Home - List All Discussions

Since I have yet to find a pro-life site with..

by: bluebrunette

remotely accurate fetal development information..
www.embryology.ch
Go educate yourselves.

reply from: bluebrunette

and how do I change my icon I'm not a guy.. haha.

reply from: galen

So why are you posting a french site for an outdated web journal??
Mary

reply from: bluebrunette

It's in English too. Look for two seconds.
And it's not like fetal development is some mysterious thing that constantly changes with time, the date doesn't matter it has legit pictures. It being foreign makes it unbiased. It's pure science, no politics. A pro-life site is blantantly biased and their lies aren't even consistent.. compare their information with each other it's funny.
I've seen first trimester embryos myself. They're at Body Words exhibits around the world. This is the only source I can find that looks anything like what I saw there. Body Worlds lies too?

reply from: galen

No but the book is outdated.... how do you think I read the press releases from 2005, i don't read french.....
I have NEVER lied on this site about embrionic development.... heck i teach it at medical school.
So what's your excuse?
BTW pics are great but if your knowledge of the science is flawed then you make bad points and your arguments are unproovable.. And yes embryology changes every year... thats why they update the textbooks.
Mary

reply from: bluebrunette

I was talking about pro-life websites. They all say different things and they all lie. I've seen seem them steal pictures from other websites and date the photos differently. Show pictures that are further along and label it earlier than it is. I was just showing one source that was actual science and not some hick nutjob with a keyboard.
Embryology doesn't change dramatically enough that at 8 weeks it has arms and sucks its thumb and ridiculous stuff that I've seen online.

reply from: galen

nope but at 8 weeks it does feel pain and fear...
mary

reply from: bluebrunette

Lmao. Site your source.
www.religioustolerance.org has a ton of stuff from both sides and articles that suggest it may be capable to feel in like, the end of the second trimester. But 8 weeks is ridiculous. It's a white jellybean!

reply from: galen

beg to differ... nerve endings are grown in many regions of the body by 7 weeks... nerve = nerve impulses= pain pain=fear... its the first sensation to come and the last to go in ANY mammal....
you going to be the one to tell Harvard they are wrong?
i'll even site your "outdated" scource and tell you to go to the Synoptic table of the Carnegie stages 20-23 and look at the 1st pic 49 weeks then referr to the Syteme nerveoux on modual 22... just from diagramms and a knowlede of latin i can find what is there... axons formin... nervouse sytem conneting etc.
Mary

reply from: bluebrunette

Seeing the actual thing floating in some water helps too! That's the only source I've found that even remotely matches what I saw.

reply from: galen

Take a look above there cp then go have a good roll...
ROFLMAO>>>>>>
Mary

reply from: bluebrunette

You know you're not going to get suddenly credible claiming you do all these things. You could be anyone.
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain/
">http://discovermagazine.com/20...etus-feel-pain/
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7116/1111/c
">http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content...315/7116/1111/c
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/health/24fetus.html?ei=5088&en=968cf2b5d486a3c6&ex=1282536000&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1190325437-OPbi3QHbcK8oYFcRURF0LQ
">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08...bcK8oYFcRURF0LQ
Have any unbiased sources?

reply from: galen

Yep go look it up in JAMA or just google it....
especially sense you did not even bother to read you own text...
Sanjay Gupta MD from CNN should be someone you might be able to relate to... being part of the media and all.
Heck you can even find info on it at the dicovery channel... its not like its top secret.
yeah somedays with people like you i wish i could tell you exactly who i am... as i help run a cpc with battered women though... i think i'll keep it private.
Anyway... someone with the mentality of anyone past your 1st year of biology in HS should be able to read, research, understand, and report,and draw a logical conclusion.... unless they skimmed and cheated thier way through the year.
Mary

reply from: galen

BTW... the first 2 links you posted were unrecogniseable.... they didn't work and the second one was published in 2005 and has since been refuted.
mary

reply from: bluebrunette

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=fetal+pain&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

This does not say it feels pain at 8 weeks!
Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks' gestational age, based on the limited data available. Small-scale histological studies of human fetuses have found that thalamocortical fibers begin to form between 23 and 30 weeks' gestational age, but these studies did not specifically examine thalamocortical pathways active in pain perception.

reply from: bluebrunette

And I totally overlooked the crisis pregnancy center part.. they are notorious for blantantly lying to women about abortion to guilt and scare them. Disgusting. In TIME magazine some even admitted to doing it and felt it was justified. I've always wanted to go into one and pee on a stick and then call them out on all the crap they say..
If you think it feels pain at 8 weeks.. you're obviously lying to people to. Ugh. Why can't you just mind your own business? Your obsession with other people's uteruses is creepy!

reply from: sheri

The american pain society seems to be at odds with itself they said babies do better after interauterine surgery with fentanal and respond to external stimuli as early as 7.5 weeks but they really shouldnt take all that into consideration because we cant explain how the brain works that early an it may make abortion minded women uncomfortable with killing their babies.
there is alot we dont know about the human brain but if the child shies away from the tip of a needle as early as 8 weeks i think thats good enough to say he may very well be feeling it. why not err on the side of cation?

reply from: bluebrunette

It's not a baby! Ugh. Embryo until 8 weeks then fetus until birth.
Your buddy just directed me into the direction of some medical site with elaborate reasons on how they understand that it does not feel pain when abortions occur.

reply from: sheri

If it could be proven to you beyond a doubt that the baby feels pain at 8 weeks would you then be against the childs destruction?

reply from: bluebrunette

It doesn't. And it's not a child.

reply from: sheri

thats not what i asked.

reply from: galen

Again with the stuff from 2005... notice he did not dig any deeper into the journals.... maybe for something newer...
And I never lie to the women there... in fact i am accused of being brutally honest.
What part of pain is percieved and what part is reflex and what part is imagined... questions flown out by one who HAS NOT BOTHERED TO READ THE LITERATUR> or one who was to lazy.....
But for someone who can not be bothered to read HIS OWN EVIDENCE before opening himself / herself/ up for public discussion I guess that is to be expected.
mary
more brutal honesty.... a sac of moldy grits has more sense than you do .

reply from: bluebrunette

You go find that magic mysterious source then, that makes such a dramatic jump from 30 weeks to 8 weeks. Your claim, your homework.
And there should be no "brutal" if you work for battered women! Aggressively guilting them and imposing your beliefs on them is sick. You don't care about them, you just care about their embryo! Creepy. Then screw it after viability, your deed to force her through pregnancy is over with.

reply from: bluebrunette

It's a really really stupid question if the what if has so many mistakes in it.
What if shoes were proven to give you cancer would you wear them??
Stupid.

reply from: jujujellybean

You know you're not going to get suddenly credible claiming you do all these things. You could be anyone.
http://discovermagazine.com/20...etus-feel-pain/
<br ">http://discovermagazin.../20.....ain/
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7116/1111/c
<br ">">http://www.bmj.com/cgi/co...6/1111/c
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/health/24fetus.html?ei=5088&en=968cf2b5d486a3c6&ex=1282536000&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1190325437-OPbi3QHbcK8oYFcRURF0LQ
<br ">">http://www.nytimes.com/20...cRURF0LQ
Have any unbiased sources?
unbiased? What the heck is that? That doesn't exist. Everyone has a bias!

reply from: jujujellybean

Watch the silent scream on youtube.
Than what is it? An embryo is nice, but that isn't a type of living creature in and of itself. It is not a race of dogs, or cats for example. IT IS A HUMAN! If you had to place it in a group of living organisms, have you noticed there isn't one that says, "for embryo's?" No. It is a Homo sapiens.
And why does not being able to feel pain determine it's right to live? Should people sleeping and in a coma be able to be killed because they won't be aware of it?

reply from: bluebrunette

Straight forward science that is not even talking about abortion is unbiased. At 8 weeks it is about 2 cm. That is a fact (I made up 2 cm I'm too lazy you get what I mean). It is undisputable. It's just objective information.

reply from: bluebrunette

Other dictionaries do not list a baby as a fetus. A medical dictionary lists it as:
baby
1. An infant or young child of either sex; a babe.
2. A small image of an infant; a doll. Babies in the eyes, the minute reflection which one sees of one's self in the eyes of another.
"She clung about his neck, gave him ten kisses, Toyed with his locks, looked babies in his eyes." (Heywood)
Origin: Dim. Of babe.
(12 Mar 1998)
Babies are born. Fetuses and embryos and zygotes live in uteruses.

reply from: bluebrunette

Watch the silent scream on youtube.
Than what is it? An embryo is nice, but that isn't a type of living creature in and of itself. It is not a race of dogs, or cats for example. IT IS A HUMAN! If you had to place it in a group of living organisms, have you noticed there isn't one that says, "for embryo's?" No. It is a Homo sapiens.
And why does not being able to feel pain determine it's right to live? Should people sleeping and in a coma be able to be killed because they won't be aware of it?
UGH Silent Scream is so debunked. I'm not watching that. I hate horror movies and fake gore and such.
I don't believe it is in personhood. It is a developing person. Not one yet.
A person in a coma has so much more to them than an embryo. They have relationships, memories, experiences, emotions.. so many things that make humans above like trees. An embryo does not have that.
The ability to feel pain is just another pro-life lie constantly thrown around. I'd like it if when you guys try to oppress my body.. that you at least use some honesty and scientific accuracy. Trying to do something so sick to my body based on not even truth is sick.

reply from: bluebrunette

Your reference says "baby" = "infant or young child."
child (chld)
n.
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2. An unborn infant; a fetus.
3. An infant; a baby.
4. One who is childish or immature.
5. A son or daughter; an offspring.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Mine says:
child
A person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is child, preschool.
(12 Dec 1998)

reply from: galen

Here you go....
And by the way... not all of the women I work for come to us pregnant.
What's creepy is your lack of brain power... you just could not bear to be forced to look at your own evidence could you.
Posted on Wed, Aug. 24, 2005
Fetal-pain study omits an abortion-rights link
Scientists weigh in on planned legislation.
By Marie McCullough
Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer
Is a fetus capable of feeling pain, and if so, should fetal pain be treated during an abortion?
In today's Journal of the American Medical Association, five researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, review nearly 2,000 studies on the hotly debated questions. They conclude that legislative proposals to allow fetal pain relief during abortion are not justified by scientific evidence.
But their seven-page article has a weakness: It does not mention that one author is an abortion clinic director, while the lead author - Susan J. Lee, a medical student - once worked for NARAL Pro-Choice America.
JAMA editor-in-chief Catherine D. DeAngelis said she was unaware of this, and acknowledged it might create an appearance of bias that could hurt the journal's credibility. "This is the first I've heard about it," she said. "We ask them to reveal any conflict of interest. I would have published" the disclosure if it had been made.
UCSF obstetrician-gynecologist Eleanor A. Drey, medical director of the abortion clinic at San Francisco General Hospital, said: "We thought it was critical to include an expert in abortion among the authors. I think my presence... should not serve to politicize a scholarly report."
Figuring out when fetuses - and even newborns - are in pain is not easy because the sensation involves both physical and mental processes.
"Until about 1987, the medical community thought newborns do not feel pain," said anesthesiologist Sanjay Gupta, director of the Atlantic Pain and Wellness Institute at Lankenau Hospital. "We were doing circumcisions and even heart surgeries without anesthesia."
The UCSF authors - including a neuroscientist, a pediatrician, and an anesthesiologist - conclude that the fetus cannot perceive pain until 29 or 30 weeks of pregnancy. That's when pain-signaling nerve pathways from the spinal cord to the brain are fully wired.
Other experts - many of them antiabortion activists - believe the fetus may feel pain as early as 13 weeks, when pain receptors are connected to a part of the brain that relays impulses, but not to the part responsible for processing sensory information.
Since no one can remember being a fetus or get into the mind of a fetus, any judgment about fetal pain "will have to be inferred from evidence other than subjective experience," Emory University bioethicist Michael Benetar wrote in a 2001 article that concluded fetuses could feel pain at about 28 weeks' gestation.
Circumstantial evidence - such as fetal stress hormone levels, or standard tests of brain-wave activity - is not conclusive. The UCSF authors point out that a fetus will reflexively pull away from a surgical instrument - but so will an infant born without a brain or a person in a persistent vegetative state.
Legislation proposed in Congress, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, would require physicians to tell women seeking abortions 20 or more weeks after fertilization that the fetus may feel pain, and that the women may opt for fetal pain treatment.
About 1.4 percent, or 18,000, of the 1.3 million U.S. abortions performed annually are done this late in pregnancy. (Most states ban abortion when the fetus can survive outside the womb, about 24 weeks' gestation.)
Not all abortion-rights activists object to the proposed law. NARAL Pro-Choice America "does not intend to oppose" it, president Nancy Keenan said in a January statement, because "pro-choice Americans have always believed that women deserve access to all the information relevant to their reproductive health decisions."
But the UCSF researchers conclude that even if the fetus can feel pain, offering anesthesia or analgesia is not justified because current techniques "provide unknown fetal benefit and may increase risks for the women."
UCSF neuroscientist Henry J. Peter Ralston 3d said he hoped the review would help legislators who were "trying to figure out whether we are causing pain at 12 or 13 weeks."
"The evidence might at least sway their vote," he said.
Not likely, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of National Right to Life in Washington. "If Congress wanted to know if lambs feel pain," he said, "it wouldn't ask the veal industry for an analysis of the scientific evidence."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here are a few more .... dumbed down for your reading enjoyment of course
www.painphysicianjournal.com/2007/july/2007;10;525-532.pdf - Similar pages
http://www.painassociation.org/wst_page4.html
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/295/2/159
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/295/2/159-a
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/295/2/160
Mary
PS i'll post more when I recieve permission from the authors... they are in locked sites

reply from: bluebrunette

No? I just didn't know linking it mattered.
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=child

reply from: galen

here is an interesting link someone just sent me....
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/04/fetuses_and_pain.html

reply from: galen

no but he can not handle that intellegence and due dillegence trumps stupidity and bravado every time....
I hope his teachers figure out what a poor student he is soon and send him back to second grade.
Mary

reply from: bluebrunette

"The UCSF authors - including a neuroscientist, a pediatrician, and an anesthesiologist - conclude that the fetus cannot perceive pain until 29 or 30 weeks of pregnancy. That's when pain-signaling nerve pathways from the spinal cord to the brain are fully wired.
Other experts - many of them antiabortion activists - believe the fetus may feel pain as early as 13 weeks, when pain receptors are connected to a part of the brain that relays impulses, but not to the part responsible for processing sensory information. "
So the scientists think 29-30 wks.. and the crazies think 13 and in the same sentence says they wouldn't be able to sense it! Um.
"Pain Association" is so obviously baised. Give me a break. It looks like some hick made this in their house.
The jama links are abstracts that prove nothing, besides the fact that they are skeptical about the other one. And their reasons are "oh this person is pro-choice" and overlooked the science of it. I can't access the full texts.

reply from: bluebrunette

I'm a girl. I say so in the second post on here.

reply from: jujujellybean

Watch the silent scream on youtube.
Than what is it? An embryo is nice, but that isn't a type of living creature in and of itself. It is not a race of dogs, or cats for example. IT IS A HUMAN! If you had to place it in a group of living organisms, have you noticed there isn't one that says, "for embryo's?" No. It is a Homo sapiens.
And why does not being able to feel pain determine it's right to live? Should people sleeping and in a coma be able to be killed because they won't be aware of it?
UGH Silent Scream is so debunked. I'm not watching that. I hate horror movies and fake gore and such.
Scare you to realize what you are killing can feel?
I don't believe it is in personhood. It is a developing person. Not one yet.
I am a developing person, by the way. I won't stop for a long time. Just because it has just started makes a difference?
A person in a coma has so much more to them than an embryo. They have relationships, memories, experiences, emotions.. so many things that make humans above like trees. An embryo does not have that.
So? A newborn child doesn't have any of those things, besides emotions and relationships the are unaware of in a sense. Let's kill those too, shall we?
The ability to feel pain is just another pro-life lie constantly thrown around. I'd like it if when you guys try to oppress my body.. that you at least use some honesty and scientific accuracy. Trying to do something so sick to my body based on not even truth is sick.
Pro life lie? What about the choice lies? That it doesn't hurt? that there is no guilt? that it doesn't matter? that what you are killing isn't real? Watch Bella.
Answer me this: what is the magical day that a 'fetus' magically becomes human.

reply from: bluebrunette

Are you joking? Americanthinker.com is literally a ton of opinions.

reply from: bluebrunette

Sorry, that's not a dictionary. What happened? You decided you didn't like the first definition you posted? ROFLMAO!
Yes it is. Did you even look there? They had a medical dictionary.
The first definition I posted is from the same place. ROFLMAO obnoxious.

reply from: galen

oh really you can't access them.... maybe its because YOU ARE NOT A DOCTOR> and YOU DO NOT HAVE A PhD. or AN RN degree....
as for a hack putting them together.... nope just a regular old newspaper.....keep going i put up more these you CAN look at.
go back and chew your crayons.
Mary

reply from: bluebrunette

Show me a pro-choice source that lies. I'd really really like to see it. Back it up with UNBIASED sources. Yes those exist! And they are not "pain association".
I believe personhood begins at birth and I'm against abortion past the point of viablity. There is no set day it becomes a person, like I've said a million times it's nothing but a concept and everyone draws the line in different places.

reply from: galen

do you EVER bother to read anything.... or do you just skim all the time.
there are links that are attached .
MAry

reply from: bluebrunette

No you just have to pay money to have access to them. Getting a doctorate isn't a vip into every website. They contain info so you sign up and give them money.

reply from: galen

How about the original 2005 JAMA article that was refuted by every reputable pain specialist in the country and Europe. Even the nurses in the NiCU's called them crazy.
BTW do you not find it odd that a group of abortion providers would write up a study that said a fetus does not feel pain... who knows maybe they thought they could parlay it into more abortions... or even stock in wikipedia.
Mary

reply from: galen

I get in free. Oh yeah.... I'm also not bothered by the cost....
MAry

reply from: bluebrunette

Are you talking about that "pain association"? That site is such a joke. This "doctor" has a yahoo address and so clearly made this site himself. And that late term fetus/premature baby, whatever it is it was photoshopped weird automatically shows bias.

reply from: galen

i'll let him know you think so.
Mary
BTW... any more pearls of wisdom you would like to drop....?

lets get back to the original subject.... how you can not be bothered to read your own scource material... what's the matter... too much for you?
Mary

reply from: bluebrunette

Sorry, that's not a dictionary. What happened? You decided you didn't like the first definition you posted? ROFLMAO!
Yes it is. Did you even look there? They had a medical dictionary.
The first definition I posted is from the same place. ROFLMAO obnoxious.
They "had" a medical dictionary is not the same as "they are] a dictionary." Do you contend that their partial definition negates the one from Stedman"s Medical Dictionary? Your listing says that a 2-5 year old is not a "child" but a "child, preschool."
This is certainly not intended to be exclusive...I noticed that many of the listings they provide give "Webster's" as the source...
Children, preschools, and babies all do not live in uteruses. I don't see why it is so difficult for you guys to use a shred of honesty.

reply from: galen

-----------------------
nope on here you just say your not a guy..... could you be say... a hemaphrodite... a were wolf? oh i know! a psychic vampire.
Mary

reply from: bluebrunette

Ya... source?
Funny that places like Planned Parenthood give out free condoms and discounted forms of birth control and such. They work for less abortions. And my birth control there is $360 a year. I could get RU-486 for less than that.

reply from: bluebrunette

-----------------------
nope on here you just say your not a guy..... could you be say... a hemaphrodite... a were wolf? oh i know! a psychic vampire.
Mary
That's very mature of you!

reply from: galen

Go back to the original report I sent you.... the one put on the board in fulll...
you really don't read do you?
m

reply from: galen

yep i'm older than goth sooo..
Mary

reply from: bluebrunette

That long message you posted does not say that.

reply from: galen

and what do YOU think it says?
m

reply from: bluebrunette

The concept of personhood is not solid fact, it is personal opinion. Your belief is not the one true one. That's why people debate and why this is an issue. People don't see eye to eye on when personhood begins.
Abortion is morally justified to me for more reasons than it's lack of awareness of its own existance.

reply from: bluebrunette

It just talks about who thinks what. It doesn't say every pain doctor etc. is on your side.

reply from: galen

Cp you have such a good arguement to this .....
I'm tired and while this guy talks a lot, a bowl of dog food has more sense.
goodnight
mary
there is no MY side just the scientific side....... you really don't read do you?

reply from: bluebrunette

Yes, I did read.
And I've stated my gender like five times in this, and you're the one calling me names and trying to be condescending.. pssh.

reply from: galen

state 1 name i have called you....
I HAVE compared you to unpleasant things.... i find YOU unpleasant.
I have stated I find you lazy and ignorant... I do.
You opened yourself up for it though... you started the post.
I would have respected you more if i thought you had bothered to read anything that i put in front of you... even the stuff you thought you had to pay for was summarized.... but you didn't bother.
sooo
Mary
the goth queen

reply from: bluebrunette

Afraid to answer? Now, on the subject of fetal pain, I want to know it is relevant before arguing it, so would you mind clarifying whether you are implying that it is OK to kill human beings as long as they feel no pain?
Ok, then please share those qualifications with us. What makes it justifiable to kill your unborn offspring?
I'm not "afraid". The fact is, it does not feel pain. I don't believe in god. I don't believe a first trimester embryo is anything like a person. It doesn't feel, it doesn't know, it never had anything.. it lost nothing. It's really not that tragic when it is aborted. It wasn't a person yet. And compared to what the woman goes through (rape, incest, being too young, too poor, whatever. it sucks being pregnant when you don't want to be) the actual suffering and the actual pregnancy and childbirth and life changing decision to raise it or adopt it.. I just find the termination of a pregnancy very justified. I care about the actual person, you guys are more melodramatic than vegetarians. 50% of pregnancies end before the woman misses her period. There is no funeral or tragedy, most don't even know it unless they test early. Illegalized abortion means more dumpster babies, overcrowded adoption agencies, illegal and potentially dangerous abortions (there are recipes online, services that mail you RU-486, and the stupider ways.., hammer, stairs, coathanger). Pro-choice is just what makes sense. Instead of oversympathizing with a weeks old thing inside someone else's body being totally dependent on them and seriously impacting their life.
It being a person is nothing but YOUR belief. And I am definitely not okay with YOUR belief dictating MY body.

reply from: galen

lol!
no one is dictating what you do with your body....
you sound like a petulant 13 yo who never was told 'no'
before....
Nature will decide what happens to your body ... it always does...
remember that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Mary

reply from: bluebrunette

I am pretty sure attempting to force somebody go through when they don't want to - is dictating their body!
And if you're blaming women for getting pregnant.. rape is disgustingly common. You seem like a pretty demented person though (harassing battered women and such) so I really really do not want to hear what you have to say about rape.

reply from: sheri

see guys "a weeks old thing" , it is nothing" They have to distance themselves from the humanity of the preborn befor they can kill it. thats why this pain issue always comes up along with fetal development, "50%" die any way, these are constantly repeated themes. Then the jump to "its best for the woman", i wish we could condence this a bit it would save time to just skip to the end," i dont believe in god".

reply from: bluebrunette

So I am automatically morally off because I do not have the same religion as you?
That's extremely arrogant, and I doubt Jesus would approve.

reply from: galen

I can say whatever i want to about rape.... my first child is a product of rape... and no one forced me to do anything. In fact in this particular case I find myself uniquly qualified.
there you go again speaking about things ... me.... you have NO idea what you are talking about though...
You on the other hand wear your ignorance on your avatar.
BTW ... why do't you read a bit and figure out how to change it?
Mary

reply from: bluebrunette

I was raped a year ago, thanks. I really did not want to hear you spout some insensitve bs about how they should just get over it and give it up for adoption. The entire concept of carrying a rape pregnancy just makes me feel so sick. Good for you for making your choice, but it's wrong to assume/force other people to do the same.
I consider forcing someone against their will to go through pregnancy and childbirth equally if not more evil than rape. You disregard a woman's beliefs, wants, needs, all of that in favor of what you want and what you believe.. resulting in emotional, vaginal, and mental trauma, severe life changes, social/school/work disruption.. it sounds a lot like rape to me! What makes you less evil than a rapist for wanting to do that to somebody?
And I really don't care about this avatar. I regular another site and we were making fun of this one so I just peeked on to this one. It's really funny actually, we are kind of condescending and insistent and gang up on the pro-lifers. We don't impose religion onto them though..

reply from: galen

I have to say Blue... I find showing others your ignorance singularly enjoyable.... I was having such a rotton day... broken ankle and all;
gee I didn't even have to resort to 4 letter words. and I don't impose religion on anyone either.
you need counseling.
Goodnight for now.
Mary

reply from: bluebrunette

I'm in counselling. For rape. Not because I am some baby killing atheist.
I treat pro-lifers on the site I came from the same. Ignorant liars. I find it hilarious seeing it here. I laugh at them too.
Night.

reply from: ProInformed

I'm off to work (yes - ugh - on a Saturday...) but when I have time I will try to find for you the testimony of an anesthesiologist who was assisting at an emergency ectopic pregnancy surgery. He said that although the fetus was tiny it was also undeniably very alive, had very defined features, and was making movements as if it were swimming. Then after he died his body's appearance changed and his fingers and toes which had looked delicate and well-defined instead appeared puffy and bud-like.
Apparently dead embryos and fetuses don't look as human or well-defined or alive as they did when they were still alive.
Don't you trust medical textbooks and neutral sources related to pregnancy that have nothing to do with either the pro-life movement or the abortion industry?
Why would you have to go so far as some foreign internet site to find the answers you would believe?
Oh and I know what you mean about the default icon that got posted with your message LOL. I saw it and thought: "Hey that doesn't look like me!" (I'm female too) And I don't look like the alternative chocies either... so for now I just chose the computer screen icon. I'll ask my tech savvy teen to help me capture an image that I like better.)

reply from: yoda

Just another revisionist, slimeball lying proabort baby killer, I see......
MSN-Encarta Online:ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby
Dictionary.com ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby
iNFOPLEASE.com ba.by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html
INTELLIHEALTH: "Month 2: Measures 14-20mm from crown to rump. The baby's heart, although not fully formed, begins to beat and is visible. Medical content reviewed by the Faculty of the Harvard Medical School. Last updated August 14, 2004.
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?t=25666&p=~br,RNM|~st,331|~r,WSRNM000|~b,*|

reply from: yoda

Like I said, revisionist slimeball lying proabort baby killer:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Main Entry: child 1 : an unborn or recently born person http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/child

MSN Encarta Dictionary: child [ (plural chil·dren noun 5. unborn baby
http://dictionary.msn.com/

Information Please: child -n., 8. a human fetus. http://www.infoplease.com/
American Heritage Dictionary: Child: 2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus. IDIOMS: with child Pregnant. http://www.bartleby.com/61/
Wordsmyth: The educational dictionary: Phrases: with child http://www.wordsmyth.net
Webster's Revised Unabriged Dictionary: Child: To be with child, to be pregnant. -- the immediate progeny of human parents http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/webster.form.html
Main Entry: child Function: noun
1 : an unborn or recently born person
http://www.intelihealth.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?book=Medical&adv=0&cgi=1&t=9276&p=%7Ebr%2CRNM%7C%7Est%2C331%7C%7Er%2CWSRNM000%7C%7Eb%2C*%7C&WEB_HOME=%2FIH%2F&MIVAL=ihtIH&WEB_HOST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelihealth.com&va=child&search.x=14&search.y=10

reply from: yoda

I looked up "stupid" in the dictionary, and just found your picture.

reply from: yoda

Hey slimeball, HOW MANY reputable dictionaries does it take to convince you?
Main Entry: 1in·fant Function: noun1 : a child in the first period of life http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/infant
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Main Entry: child 1 : an unborn or recently born person http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/child

MSN Encarta Dictionary: child [ (plural chil·dren noun 5. unborn baby
http://dictionary.msn.com/

reply from: yoda

Why no link, slimeball? Expect us to take your word for it?
Besides, many words have multiple definitions, and all of them are different... otherwise there'd by no need to include them, would they? Just as long as ONE relevant definition exists in ONE reputable dictionary, that proves you to be a lying slimeball.
INTELLIHEALTH: "Month 2: Measures 14-20mm from crown to rump. The baby's heart, although not fully formed, begins to beat and is visible. Medical content reviewed by the Faculty of the Harvard Medical School. Last updated August 14, 2004.
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?t=25666&p=~br,RNM|~st,331|~r,WSRNM000|~b,*|

reply from: yoda

More importantly, WHO CARES????
IF you put a born person to sleep under anesthesia, does that make it okey dokie with you slimeballs to kill them then?
You just like having the power to grind another human being up like sausage, don't you slimeball?

reply from: yoda

Is that a part of your proabort religious dogma, slimeball?

reply from: AshMarie88

Here's some accurate, unbiased sites on fetal development for you.
http://health.discovery.com/centers/pregnancy/americanbaby/fetaldevelopment.html

http://babies.sutterhealth.org/babygrowth/fetaldev/

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

http://birthpsychology.com/

http://www.visembryo.com/

http://www.noah-health.org/en/pregnancy/nine/fetus.html

Enjoy!

reply from: yoda

Sure they do, we've shown you legitimate definitions that prove they do.
Besides, why should we even bother with someone so ignorant that they don't realize that baby, child, etc. are NOT MEDICAL TERMS??????

reply from: AshMarie88

Religioustolerance isn't a great source for ANYTHING. People use it and it's biased, no matter what they think.

reply from: yoda

Some folks will take any old excuse as a "moral justification for baby slaughter", and apparently it doesn't take anything to convince you that it's okie dokie.......
I'll bet you'd say the phase of the moon morally justifies killing babies....

reply from: yoda

That's only because you're too dense to realize that it's NATURE that "forces" women to go through pregnancy, not other people. Other people can tell her NOT TO KILL that baby, as well they should.
But of course, to a baby killer, it's frustrating to be told NOT TO KILL a baby, isn't it?

reply from: yoda

They are one of the most notorious proabort organizations on the face of the planet, in the same league as Planned Barrenhood and NARAL.

reply from: AshMarie88

And just what dictionary are you using exactly? Michael Moore's Book of Wrong Definitions?

reply from: AshMarie88

Do you believe that just because you cannot see thru a woman's stomach, or because you're just plain ignorant?
If a child is born prematurely at 20 weeks, how is she/he a person and yet the next woman is 9 months pregnant, due to give birth to her late-term child, how is that child (who is many weeks older and more developed than the premature baby) NOT a person?

reply from: AshMarie88

If everything is based on opinions, than neither of us could be right. I call a fetus a person, you do not... Neither of us is right. You call abortion justified, I do not... Neither of us are right.
There are just some things that are NOT based on opinion, but actual fact...

reply from: AshMarie88

Are you one of those people who believe that everyone should be able to make their own opinion on when personhood begins?
If so, are you also one of those people who would find it justifiable if a woman decided her newborn was not a person until at least a month old out of the womb? I mean, she doesn't believe personhood begins at birth, so why would her opinion (or, fact to herself) be wrong?
See how ridiculous your ideas are??


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