die from it.

reply from: faithman

That is exactly what the pro-aborts contend, that a womb child is not a person.

reply from: AshMarie88

That is exactly what the pro-aborts contend, that a womb child is not a person.
Yep, and they say that so they won't have to respect them. It's all about me me me to them. Why should they support giving life, as long as they live their own? Ugh.
Every human being is a person.

reply from: domsmom

Very true. Having sex does not mean her uterus now belongs to the fetus, however. Her uterus still belongs to her, and she still does not need to share it if she does not wish to. Having sex, whether she has to or not, does not affect this.
But the uterus serves NO other purpose than to house offspring. So it was put there solely for growing offspring, and no other reason. So really, it is NOT hers. It for her offspring.

reply from: clamydia

interesting to see all these technical discussions, which lead to the old 'parasite discussion'. As a matter of fact, a fetus is not a parasite. As all of you said, it had to be a different species. But it is not about the stupid word 'parasite' is it?! No matter what you call it: parasite, baby, human being, fetus, cell formation, spirit, etc. the discussion you are having is going no where. Fact is though, that what has evolved in the womb up to a certain stage in pregnacy can NOT survive without the mother, not even in the best most modern medical facility - if this now justifies saying it is not a 'being' I don't know. I personally think the public discussion should not be focusing on this aspect of the topic.
May I actually ask all of you a question? What do you think about abortion after rape or incest? I would like to hear your moral arguments to this?
Thank you. Please do not misunderstand, I respect all believes and religions, I won't convince you that my point of you is better than yours or anything like that. Every human has the right to deciding freely about her or his life.
Take care.
Clam

reply from: faithman

abortion in these cases is like arresting a child because his daddy is a car jacker. Why puhish the child for crininal activity of dear ole dad?

reply from: AshMarie88

abortion in these cases is like arresting a child because his daddy is a car jacker. Why puhish the child for crininal activity of dear ole dad?
I partly agree - The child shouldn't be punished, but I have to disagree with you on the "dad" part. The pig is no dad, just some perv who likes hurting people.
Otherwise, you're right, why kill the child for someone someone else has done? Why no punish the actual criminal who harmed the woman?

reply from: AshMarie88

I'm against abortion in ALL cases.

reply from: yoda

Abortion IS killing, Ashley...... it IS the killing of an innocent person....... the label "murder" is not needed to convey that fact.....

reply from: yoda

That's good, because viability has nothing to do with the application of the label "being".... (which can refer to anything at all, living or dead).
Rape and incest are the only crimes for which an innocent bystander is sometimes executed. Does that make sense to you?

reply from: bradensmommy

But what you need to understand is that my 16 month old child has to depend on me for survival. Up until the child is at least in their teens they need someone to take care of them.
Rape and incest children should not be exceptions. Why should they be punished for what their father did? I did say in a previous post that women should go to the doc right after the rape incident (I know its more difficult for incest issues). I can't tell a woman what to do but what I can do is help them if they need me. I am pro-life even after the baby is born. Alot of choicers think that pro-lifers are only for the unborn and that is simply not true. If the female wants the morning after pill then thats their perogative, if they wait then apparently they really didn't want the abortion right?
Not all abortions are willingly. There is a post on here with a looong list of guys who have killed their girlfriends/wives for not killing their offspring. So much for "choice" eh?

reply from: AshMarie88

Abortion IS killing, Ashley...... it IS the killing of an innocent person....... the label "murder" is not needed to convey that fact.....
That's my point, really.

reply from: melissa1020

most people i know that have had there baby after rape and keep it or adopited there child out said it helped in healing and was something good that came out of a horrable event. most women i talk to that have an abortion after rap said it was like geting raped all over again and they regret ending an innocent persons life.

reply from: melissa1020

babys pee at 13 weeks inside the womb thats how they replenish the amenodic fluid if they didnt they would have to little fluid and there lungs would not develop. thats why babys with potter syndrom( no kidenys or no kideny fuction do not have the ablity to bearth out side the womb even if they are born full term. peeing in the womb is very importon to a babys health because its lungs strach as it breaths in fluid.

reply from: melissa1020

lol thats funny. some day we will have ways to save ulturmicro preemies then what will people say when all babys no matter how small can live out side them womb about abourtoin. i hope im here to see the day when that happiens

reply from: yoda

Hey, that's what I said too, and I got jumped on........
I think you're right, btw.

reply from: melissa1020

i didnt see yours but its ture i have been doing research of rair sydroms and chromosome problemsand i came across that i didnt even know that was how aminotic fluid was replenshed intell i read about potters and iv been pergent 4 times

reply from: Sigma

Sorry, was on vacation last week so I missed some posts
Just as abortion does not change the fact that she got pregnant, getting medical care for her bus-related injuries does not change the fact that she got hit.
Changing the consequences so one does not have to go through it the "natural" way is perfectly acceptable. You're only objection is that the fetus is alive. The majority of the nation does not believe the fetus to be morally equal to "the next stranger you see", though.

reply from: Sigma

Getting hit by a bus is a perfectly natural consequence, though extremely unfortunate. Cars and buses drive on the road all the time, it would hardly be a freak accident to be hit.
Yes, related as being hit by a bus is related to crossing the street.
I never accused you of stating she had to get pregnant. I said she does not have to bear a child. Abortion prevents birth.
An abortion is hardly "slaughtering", and the fetus is hardly an "innocent person".

reply from: Sigma

I never dodge the morality. I think the morality and legality are separate issues, though.

reply from: Sigma

Domsmom, no one gets to determine the purpose she puts to any part of her body in this way. She may use her uterus to incubate the fetus, purely for sex or for no purpose whatsoever.
I'm afraid it is hers.

reply from: AshMarie88

Abortion tears the embryo/fetus up into tons of little peices with metal machines, and then it gets sucked thru a tube. The result, is a bloody dead baby. How is that NOT slaughter?
slaugh·ter /?sl?t?r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[slaw-ter] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
- noun
1. the killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, etc., esp. for food.
2. the brutal or violent killing of a person.
3. the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately; carnage: the slaughter of war.
- verb (used with object)
4. to kill or butcher (animals), esp. for food.
5. to kill in a brutal or violent manner.
6. to slay in great numbers; massacre.

reply from: AshMarie88

Domsmom, no one gets to determine the purpose she puts to any part of her body in this way. She may use her uterus to incubate the fetus, purely for sex or for no purpose whatsoever.
I'm afraid it is hers.
Then if she is not using it, she might as well have a procedure done to remove it.

reply from: yoda

Yes, or at least not allow the creation of any new human beings inside it........ if she is such a cold-blooded killer........

reply from: Sigma

Only if you use the widest possible interpretation. Almost all killing involves some sort of violence, so labelling them all as "slaughter" would be irrational.
Since an abortion neither kills anything for food nor kills great quantities, you are left with the determination of whether it is "brutal" killing.
bru·tal /?brutl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[broot-l] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
- adjective 1. savage; cruel; inhuman: a brutal attack on the village.
2. crude; coarse: brutal language.
3. harsh; ferocious: brutal criticism; brutal weather.
4. taxing, demanding, or exhausting: They're having a brutal time making ends meet.
5. irrational; unreasoning.
6. of or pertaining to lower animals.
The first makes the assumption that there is a moral entity, which there is not in the case of the fetus. The second, third, fourth and sixth do not directly apply. The fifth I suppose depends on your point of view.
For all the use it sees, yes. However, this tacitly admits she does not "owe" it's use to someone or something else.

reply from: yoda

Oh goody, siggy-poo is back........ maybe he'll respond on HIS threads now..........

reply from: AshMarie88

This is a lie, considering over 1 million abortions happen in the USA alone, therefore killing great quantities of human beings, or blobs of dead undeveloped cells, whatever you believe the unborn are.

reply from: Sigma

"A slaughter" is a noun. "An abortion" is a noun. "A slaughter" kills many. "An abortion" kills one fetus. "An abortion" is not and cannot be "a slaughter" in that sense.
Semantics.

reply from: AshMarie88

Abortion STILL slaughters human beings.
Stop getting so grammatical.

reply from: yoda

Siggy-poo doesn't consider it "brutal" to tear a tiny baby into little pieces. Siggy-poo likes to help them out at the abortuary by counting all the tiny little parts in the screen that catches them in the suction machine. Siggy-poo has the conscience of a snake.

reply from: peterwatson

Hi
Yes, it is true. During ultrasound, we can see the fetal bladder get hold of larger as it fills near urine. Then we will see it virtually disappear as the baby urinates. Very occasionally, we can take into custody it with a color part. We use a color doppler function to look at blood vessels. It shows motion, blood is moving, so we can see the vessel. Well, when a baby releases its urine, if we can draw from the color turned on right at the genitals, we can see a swish of color as the urine flows out of the bladder. It is kinda cool to see! If the baby's bladder is obstructed, the amnionic fluid level within the uterus will be low.
http://www.baby-seat.info/

reply from: BossMomma

They do urinate, a portion of the amnionic fluid is in fact fetal urine. What does this have to do with abortion?

reply from: terry

Good question. Anyone?

reply from: Momof4

The fetus is in a parasitic relationship with the woman, however. It is generally detrimental to her physical health and cannot support it's own life-functions, at least during the time frame the vast majority of abortions are done.
It just isn't of a different species.
I'm pregnant..again with twins, neither is detrimental to me. The only thing baby A and baby B are doing is chowing down on all the extra grub I'm scarfing down that would otherwise make me fat. Get over yourself, the fetus does not have a parasitic relationship with the woman. Comparing a fetus to a parasite is just one more way you deathmongering scumbags dehumanize an unborn child in an effort to justify the cruelty you support.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics