Home - List All Discussions

So a fetus is not a baby?

Why does this abortion provider call it one?

by: BossMomma

www.womenscenter.com
This is by the same killer who aborted baby Rowan.
Program is designed to be socially, culturally, spiritually, and emotionally in harmony with the variety of situations that our patients bring to us.
Some women want to bond with their baby once the premature delivery occurs. This is an important step for the patient and her family to help in bringing closure to this devastating crisis. Some couples initially find this a very frightening thought, but we have found that couples who wish to view or hold their child are able to work through the grieving process more effectively. When couples elect not to see their child they may later regret omitting this option. We encourage you to take pictures of the baby alone and with family members. We can arrange for your baby to have an autopsy or other confirmatory studies that must be arranged prior to your arrival with your doctor or geneticist. Cremation or a funeral with burial can be arranged.
The difficult part after making the decision to have a premature delivery is saying goodbye to the relationship you have had with your baby. We understand that the vast majority of our Fetal Indications patients are experiencing the most difficult situation of their lives. We recognize your decision to come to our center has been both distressing and difficult. You will have a private consultation with our Medical Director, Dr. James Pendergraft. All patients and their partners or significant others are encouraged to ask questions and to help support other members that will be in our facility going through a similar crisis.

reply from: jid

Probably for the same reason that some staff at the fertility clinic I worked in referred to the foetus as a 'baby'. Its a term that more people understand. It's colloquial. It 'humanises' the foetus in peoples minds.
I really shouldn't have to point out that what a clinic states on a website, especially in what appears to be an extremely emotive section, has no bearing whatsoever on terminology. I could point you to innumerate articles, papers, research literature etc... where the more accurate term is used.

reply from: yoda

Hmmmm....... how do you "humanize" a human? Aren't human babies already about as "human" as they can get?
It sounds like you're claiming that if many more people understand a term, then that term must not be as "accurate" as one that fewer people understand.... is that what you're trying to say?

reply from: xnavy

so the correct term for me is homo sapian??

reply from: lukesmom

The "fetus" is only a baby if it is wanted by the mother. If he/she is not wanted then "it" is only a blob of cells or whatever the mother wants to call it to make herself feel better about her killing act.

reply from: 4choice4all

baby is a sentimental term.....like calling my husband "honey"....I'm not implying he's an amber colored sticky substance that's sweet to the taste and not a human being.

reply from: Yuuki

We have already shown you the facts that baby is a perfectly accurate term for ALL young humans, whether in the womb or not. Yes, the scientific term is "fetus", but that doesn't make "baby" wrong to say or inaccurate. Fetus is also dehumanizing, and that's the last thing we need in this debate.

reply from: MC3

4Choice4All:
"Baby is a sentimental term...like calling my husband 'honey.'
Is it possible that you really are this stupid?
Just to set the record straight, "baby" is a legitimate description for a particular stage of development. It is not slang and it is not a "sentimental term" as you put it. (In fact, it is not a "term" at all. It's a word.)
And let me assure you that when an abortionist uses the word "baby," he or she is not being sentimental. It's just that, sometimes, even a moral degenerate like that will have the truth just inadvertently slip out.

reply from: 4choice4all

In a medical setting...it's inserting sentimentality...it's not used to denote a scientific explanation. I believe we refer to it as "bedside manner". I personally don't care what an individual calls the unborn....but if you are using someone's colloquialism to make a debate point, it's a bad call.

reply from: MC3

I guess you really are that stupid.

reply from: 4choice4all

And your brilliance is blinding?? lol

reply from: faithman

Compared to a pro-death scanc like you? More brillant than a million suns.

reply from: 4choice4all

^^^ ok....seriously? Whomever is creating these trollbots is insufferable.

reply from: Yuuki

It is scientifically accurate though. Even the dictionary agrees.

reply from: 4choice4all

How is it scientifically accurate?

reply from: yoda

Science defers to academics in the matter of the definition and applicability of terms (and words) of the vernacular. And the best academic opinion we have of those definitions is expressed in the dictionary of the common language.
Does that clear it up for you, or would you like to try to obfuscate some more?

reply from: Yuuki

Have you ever read a dictionary?

reply from: Banned Member

Jeez, I thought you tried to make yourself sound smarter than the rest. 'The truth slips out' every time any correct word is used, whether it be baby, embryo, fetus, etc. Or are you trying to say that using medically correct terms isn't 'truth'?

reply from: yoda

Sy, you know quite well that we all understand the validity of BOTH the vernacular and the medical terms for unborn humans, and yet you persist in throwing out these strawmen arguments.
Why not just admit that you simply hate the word "baby", and don't want anyone to use it in this discussion?

reply from: 4choice4all

I actually don't care if you use it in the debate...I'm pointing out the problem with using it as a point of debate.

reply from: Banned Member

I don't care if you use the word baby. I use the word baby quite often myself. What is irritating is peoples insinuations that to use any term other than baby is an untruth. It's not. They are all equally valid.
Why don't you just admit that you hate the term fetus & that you hate all terms that don't attempt to bring empathy to your cause?

reply from: yoda

No, you're not. You're just rattling your jaws/fingers.
These semantic arguments ALWAYS....... and I do mean ALWAYS begin when one of you proaborts jump in and claim that the unborn "ARE NOT" (fill in the blank)........ and then we're off again.
And most of the time, one of your main whines is that WE are playing "word games" after YOU start the semantic argument..... with a false statement.
You guys really redefine the word "hypocrisy".

reply from: yoda

POW!!! Congratulations, you just killed another strawman!! NO ONE makes that claim.....
Because I don't hate any words....... I do, however, hate how you proaborts attempt to use some words to make the unborn seem "less human".

reply from: BossMomma

What about the repeated use of the word child? Is that an emotionally charged term as well? Or is it an abortion provider finally admitting to what was killed?

reply from: Darkmoon

To me, it doesn't matter what you call it. If a woman doesn't want it inside of her it's her business, not mine or anyone else's. Now, if prolifers supported mandatory blood and tissue donation for everyone else I might support compulsory pregnancy and birth for women that find themselves pregnant against their desire. So far there is an unfair burden and expectation placed on women in the prolife mindset and they want fetuses to have rights that no born person has...to make use of another person's body against their will. Only women are expected to sacrifice bodily autonomy and it's therefore a discriminatory/sexist attitude. Why can't I legally compel someone, even a convicted criminal, to donate a single drop of blood to keep me alive but an insentient fetus should have the right to use every organ in my body whether I want it to or not?

reply from: BossMomma

The fetus does not use every organ in your body, the fetus takes a portion of your nutrients to stay alive. You want to talk about bodily autonomy? Where is the childs right to autonomy? That baby was created most often willingly by a man and woman, the child did not suddenly storm the woman's body and take over. She made that child with a man, why should the child have to die because of her oops?

reply from: Darkmoon

The "child" has the same right as everyone else. It just doesn't have the right to use my body against my will...like anyone else. If I cause a person to need my bodily fluids or tissue by accidentally running over them with my car, I can't be legally compelled to donate. Why should women be legally compelled to donate to a fetus regardless of whether their actions caused the need for such support or not? Corpses have more rights than that.

reply from: Faramir

Causing a person to need an organ or blood is totally different than causing a person to exist.
And corpses have NO rights.

reply from: Darkmoon

Corpses have the right to detain their bodily fluids and organs, Faramir. Unless you're a willing donor, you don't have to give a single cell to keep someone else alive even after you're dead. Why shouldn't women be given the same respect as a cadaver that no longer even NEEDS his or her organs?

reply from: Faramir

I believe while you're alive you have the right to say how your body is to be treated, but after you die, you no longer have any rights at that point because you are no longer a person as far as the state is concerned.
Anyway, if we are going to call this "thing" this "POC" a "child," then it is a son or daughter of the woman. Doesn't it seem a little callous that a woman would argue for the right to evict her own child and intentionally cause its death?
And I never did understand that organ donation comparison, since the fetus has its own set of organs. It just needs to be housed and fed, but does not take any organs.
Failure to donate an organ to someone who needs one does not cause his death. The illness or disease does. Failure to donate "bodily resources" to the fetus by evicting it or first destroying it and then removing it, does cause its death, so I don't see how the two can be compared.

reply from: Darkmoon

It doesn't matter how "callous" it seems. Men walk away from parenthood all the time and despite the arguments of child support, it's not as easily enforced as some might think. A woman-just like a man-has the right to deny the use of her body to anyone. It doesn't matter whether it's blood donation or the temporary use of her body to support undeveloped organs in another person. Women are NOT spare parts to be used.
With that said, I will add that ideally a woman that engages in sexual congress will be willing to share her body with any unborn entities that might take up residence, but having sex is no more an invitation for fetal occupation than owning a house is an invitation to be robbed. If you lock the door and someone intrudes anyhow, you have the right to evict them. While I shudder at comparing myself to a building the same principle applies. I am actively denying my husband's sperm access to my egg and therefore I'm not inviting a darn thing. Unfortunately pregnancy would be very risky for me, so I'm not in the position to compromise if an accident ever happened. If the gods are merciful I'm barren. I've never had an accident before, though I've had some scares.
Of course, this would all be more simple if the medical community would stop treating me like an idiot that doesn't know what she wants and give me the bloody tubal I've been after since I hit legal adulthood. Bastards.

reply from: Faramir

I have to take issue with this analogy.
A house does not exist to be robbed. Robbery is never desired.
But do some women sometimes WANT the reproductive act to cause reproduction? Are some women happy when it happens? Do some women who might not be happy when it happens, accept what has happened, adjust to the idea, and then learn to like the idea of being a mother?
Does that ever happen with robbery? Is anyone ever happy that they have been robbed?
I think a better anology would be playing Russian Roulette.
Someone wants the thrill of putting themself in danger, but they don't want to die.
Yet, they know that by playing the game, they have a chance of dying.
And if and when someone pulls the trigger and it fires, nobody would say that that person did not cause their own death, even though they did not want to die.
Whenever a fertile couple performs the reproductive act, no matter what precautions they take to prevent reproduction, if they have at least average intelligence, they know a pregnancy can result.
The expression "A consent to sex is not a consent to pregnancy" is flawed. Consent in the second part is improperly used, because an effect cannot be changed by the will. It's already happened.
Consent to driving too fast is not a consent to having an accident? Maybe an accident is not intended, but "consent" has nothing to do with it. It happened as a RESULT of the consent to drive too fast.
A consent to sex is to accept the possibility that a pregnancy will occur.
That would be a fairer way to state it.

reply from: Darkmoon

I don't exist to be impregnated. Despite certain religious philosophies to the contrary, owning a uterus doesn't diminish one's existence to the single purpose of breeding. Unlike vital organs, a uterus isn't required for a female to live. My purpose isn't defined by the possible function of one problematic (for me) organ in my body. I'm not less of a woman or a human being if I don't rent that organ out to another entity. I'm obviously very aware that conception could take place and I and my husband are both prepared to correct the mistake if it ever happens. It would be better, however, if the medical community respected women's bodily sovereignty enough to take me seriously when I tell them I'm not willing to risk kidney failure through pregnancy and give me the elective sterilization procedure I've been asking for.
I honestly do feel as though I and other women are treated as "spare parts" and expendable breeding fodder. I have legitimate health concerns that are tossed onto the back burner because I'm female and people still have the ridiculous notion that all women want to breed even if it kills them.
I am NOT consenting to pregnancy or the inherent health risks of it by being intimate (as marriage and fidelity requires) with my husband. If I withhold sex from my husband, I stand the risk that he'll get it from somewhere else. I trust him but I'm realistic. I've had men telling me for years to just give up trying to change them, that they require sex for a relationship to work and a woman doesn't love her man if she won't put out. Many people of both genders have trusted partners before, only to end up with a disease from an outside source because of cheating. If he doesn't get sex from me, he might decide to get it from someone else and frankly, I enjoy the bonding experience of intimacy enough to not give it up simply because there are people out there that see females as walking wombs.

reply from: siri

Thank you, Darkmoon. Tell it! I'm so sorry the medical establishment won't give you the medical procedure you want. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you in the meantime.

reply from: Faramir

I don't exist to be a stud, either.
But if I have sex with a fertile woman, I know there is a possibility I will becoma a daddy, and if I don't want that, I shouldn't have the sex.
Period. (lol)
If you see abortion as the removal of "stuff"--not a person--nothing more than a "blob of cells," then why not revert to that argument? Why try to justify an abortion beyond making a medical decision, like removing a wart?
It seems to me when a prochoicer deviates into other justificastions, there is tacit agreement that an abortion does in fact destroy a human person. But then the argument seems to be that "it's better that I ruin my child's life than my own."

reply from: 4choice4all

I think there can be multiple layers to an involved opinion...I think that something as divisive as abortion almost requires it...certainly a bumper sticker argument isn't enough(my body/my choice...period) lol
Not to mention when you talk about something that is developing...like a fetus....the nature of the debate starts to change. A non-viable fetus has certain truths that change as development goes on and viability becomes an option. At this point...many people that support abortion cease to do so...since viability is there and forced gestation can end. Some people continue to support choice. It's kind of like prolifers that support IVF or BC pills.....many prolifers claim life begins at conception so IVF and the freezing of embryos is wrong..and bc pills can kill that life so they are wrong...but many prolifers don't have issue with either one.

reply from: galen

I have to take issue with this analogy.
A house does not exist to be robbed. Robbery is never desired.
But do some women sometimes WANT the reproductive act to cause reproduction? Are some women happy when it happens? Do some women who might not be happy when it happens, accept what has happened, adjust to the idea, and then learn to like the idea of being a mother?
Does that ever happen with robbery? Is anyone ever happy that they have been robbed?
I think a better anology would be playing Russian Roulette.
Someone wants the thrill of putting themself in danger, but they don't want to die.
Yet, they know that by playing the game, they have a chance of dying.
And if and when someone pulls the trigger and it fires, nobody would say that that person did not cause their own death, even though they did not want to die.
Whenever a fertile couple performs the reproductive act, no matter what precautions they take to prevent reproduction, if they have at least average intelligence, they know a pregnancy can result.
The expression "A consent to sex is not a consent to pregnancy" is flawed. Consent in the second part is improperly used, because an effect cannot be changed by the will. It's already happened.
Consent to driving too fast is not a consent to having an accident? Maybe an accident is not intended, but "consent" has nothing to do with it. It happened as a RESULT of the consent to drive too fast.
A consent to sex is to accept the possibility that a pregnancy will occur.
That would be a fairer way to state it.
********************
great post faramir...

reply from: galen

______________________________________
If you REALLY want this procedure PM me.

reply from: Shenanigans

I would love to konw why people get so hung up on these terms. Baby, foetus, embryo, zygote, blastocyst, just stages of human development., they do not make the human involved any less human.
I mean, at the end of the day it all just distracts from the debate, we could call it a smelly tickle berry or a fuzzy belly fairy and it wouldn't change the simple fact that the human entity within the woman's uterus is a human life and its immoral and legally questionable to be culled for selfish determinations.
Really, word games don't help anyone, certainly not the foetus.

reply from: Shenanigans

They have the right to remain silent...

reply from: 4choice4all

Well...you are ignoring that fact that it does matter to many people. A fetus simply does not equate "human being' in the eyes of many...which is why they don't consider abortion murder...which is why they don't care that abortions are performed and tend to be prolife. It should matter to your side because if more people felt fetus= living human being no different than a 21 yo man.....most people would be prolife for themselves and for everyone else. So yeah...it matters...a lot. It's kind of the crux of the debate.

reply from: sander

It's all this way because it's easier to believe the crap you do then face the reality that you are murderering a fellow human being. Abortion is the easy way out and too many people have always wanted the easy way out. I know you are as stupid as you always sound, but there has to be at least two working brain cells so you can understand that fact.
All your jaw flapping isn't ever going to change the truth, and sooner or later the truth ALWAYS wins out.

reply from: Banned Member

Human beings begin their lives in the womb at the moment of conception. "Being", "person"; are simply smokescreen euphemism which are meant to disguise and distract from the truth. All which truly matters is that a new human life has begun when human conception has begun. Those that do not care simply demonstrate that they have an impaired ar completely absent conscience. Some people act out and live their lives based upon moral imperative, while others simply do what they can and what they can't based upon what the law says, or what they believe they can get away with.

reply from: Faramir

They have the right to remain silent...
lol

reply from: sk1bianca

corpses have the right to not be desecrated, as far as i know...
these don't seem to apply to the bodies of aborted babies.

reply from: ProInformed

The choicists pretend that when the term baby is used pro-lfiers are trying to employ manipulative verbal deception.
But the truth is that the pro-lifers are using an accurate, and the more normal and accepted term, BECAUSE they are countering the euphemistic deception that the choicists employ to manipulate and cover-up.
What the chanting choicist sheeple don't realize is that abortionists sometimes admit they are killing babies, even calling it "murder".
Of course some abortionists may just be wanting to cash in on selling post-abortion bonding services with the baby.

reply from: 4choice4all

Prouninformed...is fetus a euphemism?

reply from: prochoiceinNY

A corpse of a prson has that rite because it used to be a prson, the law aganst discrating a corspe is due from respect to the person they usd to be. THe POC were never to be a person so it has no corpse rites.

reply from: nancyu

A fetus is a human being.
Do YOU think it is okay to intentionally kill innocent human beings?

reply from: 4choice4all

NOT a human being...just human.
NOT ok to kill beings...but fetuses I'm ok with.

reply from: BossMomma

Well, Hitler didn't equate Jews with being human beings and, Southern slave owners didn't equate blacks with human beings..didn't make em right did it?

reply from: BossMomma

So what about the birth canal makes them human beings? Why must a child be squeezed out of that all important canal to be considered a human being?

reply from: 4choice4all

I've answered your question..in depth. You ignore it..this is a game for you. Just like throwing out slavery and holocaust...it's a game..a tactic..a poor one at that.
I think for the most part the slavery/holocaust argument are terribly terribly shallow ones. Kneejerk, if you will. Yes...slaves were not treated as human beings...but were they really thought of as "non human beings"? I argue that they weren't. I think it was fully accepted that they were in fact fellow human beings. How else do you explain manumission? Why free something that isn't human? We don't "free" our pets or "free" property....but it was common for owners to feel compelled to free their slaves...why? if they aren't human beings? Even slave codes recognized slaves as human beings. The slave code of the District of Columbia said "a human being, who is by law deprived of his or her liberty for life, and is the property of another."[See the human being part? The Dred Scott decision actually called slaves "beings" of an inferior race. See the being part? They knew they were human beings...they just believed they were an inferior race. Alexander Stephens(vp confederacy) believed that slaves should have marital rights and education...why, if they weren't human beings?

reply from: sander

I've read loads of crock out you, but this one borders on the insane.
I take that back, you are insane.
You stand nearly alone in this "being" non-logic. I suppose it helps you sleep at night, or some damn thing...but, lady....you're off your rocker.
You and your ilk are modern day slave owners and nazi's. I don't say that lightly or to make waves, but truly you fit the description of having to de-humanize another segment of people in order to justify their deaths.
You're a very sick person, I really wish you would seek help.

reply from: 4choice4all

Oh...silly Sander...no real debate or response....just slander...Sander Slander,lol...I've given you a nickname!
Bossmomma said that slaveowners didn't regard slaves as human beings...I'm wondering where she got that from. According to many accounts they DID believe they were human beings.....but they felt they were an inferior race and that was reason to treat them inhumanely. Do you have anything to add?

reply from: sk1bianca

4c4a, do you believe the fetus is like a human organ or something like that? even if it's temporarily attached to his mother and therefore not completely independent, biologically speaking, it is an INDIVIDUAL ORGANISM, a distinct BEING. even DNA proves that.

reply from: ritechus

so, this is my first post on these boards. Hello, nice to meet you all. To familarize myself with the board I read through this thread first. I just have a question or two:
Is it common for many of the Pro-Lifers to throw out insults rather than actually debating the issue? Is it also common for them to drop logic out of the equation when the discussion is not going their way?
BTW, I was really liking some of your posts, BossMomma, but I lost all respect for you when you threw out the whole Nazi/Slavery analogy. Not cool! If I give you my address and 5 bucks can I also get a copy of the Pro-Life playbook. (time to revise the troubleshooting section,though)

reply from: Shenanigans

So one small quirk of syntax is all that stands between whether or not human uterine life can be destoryed for you?
You got any idea how damn retarded that is?
Riiiiiight. Nice.

reply from: 4choice4all

Have you heard of the R-word movement? It's gaining popularity in the US. http://www.r-word.org/

You see one small quirk of syntax....I see a deeper, more fundamental question. Go ahead and suck at the marrow.

reply from: sk1bianca

4c4a you haven't answer my question.
the word "being" come from the verb "to be", which means "to exist". human being = an existing human individual.
you have the right to consider the unborn children whatever you want, or call them whatever you want. opinions can't change the nature of things. killing them is still horribly wrong.

reply from: sander

You've based your belief, at least in great part, according to many of your posts, that it's okey dokey for a mother to kill her very own son or daughter because they are not "beings".
That's absurd on it's face, you know it, we know it, science knows it.
But, apparently you don't mind aligning yourself with all those who de-humanized a segment of society to justify their murders.
Your belief system is old and tired. It just happens to be legal at the moment as was slavery and nazism. Those are the facts.

reply from: 4choice4all

I don't KNOW it, "we" don't KNOW it, Science doesn't KNOW it and you merely THINK it.
Slavery and Nazism...you forgot to throw out rapist, child molester and puppy kicker....but nice try. Oh...and they are not Facts. Would you care to discuss that point? Would you care to counter the points I made about slave owners and supporters of slavery conceding that slaves were in fact human beings...but merely inferior human beings? Do you disagree with that assessment? why? info to back it up? proof that they felt the black race didn't consist of human beings?
didn't think so.

reply from: BossMomma

So one small quirk of syntax is all that stands between whether or not human uterine life can be destoryed for you?
You got any idea how damn retarded that is?
Riiiiiight. Nice.
Don't you love how contradictory her justification is? Hell even when I was pro-choice I acknowledged that a fetus was a human being.

reply from: BossMomma

Well sweety I try to please at least one person a day and today just wasn't your day. Scientific fact makes the human fetus a human being, they are living individuals. To state that a fetus in not a human being based upon location and gestational age is no different than depriving other races/ethnic groups their humanity. Sorry if that view doesn't mesh with your personal opinion but, I calls em as I sees em.

reply from: sander

Your argument is still ludicrous, no matter how many times you use all caps.
Science does in fact state that humans are beings, you just don't like the definitions and sources that have been posted numerous times for your reading pleasure.
Go ahead and stake your eternity on stupidity, it's all up to you, but you'll just have to get over that fact that you're in the minority and only the lunatic fringe agrees with your assesment that humans aren't beings due to location.
You would have made a good little nazi and slave owner, yep...you sure would have.

reply from: faithman

Your argument is still ludicrous, no matter how many times you use all caps.
Science does in fact state that humans are beings, you just don't like the definitions and sources that have been posted numerous times for your reading pleasure.
Go ahead and stake your eternity on stupidity, it's all up to you, but you'll just have to get over that fact that you're in the minority and only the lunatic fringe agrees with your assesment that humans aren't beings due to location.
You would have made a good little nazi and slave owner, yep...you sure would have.
....and she should just quit kicking puppies while she is at it!!

reply from: 4choice4all

Science does not say that a human fetus is a human being...which scientific organizations? where? What large body of scientists are calling fetuses "people" and demanding equal protection for them? (is this more of your "well if I say it, it must be truth?)
I'm not in the minority...only on this board...but not IRL.

reply from: faithman

http://www.aaplog.org/......http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html.........http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

reply from: sander

BS
You're in the minority, except in the alternative universe you live in.
No matter how many times you repeat the lie, it will not make it true.
The very idea that humans aren't beings soley because of their location and stage of development is ludicrous and matches the same kind of mindset that said blacks were only 3/5ths human even if it was only for census purposes.
You're no better than any slave owner.

reply from: CharlesD

My wife drives a Sonata. Is she correct to call it a car? Does the more descriptive term render the less specific term incorrect? Isn't a Sonata simply a specific kind of car, and a fetus a specific kind of baby?
One term doesn't nullify the other.

reply from: yoda

Those having to do with the classification of species.
Here, I'll give you another tough one to ignore: even common dictionaries all say that a human being is ANY member of the species Homo sapiens. Now, you can gleefully continue to spread your putrid BS all over the forum and pretend you never saw my post..... just like you always do.
I just hope you really aren't a prolifer trying to make the proaborts look bad...

reply from: Shenanigans

Funny how you guys have used the "R" word to mean those who have some form of disability. I have never equated the "r" word with any kind of phyisical or intellectual difference.
So really, its no issue for me.
Its like fag.
Here it means "smoke". So I use it all the time as smoke, and all the queerosexuals know what I'm referring too.

reply from: ritechus

Well sweety I try to please at least one person a day and today just wasn't your day. Scientific fact makes the human fetus a human being, they are living individuals. To state that a fetus in not a human being based upon location and gestational age is no different than depriving other races/ethnic groups their humanity. Sorry if that view doesn't mesh with your personal opinion but, I calls em as I sees em.
It's ok honey. I was just a little disappointed is all. Somehow I expected more from you, maybe a little original thought? It's like when you go to see a movie and halfway through you realize that oh *****, i've already seen this. It's played out so many times before.
The comparison of Slavery/Fascism to Abortion gets used so much by the RR without any real thought put into it. From my perspective, the life of a fetus is solely dependent on its mother. Even though I consider it a human being it exists mainly because of its mother and partially because of its father. Keeping in mind that both are required for conception but only one is required for gestation. During the gestational process the fetus remains dependent on the mother for nutrition. In all cases, the health (notice I did not say life) of the mother is compromised to the point that a woman must supplement her nutrient intake to support the fetus living inside of her as well as herself. Pregnancy has other effects on the mothers health including but not limited to:
Thyroid Disease
Gestational Diabetes
Hypertension
Renal Disesase
Peripartum cardiomyopathy (Congestive Heart Failure in the last trimester of pregnancy)
Hyperemesis Gravidarum
Liver Damage
Psychosis
These are very real risks, especially among mothers who have had several pregnancies. That takes a toll on a woman's life, effectively shortening it. Considering these risks would she not have the right to decide whether or not this is something she should have to go through?
Science, nor organized religion, have a clear answer on when life begins. They only have ideas and opinions. Therefore, there is a certain amount of ambiguity. Slavery was pretty clear, cut and dry. The Nazi's as well, although I think they are just a throw away to help strengthen a very weak stance and also a fail safe considering that slavery and racism were perpetuated by many "Christians" at the time. The analogy is outlandish and inappropriate for this topic, so you'll have to try harder if you wish to relay common ground to someone who can look beyond the surface. I mean, it sounds profound and enlightening at first, but in the end it just doesn't hold up.

reply from: sk1bianca

so tell us 4c4a... what IS a human fetus? can you find a definition for us?
oh, and... don't go anywhere near those lying dictionaries. they want to control your body.

reply from: sattainon

I've only read the first and last page of this, so forgive me if the following has been presented.
You have the same number of Chromosomes you have TODAY as when you were first conceived.
Your DNA has not changed from that day.
You were you on that day of conception.
The DNA you received from your mother and father on that day, had it all planned out. It can tell us what hair you would've had, etc.
Science tells us these things.
An Pine Tree seed is just as much a pine tree as a fully grown pine tree, it has the make-up for a pine tree and nothing else. It's not going to be a dolphin, or a fig plant, it's a pine tree.
A human is a human, it's not going to be anything but a human, it technically IS a human because of the DNA it gets when it is formed.
I have the same DNA today as I did when I was born, therefore, I was a human when I was conceived.
It's not like the Vagina is a star-gate that transforms what's in the womb into a human, that'd be non-logical, and non-scientific.
I'm a human if I'm on life-support in a hospital.
I'm a human if I'm on life-support inside a womb.

reply from: prochoiceinNY

queerosxual? What kind of biget are you??

reply from: sattainon

queerosxual? What kind of biget are you??
please stay on topic... o_o

reply from: prochoiceinNY

queerosxual? What kind of biget are you??
please stay on topic... o_o
whatever dude.

reply from: yoda

Absolutely. But at the price of the life of an innocent human being? NO.
Yeah, they say it began billions of years ago.... and yet you are still arguing about it?

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the fray, sattaninon. You make good points.

reply from: ritechus

Absolutely. But at the price of the life of an innocent human being? NO.
And an innocent life should be brought into this world at the cost of its mother or her health? Christians say that everything should be done to save the fetus as long as the mother can also be saved. If the mother dies, the fetus dies so therefore, the mother's life is more valuable than the fetus, no?
I don't believe that women are here for the sole purpose of breeding. Oh, I'm sorry thats right, women are still being punished for that whole apple incident years ago.

reply from: yoda

RED HERRING ALERT!! STRAWMAN ALERT!!
NO ONE said anything about "medically indicated" abortions, did they? Let's talk about the 95% that have NO medical reason at all, okay? What? You're afraid to come out from behind the curtain?
Who cares? You throw up these strawmen like they actually meant something. Grow up!

reply from: sander

Absolutely. But at the price of the life of an innocent human being? NO.
If it is truly a matter of life or death, nobody here argues that the mother should die. That kind of abortion has always been legal in the U.S..
That scenario is only true in the rarest of cases, however.
You'll be surrised to learn that most mother's are willing to lay down their lives for their children, even in the womb. But, that's selflessness, something you proaborts are wholly unfamiliar with.
Don't be a moron, again, nobody here thinks women's sole purpose is to "breed".

reply from: sander

Absolutely. But at the price of the life of an innocent human being? NO.
And an innocent life should be brought into this world at the cost of its mother or her health? Christians say that everything should be done to save the fetus as long as the mother can also be saved. If the mother dies, the fetus dies so therefore, the mother's life is more valuable than the fetus, no?
I don't believe that women are here for the sole purpose of breeding. Oh, I'm sorry thats right, women are still being punished for that whole apple incident years ago.
Oh, I see...you really meant this to just be a slam against Christians, since you edited it from this:
Yoda was right, "strawman alert", "red herring alert".
You just couldn't make up your mind how to phrase it.....pathetic.

reply from: ritechus

RED HERRING ALERT!! STRAWMAN ALERT!!
NO ONE said anything about "medically indicated" abortions, did they? Let's talk about the 95% that have NO medical reason at all, okay? What? You're afraid to come out from behind the curtain?
"or her health" is what I believe I said. No red herring here. Why are you so fixated on the life of the fetus but give no regard to the toll it takes on a woman to bare said fetus? Just b/c most women come out of a pregnancy alive doesn't mean that they've not suffered physically. My grandmother gave birth to 10 children in her life, miscarried 3 additional on top of that. At 61 her heart just gave out.
And my cousin who is fixated on "being fruitful and multiplying" has been told by her Pro-life doctor that if she has more kids, it could seriously damage, if not, kill her. She's had 5 so far, one miscarriage.
Why don't you address what I really said, rather than try to convince yourself that I said something else? We can't get anywhere in discussion if you just keep deflecting.

reply from: faithman

RED HERRING ALERT!! STRAWMAN ALERT!!
NO ONE said anything about "medically indicated" abortions, did they? Let's talk about the 95% that have NO medical reason at all, okay? What? You're afraid to come out from behind the curtain?
"or her health" is what I believe I said. No red herring here. Why are you so fixated on the life of the fetus but give no regard to the toll it takes on a woman to bare said fetus? Just b/c most women come out of a pregnancy alive doesn't mean that they've not suffered physically. My grandmother gave birth to 10 children in her life, miscarried 3 additional on top of that. At 61 her heart just gave out.
And my cousin who is fixated on "being fruitful and multiplying" has been told by her Pro-life doctor that if she has more kids, it could seriously damage, if not, kill her. She's had 5 so far, one miscarriage.
Why don't you address what I really said, rather than try to convince yourself that I said something else? We can't get anywhere in discussion if you just keep deflecting.
You are a low life scum killer. No deflecting that.....

reply from: ritechus

Absolutely. But at the price of the life of an innocent human being? NO.
If it is truly a matter of life or death, nobody here argues that the mother should die. That kind of abortion has always been legal in the U.S..
That scenario is only true in the rarest of cases, however.
You'll be surrised to learn that most mother's are willing to lay down their lives for their children, even in the womb. But, that's selflessness, something you proaborts are wholly unfamiliar with.
Don't be a moron, again, nobody here thinks women's sole purpose is to "breed".
I think that is a great deal what this whole pro-life movement is about - returning women to what it was like before the feminist revolution. It's not moronic, its an opinion. I respect yours enough not to stoop to name calling. You could be just as respectful and do the same. But given your character thus far, I highly doubt it.

reply from: ritechus

RED HERRING ALERT!! STRAWMAN ALERT!!
NO ONE said anything about "medically indicated" abortions, did they? Let's talk about the 95% that have NO medical reason at all, okay? What? You're afraid to come out from behind the curtain?
"or her health" is what I believe I said. No red herring here. Why are you so fixated on the life of the fetus but give no regard to the toll it takes on a woman to bare said fetus? Just b/c most women come out of a pregnancy alive doesn't mean that they've not suffered physically. My grandmother gave birth to 10 children in her life, miscarried 3 additional on top of that. At 61 her heart just gave out.
And my cousin who is fixated on "being fruitful and multiplying" has been told by her Pro-life doctor that if she has more kids, it could seriously damage, if not, kill her. She's had 5 so far, one miscarriage.
Why don't you address what I really said, rather than try to convince yourself that I said something else? We can't get anywhere in discussion if you just keep deflecting.
You are a low life scum killer. No deflecting that.....
Oh, so now the fetus are scum...thats a bit harsh.

reply from: ritechus

Absolutely. But at the price of the life of an innocent human being? NO.
And an innocent life should be brought into this world at the cost of its mother or her health? Christians say that everything should be done to save the fetus as long as the mother can also be saved. If the mother dies, the fetus dies so therefore, the mother's life is more valuable than the fetus, no?
I don't believe that women are here for the sole purpose of breeding. Oh, I'm sorry thats right, women are still being punished for that whole apple incident years ago.
Oh, I see...you really meant this to just be a slam against Christians, since you edited it from this:
Yoda was right, "strawman alert", "red herring alert".
You just couldn't make up your mind how to phrase it.....pathetic.
I don't feel a need to defend my edits or your assumption as to why I edited it. I just wanted to say that I am tickled that you've been waiting in this forum for me to post, hanging on my every word. I love all my fans!

reply from: 4choice4all

I consider myself a feminist...and I'm prochoice...but I don't believe the entire prolife movement is about returning women to second class status. Oh sure...there are certainly some in the movement that would love that...and even some here....but I don't think that's the goal of the movement as a whole. You are engaged with the Trifecta(yoda, fm, sander).....they are not a good representation of the prolife movement....don't let their actions jade your viewpoint.
Oh..and welcome! It's nice to have a new prochoice member.

reply from: sattainon

I like how no one comments, that is on the side of pro-abortion (you're not pro-choice if you only want to give choice to 1/3 of the parties involved), have been made on my post.
Is it because it was full of truth and you didn't like it?
Again I will say,
It's your body to the extent that you affect another life.
Key word, life.
That thing inside of you, fetus child baby blob of cells whatever, is A-L-I-V-E.
Further more, even if you don't think it's a human being at THAT POINT, it has the POTENTIAL and it 100% WILL be a human being, in your minds, once it's born. To say that we can take it's RIGHT to LIFE away, just because you don't want it is absurd.

reply from: ritechus

It wasn't my intention to state that the whole pro-life movement is about that. I think it is part of it. The approach is a little more subtle. Perhaps I will start a new thread to discuss this in more detail.
Thank you. Glad to be here, with all of you. Even Yoda, fm and Sander...they are entertaining at best.

reply from: ritechus

You are right sattaninon, we don't have the right to take its life away, but its mother does.

reply from: lukesmom

You didn't have to delude yourself. For some reason she does.

reply from: sattainon

How does a mother have the right to kill?
You make no sense. I'm done with this conversation, in all honesty.
You sicken me, you sicken God.

reply from: yoda

Who cares?
I'm not here to discuss my motives with you, I'm here to discuss why you approve of the ELECTIVE killing of unborn babies? Want to talk about that? If not, take a hike.

reply from: yoda

Again, who cares?
We really don't care what you think of us individually or as a group.
We aren't here to have catfights over who is the nicest posters. We are here to discuss your approval of the elective killing of innocent unborn babies.
Want to discuss that? If not, take a hike.

reply from: yoda

Yes, just as some would say that a born baby having a right to life is absurd.
And, others would say that an adult having a right to life is absurd.
There are all types of "killing personalities", and they all have their little quirks.

reply from: BossMomma

Try OB/GYNs imbecile. I posted my proof long ago, you have not. You are trying to pass your personal opinion off as fact when such completely contradicts what science has proven. A human fetus is biologically identical to the resulting neonate once born ergo the human fetus is a human being. Next module when we study obstetristics and pediatrics I will happily post whatever reports on the subject I am assigned. Here's a bit of useful information that might just give you a clue about what a fetus is. http://peacepigeon.tripod.com/fetal.html

reply from: yoda

Why does being a biological parent give a woman the right to kill her baby electively?
Which "parental right" gives her that right?

reply from: yoda

You know, being a father takes a toll, too....... so do you also award fathers the right to kill their kids?

reply from: BossMomma

Well sweety I try to please at least one person a day and today just wasn't your day. Scientific fact makes the human fetus a human being, they are living individuals. To state that a fetus in not a human being based upon location and gestational age is no different than depriving other races/ethnic groups their humanity. Sorry if that view doesn't mesh with your personal opinion but, I calls em as I sees em.
It's ok honey. I was just a little disappointed is all. Somehow I expected more from you, maybe a little original thought? It's like when you go to see a movie and halfway through you realize that oh *****, i've already seen this. It's played out so many times before.
The comparison of Slavery/Fascism to Abortion gets used so much by the RR without any real thought put into it. From my perspective, the life of a fetus is solely dependent on its mother. Even though I consider it a human being it exists mainly because of its mother and partially because of its father. Keeping in mind that both are required for conception but only one is required for gestation. During the gestational process the fetus remains dependent on the mother for nutrition. In all cases, the health (notice I did not say life) of the mother is compromised to the point that a woman must supplement her nutrient intake to support the fetus living inside of her as well as herself. Pregnancy has other effects on the mothers health including but not limited to:
Thyroid Disease
Gestational Diabetes
Hypertension
Renal Disesase
Peripartum cardiomyopathy (Congestive Heart Failure in the last trimester of pregnancy)
Hyperemesis Gravidarum
Liver Damage
Psychosis
These are very real risks, especially among mothers who have had several pregnancies. That takes a toll on a woman's life, effectively shortening it. Considering these risks would she not have the right to decide whether or not this is something she should have to go through?
Science, nor organized religion, have a clear answer on when life begins. They only have ideas and opinions. Therefore, there is a certain amount of ambiguity. Slavery was pretty clear, cut and dry. The Nazi's as well, although I think they are just a throw away to help strengthen a very weak stance and also a fail safe considering that slavery and racism were perpetuated by many "Christians" at the time. The analogy is outlandish and inappropriate for this topic, so you'll have to try harder if you wish to relay common ground to someone who can look beyond the surface. I mean, it sounds profound and enlightening at first, but in the end it just doesn't hold up.
You don't have to preach to the choir sugar, I've been pregnant a few times..got three kids. I don't like to compare abortion to fascism or slavery but if the shoe fits what do ya do but wear it? Life begins when a man's sperm fertilizes a woman's ova and conception occurs, nothing more to it. I'm more spiritual than religious, I don't nessesarily hold with what the bible says because in my opinion the book is just contradictory.
Furthermore my claim is no more outlandish than the claim that a human fetus is human offspring yet somehow not a human being. If you prefer I will refrain from the analogy that abortion is slavery or fascism, however, I would expect that someone with your "profound depth" could be fair and see the outlandish claims made by both sides.

reply from: lukesmom

Science and organized religion debate whether human life begins at conception or at fertilization. Either way, they ALL agree there is life after fertilization. Abortions are done much beyond this point so there is a scientific consenses that abortion DOES kill a developing human life.

reply from: 4choice4all

Are you capable of not insulting...you know, it doesn't make your points more valid.
So ACOG is prolife? I asked for proof that the medical community says a human fetus is a human being. You offered nothing but your interpretations...which means we are BOTH talking about our opinions on the matter. And besides, again, wouldn't...by your logic...that mean that most medical and scientific organizations would be prolife?
Being is a philosophical term that you are trying to define scientifically and medically...that's why you struggle with it.

reply from: lukesmom

Would you please post a creditable definition of the philosophical term "being", with a source?

reply from: ritechus

Really? God told you that I sicken him? I am so happy that you have a direct line to God. Tell him I said hello.
And to answer your question, so that I make sense, The supreme court's decision on Roe V. Wade continued to preserve that right in all states.

reply from: BossMomma

Are you capable of not insulting...you know, it doesn't make your points more valid.
So ACOG is prolife? I asked for proof that the medical community says a human fetus is a human being. You offered nothing but your interpretations...which means we are BOTH talking about our opinions on the matter. And besides, again, wouldn't...by your logic...that mean that most medical and scientific organizations would be prolife?
Being is a philosophical term that you are trying to define scientifically and medically...that's why you struggle with it.
I've tried debating you without insult but you are an insult to intelligence. I offered links even text book sources and you simply ignored them. I offer simple logic which is obviously too complex for you and all you can do is repeat your opinion. Thus far you've yet to post a single source to back your opinion. Being is a term, be it scientific, medical or, literary. Being has more than a philosophical definition. And frankly it is not me that struggles when I can prove my point and you cannot.

reply from: BossMomma

Would you please post a creditable definition of the philosophical term "being", with a source?
Here, let me help her. http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?query=being&invocationType=tl1clk&flv=1

http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/person?invocationType=dictionary.main

http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/individual?invocationType=dictionary.main

reply from: lukesmom

Would you please post a creditable definition of the philosophical term "being", with a source?
Here, let me help her. http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?query=being&invocationType=tl1clk&flv=1
">http://www.referencecenter.com...pe=tl1clk&flv=1
http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/person?invocationType=dictionary.main
">http://www.referencecenter.com...dictionary.main
http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/individual?invocationType=dictionary.main
Thank you Boss but I am sure she is going to have a philosophical reason not to except these definitions. Either that or she will ignore this post all together.

reply from: sander

Absolutely. But at the price of the life of an innocent human being? NO.
If it is truly a matter of life or death, nobody here argues that the mother should die. That kind of abortion has always been legal in the U.S..
That scenario is only true in the rarest of cases, however.
You'll be surrised to learn that most mother's are willing to lay down their lives for their children, even in the womb. But, that's selflessness, something you proaborts are wholly unfamiliar with.
Don't be a moron, again, nobody here thinks women's sole purpose is to "breed".
I highly doubt you know what you think, first it's "logic" then it's "Christians", make up your minbd.
Your opinion is moronic, not one single prolife person I know thinks the way you believe. Not one.
You've bought into a stereotype, that's all and it does make you look moronic to not be able to make up your mind or believe such dribble as prolifers want women to be only "breeders" (YOUR word).

Cry me a river.
If you think I have one single ounce of respect for your opinion or you as a person then I know you're moronic.
I hold people that support abortion rights in complete and utter contempt.

reply from: sander

Absolutely. But at the price of the life of an innocent human being? NO.
And an innocent life should be brought into this world at the cost of its mother or her health? Christians say that everything should be done to save the fetus as long as the mother can also be saved. If the mother dies, the fetus dies so therefore, the mother's life is more valuable than the fetus, no?
I don't believe that women are here for the sole purpose of breeding. Oh, I'm sorry thats right, women are still being punished for that whole apple incident years ago.
Oh, I see...you really meant this to just be a slam against Christians, since you edited it from this:
Yoda was right, "strawman alert", "red herring alert".
You just couldn't make up your mind how to phrase it.....pathetic.
What a stupid response for getting caught making an idiot out of yourself.

reply from: ritechus

Would you please post a creditable definition of the philosophical term "being", with a source?
Here, let me help her. http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?query=being&invocationType=tl1clk&flv=1
">http://www.referencecenter.com...pe=tl1clk&flv=1
http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/person?invocationType=dictionary.main
">http://www.referencecenter.com...dictionary.main
http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/individual?invocationType=dictionary.main
I think to explain the philosophy of being as it pertains to abortion, you'll have to debate autonomy vs contingent being.
Discuss!!!

reply from: sattainon

Why do people say that science doesn't have proof, when I posted not hours ago the whole DNA thing?
How the heck can you DENY that you have the same DNA as you did when you were conceived?
PS: My remark about some people sickening God might have been harsh, but defending sin (and murder of a HELPLESS child for that matter) is something that He despises and is sickened by... so yea, you do sicken God. However, He does still love you, He just is really .. not happy with what you are doing.
Anyways, I find it sad that a lot of the Abortion people here find other things to talk about then the information in the posts.
Again,
DNA.
Are you capable of not insulting...you know, it doesn't make your points more valid.
So ACOG is prolife? I asked for proof that the medical community says a human fetus is a human being. You offered nothing but your interpretations...which means we are BOTH talking about our opinions on the matter. And besides, again, wouldn't...by your logic...that mean that most medical and scientific organizations would be prolife?
Being is a philosophical term that you are trying to define scientifically and medically...that's why you struggle with it.
Just thought I'd highlight something here.
DNA. It's proof, unless you don't know what it is.

reply from: BossMomma

Would you please post a creditable definition of the philosophical term "being", with a source?
Here, let me help her. http://www.referencecenter.com...pe=tl1clk&flv=1
<br ">http://www.referencece...com.....lv=1
http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/person?invocationType=dictionary.main
<br ">">http://www.referencecente...ary.main
http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/individual?invocationType=dictionary.main
Thank you Boss but I am sure she is going to have a philosophical reason not to except these definitions. Either that or she will ignore this post all together.
Probably, after all her opinion is so much more important than established facts.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

Even this site refers to a fetus as a baby and unless it's a pro-life medical encyclopedia it shoots her theory to sh!t.

reply from: BossMomma

Would you please post a creditable definition of the philosophical term "being", with a source?
Here, let me help her. http://www.referencecenter.com...pe=tl1clk&flv=1
<br ">http://www.referencece...com.....lv=1
http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/person?invocationType=dictionary.main
<br ">">http://www.referencecente...ary.main
http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/individual?invocationType=dictionary.main
I think to explain the philosophy of being as it pertains to abortion, you'll have to debate autonomy vs contingent being.
Discuss!!!
I don't really buy into philosophy, I debate from a scientific/medical point of view as scientific/medical fact can be proven. Philosophy is simply a belief. Peter Singer is a philosopher and libertarian that believes newborns are non-persons and that killing them is acceptable, should his philosophy be acceptable?

reply from: 4choice4all

DNA...my hair has human dna...it's not a being though.

reply from: Shenanigans

I think the problem pro-choice to kill unborn children people have is if they acknowledge those facts, they will have to acknowledge the fact they support the killing, or may have played a roll in said killing, of a human being.
And that's a lot for a conscience to bare. Not everyone has the intestinal fortitude of Nathanson.

reply from: faithman

Human dumbassedness is really a very ugly disease. Bortheads just seem to be eaten up with it.

reply from: yoda

Just when I think your posts can't get any more stupid, you prove me wrong..
Main Entry: 1 be·ing Function: noun1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists
Multiple word terms, however are not defined by their individual words, or else a "hot dog" would be an overheated canine. They are defined as a multiple word unit, thus:
Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0481706.html / hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species
MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/H0317900.html %20human human being: NOUN: human
Meriam-Webster Online http://www.m-w.com Main Entry: human being Function: noun : HUMAN

reply from: sk1bianca

i'll type it 1000 times if i have to!
4c4a, WHAT IN THE WORLD IS A FETUS, if it's not a human being? do you believe it's a human organ?
your hair, your foot, your liver, your lungs have YOUR DNA. your unborn baby would have HIS OWN UNIQUE DNA.
are we supposed to award the title of human being according to biological facts or some "philosophical" beliefs?

reply from: sattainon

Something for the pro-abortions to think about:
The vagina is not some star-gate. It doesn't "transform" a fetus into a "human" simply because its head passes through it.

reply from: sander

I think the problem pro-choice to kill unborn children people have is if they acknowledge those facts, they will have to acknowledge the fact they support the killing, or may have played a roll in said killing, of a human being.
And that's a lot for a conscience to bare. Not everyone has the intestinal fortitude of Nathanson.
*Ding, ding, ding*
Right answer.

reply from: yoda

YES, that's the proabort philosophy....... they think they have the authority to classify people as human beings when they feel like it...... and some of them are actually stupid enough to believe that...... but not all of them.

reply from: ritechus

Actually, not to get all geeky on you, but neither did the stargate. It transported beings from one dimension to the other. That is probably closer to what a vagina does. But if you want to know more about what a vagina actually does, go ask your mother.
See what a lack of sex education does. We've actually got people referencing science fiction when referring to a vagina.

reply from: sander

Actually, not to get all geeky on you, but neither did the stargate. It transported beings from one dimension to the other. That is probably closer to what a vagina does. But if you want to know more about what a vagina actually does, go ask your mother.
See what a lack of sex education does. We've actually got people referencing science fiction when referring to a vagina.
Were you born this stupid, or did you have take lessons?
Research sarcasim....it won't be as scary as researching sanger.

reply from: sattainon

Actually, not to get all geeky on you, but neither did the stargate. It transported beings from one dimension to the other. That is probably closer to what a vagina does. But if you want to know more about what a vagina actually does, go ask your mother.
See what a lack of sex education does. We've actually got people referencing science fiction when referring to a vagina.
.... Wow. I really don't know what to say to your response. Um.
So, the womb is another dimension then this world, is that what you are saying? Because the last time I checked... it was apart of this world....
Also, wow. You...wow.

reply from: ritechus

Would you please post a creditable definition of the philosophical term "being", with a source?
Here, let me help her. http://www.referencece...com.....lv=1
"><br ">http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?query=being&invocationType=tl1clk&flv=1
<br ">http://...encec...om.....lv=1
...>
http://www.referencecente...ary.main
<br ">http://www...rencecente...ary....>
http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/individual?invocationType=dictionary.main
I think to explain the philosophy of being as it pertains to abortion, you'll have to debate autonomy vs contingent being.
Discuss!!!
I don't really buy into philosophy, I debate from a scientific/medical point of view as scientific/medical fact can be proven. Philosophy is simply a belief. Peter Singer is a philosopher and libertarian that believes newborns are non-persons and that killing them is acceptable, should his philosophy be acceptable?
Somehow I knew this would be your answer, Darlin'!

reply from: sander

Would you please post a creditable definition of the philosophical term "being", with a source?
Here, let me help her. http://...encec...om.....lv=1
">"><br ">http://www.referencecente...ary.main
"><br ">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/person?invocationType=dictionary.main

<br ">http://www...rencecente...ary....>

]http://www.referencecenter.com...pe=tl1clk&flv=1
<br [/L]
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?query=being&invocationType=tl1clk&flv=1
]http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/individual?invocationType=dictionary.main---->http://www.referencecenter.com...onType=dictionary.main]http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?query=being&invocationType=tl1clk&flv=1
<br [/L]
I think to explain the philosophy of being as it pertains to abortion, you'll have to debate autonomy vs contingent being.
Discuss!!!
I don't really buy into philosophy, I debate from a scientific/medical point of view as scientific/medical fact can be proven. Philosophy is simply a belief. Peter Singer is a philosopher and libertarian that believes newborns are non-persons and that killing them is acceptable, should his philosophy be acceptable?
Somehow I knew this would be your answer, Darlin'!
Do you ever answer the questions or do you think these lame attempts at smart ass statements are one and the same?

reply from: sattainon

I've noticed that whenever proof or a good question is brought forth, pro-abortion folks don't answer it, or point something unconnected out of it...

reply from: ritechus

I think the problem pro-choice to kill unborn children people have is if they acknowledge those facts, they will have to acknowledge the fact they support the killing, or may have played a roll in said killing, of a human being.
And that's a lot for a conscience to bare. Not everyone has the intestinal fortitude of Nathanson.
*Ding, ding, ding*
Right answer.
I love how the opinionated post, littered with grammatical errors, is the one that Sanders agrees with!

reply from: ritechus

Would you please post a creditable definition of the philosophical term "being", with a source?
Here, let me help her. http://...encec...om.....lv=1
">">http://www.referencece...com.....lv=1
<br ">">"><br ">http://www...rencecente...ary....>
...cecente...ary....>
">http://www...rencecente...ary....>
]http://www.referencecente...ary.main
[/L]
]http://www.referencecenter.com...pe=tl1clk&flv=1
<br [/L]
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?query=being&invocationType=tl1clk&flv=1
]http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/individual?invocationType=dictionary.main---->http://www.referencecenter.com...onType=dictionary.main]http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?query=being&invocationType=tl1clk&flv=1
">http://www.referencecenter.com...onType=dictionary.main]http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/person?invocationType=dictionary.main
[/L]
<br [/L]
I think to explain the philosophy of being as it pertains to abortion, you'll have to debate autonomy vs contingent being.
Discuss!!!
I don't really buy into philosophy, I debate from a scientific/medical point of view as scientific/medical fact can be proven. Philosophy is simply a belief. Peter Singer is a philosopher and libertarian that believes newborns are non-persons and that killing them is acceptable, should his philosophy be acceptable?
Somehow I knew this would be your answer, Darlin'!
Do you ever answer the questions or do you think these lame attempts at smart ass statements are one and the same?
For some reason, the question seemed rhetorical. And besides, she didn't take any time to address my post, why should I do the same. If she's not going to do the hard work than any effort on my part is pointless.

reply from: sander

I think the problem pro-choice to kill unborn children people have is if they acknowledge those facts, they will have to acknowledge the fact they support the killing, or may have played a roll in said killing, of a human being.
And that's a lot for a conscience to bare. Not everyone has the intestinal fortitude of Nathanson.
*Ding, ding, ding*
Right answer.
I love how the opinionated post, littered with grammatical errors, is the one that Sanders agrees with!
Apparently you did take lessons on stupid.
You've succeeded.
What the hell does "grammatical" errors have to do with the underlying truth that you vile creatures don't have the fortitude to look at what you support.
You won't even research sanger in total fear you are wrong. Or even answer a straight forward question.
Go back to school...skip the lessons on stupid and take some classes on critical thinking.

reply from: sattainon

Can we all grow up a tiny bit and stop calling each other names? I'm all for discussion, but it's not a constructive discussion when there is name-calling. This is a message for both sides, please try.

reply from: faithman

Pro aborts are low life scum bag baby killers. They have no reason, so it is pointless to reason with these monsters. They believe in killing babies for conveniance sake. That is their agenda, and always has been.

reply from: sander

9 posts and we get lectures.
sigh
How about we just let each poster post as they see fit?

reply from: sattainon

9 posts and we get lectures.
sigh
How about we just let each poster post as they see fit?
You can go ahead and do that, but if any pro-lifer here wants to get a positive message across to the other side, stop calling names, stay respectful, don't let pro-abortion folk get under your skin.

reply from: ritechus

very good point sattainon, I take back what I said about your grammar!

reply from: ritechus

Actually, not to get all geeky on you, but neither did the stargate. It transported beings from one dimension to the other. That is probably closer to what a vagina does. But if you want to know more about what a vagina actually does, go ask your mother.
See what a lack of sex education does. We've actually got people referencing science fiction when referring to a vagina.
.... Wow. I really don't know what to say to your response. Um.
So, the womb is another dimension then this world, is that what you are saying? Because the last time I checked... it was apart of this world....
Also, wow. You...wow.
All I am saying is that my comparison is closer than your comparison, purely speaking on the subject of Stargate. I wasn't waxing philosophical, i was being a geek! Sorry, it happens sometimes.

reply from: sander

9 posts and we get lectures.
sigh
How about we just let each poster post as they see fit?
You can go ahead and do that, but if any pro-lifer here wants to get a positive message across to the other side, stop calling names, stay respectful, don't let pro-abortion folk get under your skin.
Get back to me after around 4,000 posts and dealing with the worst of the worst.
The day I don't let killing defensless babies get under my skin is the day I won't be here on earth any longer. We might as well just get that straight here and now.

reply from: faithman

Pro aborts are low life scum bag baby killers. They have no reason, so it is pointless to reason with these monsters. They believe in killing babies for conveniance sake. That is their agenda, and always has been.

reply from: ritechus

Who cares?
I'm not here to discuss my motives with you, I'm here to discuss why you approve of the ELECTIVE killing of unborn babies? Want to talk about that? If not, take a hike.
Oh I'm sorry I thought this was a discussion on the fetus being a baby. And why should I answer the question you never asked? You are just going to say "who cares". I'm guessing you are about 8 years old...

reply from: faithman

Pro aborts are low life scum bag baby killers. They have no reason, so it is pointless to reason with these monsters. They believe in killing babies for conveniance sake. That is their agenda, and always has been.

reply from: sattainon

Faithman, we get it you hate people. But you are not perfect yourself.
Sander, I may not have four thousand posts here but I can assure you I have been around the abortion debate block. I know how annoying and pestilent some people can be, but it still makes a better case to not resort to their level, if we resort to name-calling we become a bad spokesperson. In the past I myself have thrown names around, and that's only gotten me into discussions where no one learned anything, places where someone could have maybe seen a different side.
At any rate,
Ritechus,
It doesn't matter, this isn't a place to discuss your geek-ness. My point still stands, but let me sum it up once more for you.
A vagina is not something that has the ability to "transform" a fetus into a human being. As discussed previously the DNA does not change from the transaction of womb-vagina, and it is still very much the same. Five seconds earlier it was still in the womb, and five seconds later it's out. What has changed? Nothing, except it passed through the woman into the open air of this world. To take a stand for abortion stating that the child (or fetus, whatever) is not human makes no logical (or scientific) sense. You can't look at the child's DNA from the time it was conceived to the time it was outside of the womb and go "OH, it's a human NOW! see there, the DNA changed to add a few more of something and NOW it's a human". That is simply not how life works, or indeed reproduction.
If a bear is pregnant, it has a bear cub inside of it. Does the bear being born make it a bear, or does it's DNA make it a bear? Obviously the DNA does because we can take a sample of that DNA and go "Oh, this is bear DNA!".
The same goes for humans. If I were to take a sample of the child's (or fetus', whatever) DNA inside the womb and look at it compared to human DNA, I wouldn't go "Nope, sorry Mrs. Hansen, that's a bear cub." I would go "Well, it has the DNA of a human, look!" and subsequently if I took the same child's DNA after it was born and compared it to the sample I took while it was still in the womb there would be no difference whatsoever.
So now knowing this, that the DNA does not change and that it's human DNA, can you say the child (or fetus, whatever) is not indeed a part of our species? If you indeed continue to say it's not a part of our species you are in fact denying Scientific proof, along with logic (which people should study more nowadays).
So I kindly seek an answer from you to the following question;
If I have the same DNA now (I am nineteen years old) as I did when I was conceived, have I indeed not been human my entire life?
I humbly await your answer.

reply from: BossMomma

your hair has YOUR DNA because it is part of you, a fetus has seperate DNA, seperate blood type (which is why mom and baby's blood can't mix) seperate organ systems and, sometimes seperate gender. The baby is within the woman but not part of her.

reply from: BossMomma

Would you please post a creditable definition of the philosophical term "being", with a source?
Here, let me help her. http://...encec...om.....lv=1
">"><br ">http://www.referencecente...ary.main
"><br ">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/person?invocationType=dictionary.main

<br ">http://www...rencecente...ary....>

]http://www.referencecenter.com...pe=tl1clk&flv=1
<br [/L]
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?query=being&invocationType=tl1clk&flv=1
]http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/individual?invocationType=dictionary.main---->http://www.referencecenter.com...onType=dictionary.main]http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?query=being&invocationType=tl1clk&flv=1
<br [/L]
I think to explain the philosophy of being as it pertains to abortion, you'll have to debate autonomy vs contingent being.
Discuss!!!
I don't really buy into philosophy, I debate from a scientific/medical point of view as scientific/medical fact can be proven. Philosophy is simply a belief. Peter Singer is a philosopher and libertarian that believes newborns are non-persons and that killing them is acceptable, should his philosophy be acceptable?
Somehow I knew this would be your answer, Darlin'!
Ditto honey bun. You're as predictable as I.

reply from: BossMomma

I think the problem pro-choice to kill unborn children people have is if they acknowledge those facts, they will have to acknowledge the fact they support the killing, or may have played a roll in said killing, of a human being.
And that's a lot for a conscience to bare. Not everyone has the intestinal fortitude of Nathanson.
*Ding, ding, ding*
Right answer.
I love how the opinionated post, littered with grammatical errors, is the one that Sanders agrees with!
Oh look, another grammer nazi. We already had to deal with Nulono the child molester, now we got this goober.

reply from: emarmol

Killers always make killing seem like something that is normal or rational to some how convince them selves and others that they have the right to kill or take the life of another person. In the case of abortion these killers at the clinics convince people to take the precious life of their own child and the killers at the clinics go a step further and do it for a living with their greed hidden by the so called "choice" that people have been brain washed to believe as a way of helping women feel like they have a legal right to kill their child any time it's inconvenient for them to raise or give birth to their own child, which is selfish and evil and goes against not only God but against what is right.
People of sound mind that know right from wrong would never consider killing their own child, any other child or another human being for that matter, this is true especially with people who believe in God and understand the value of life and in faith hope for eternal happiness in heaven with our Lord.
Some how the devil has a way of making bad seem good and because we are human some of us fall easily into his trap and eventually stop believing in God completely, which is the devils ultimate goal.
People of sound mind who believe in God see taking a life as murder period with out any exceptions, murder is muder!
Unfortionately people who fall victim to these greedy baby killers at the clinic's believe that they truely have a "choice" and a right to have their child murdered and because it is legal see no wrong in having their child torn to pieces and killed then discarded and or sold for spare parts etc.
People we do have choices in life and the babies have a right to life. Some how it seems so obious to me that life and what is right go together, just like death and wrong go together. Even if you do not believe in God, people know right from wrong. At least people of sound mind any way.
In the end only what is good and right will have eternal happiness and unless you bring your self out of the dark you will not have eternal life and happiness.
There is still time to repent and save your soul from eternal damnation. God is merciful but gave us free will to do what is right because of his love gave us clear instructions for eternal happiness. Yes we do have a "choice or choices during our earthly life. Lets make them wisely! Don't let the devil have your soul!

reply from: sattainon

Still waiting a reply, Mr. Rit.

reply from: emarmol

Unless you are evil, let's not allow the devil to distract you from the subject!

reply from: nancyu

Would you please post a creditable definition of the philosophical term "being", with a source?
Here, let me help her. http://...encec...om.....lv=1
">">http://www.referencece...com.....lv=1
<br ">">"><br ">http://www...rencecente...ary....>
...cecente...ary....>
">http://www...rencecente...ary....>
]http://www.referencecente...ary.main
[/L]
]http://www.referencecenter.com...pe=tl1clk&flv=1
<br [/L]
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?query=being&invocationType=tl1clk&flv=1
]http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/individual?invocationType=dictionary.main---->http://www.referencecenter.com...onType=dictionary.main]http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary?query=being&invocationType=tl1clk&flv=1
">http://www.referencecenter.com...onType=dictionary.main]http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/dictionary/person?invocationType=dictionary.main
[/L]
<br [/L]
I think to explain the philosophy of being as it pertains to abortion, you'll have to debate autonomy vs contingent being.
Discuss!!!
I don't really buy into philosophy, I debate from a scientific/medical point of view as scientific/medical fact can be proven. Philosophy is simply a belief. Peter Singer is a philosopher and libertarian that believes newborns are non-persons and that killing them is acceptable, should his philosophy be acceptable?
Somehow I knew this would be your answer, Darlin'!
Ditto honey bun. You're as predictable as I.
Your posts would be easier to read if you delete the spaces when quoting. Just a suggestion, take it or leave it.

reply from: ritechus

You are now digitally a waste of space, I wonder if that is also true of your real self?

reply from: sattainon

You are now digitally a waste of space, I wonder if that is also true of your real self?
You do realize that you have now not answered my question after I asked you several times? Yet you claim others are a waste of space.
Either participate in the conversation, or get out.

reply from: ritechus

Yes you've been a human your entire life. Was that for your own personal reassurance?
DNA or no DNA, I don't care if it is a human being, human, zygote, fetus, etc. All I care about is that the mother of the little bundle of joy IS a human being able to make her own choices with regard to her little bambino regardless of her religion or not. She is in control of her body and the precious life inside of her has no autonomy because the living child is unable to live on its own. If said little munchkin could live on its own, this would not be an issue.
On a emotional level, removing whatever theological convictions you may have (because I am not religious), we probably have the same viewpoint about abortion. But I want no part in legislating the morality and lives of others in this instance.
edit: wow, sattaninon, have some patience I was getting to it. Had I know that you were going to be such a pest about it, I probably would have made you wait longer! lol.

reply from: yoda

I'm sure you haven't had the time or energy to read much of the past postings on the forum, so take my word for it that we have been over and over this ground countless times. "Ad nausem" would be a good way to put it.
But since you're new here, I'll point out a couple things: One, most of us are not here to convert any proaborts. Most of those who come here are not open to anyone else's arguments, no matter how good or logical. So, we are here to exchange information and learn how to refute the lies of the proaborts, not to tilt at windmills trying to convert them. And along the way, maybe we can touch some the very few open minded people who read but don't post here.
All of us have different styles, and for some that includes expressing their very strong disgust at what the baby killers say. Yes, I said "baby killers", because that is what abortionists are, and I think that also applies to all those who support what abortionist do. And almost none of us appreciate being told how to post here, since none of us have any authority here (except MC3, the forum owner).
So in conclusion I would say, do not presume to instruct anyone else here on how they should post, and we will return the favor. Thank you for what you are trying to do for the unborn.

reply from: yoda

Some of them do have "reason", they just don't use it in this debate. They speak, like most of us do, from emotion, except that their emotions tell them that killing babies is all right.
Like the guy said in the movie "Oh Brother Where Art Thou", "It's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart".

reply from: yoda

If you thought that, then why did you change the subject?

reply from: sattainon

Yes you've been a human your entire life. Was that for your own personal reassurance?
DNA or no DNA, I don't care if it is a human being, human, zygote, fetus, etc. All I care about is that the mother of the little bundle of joy IS a human being able to make her own choices with regard to her little bambino regardless of her religion or not. She is in control of her body and the precious life inside of her has no autonomy because the living child is unable to live on its own. If said little munchkin could live on its own, this would not be an issue.
On a emotional level, removing whatever theological convictions you may have (because I am not religious), we probably have the same viewpoint about abortion. But I want no part in legislating the morality and lives of others in this instance.
edit: wow, sattaninon, have some patience I was getting to it. Had I know that you were going to be such a pest about it, I probably would have made you wait longer! lol.
I can discuss abortion without talking about God.
Also, you just accepted that it was indeed a human being and thus, just defended murder. Good job.

reply from: yoda

That's the most honest thing I've seen a proabort post here lately. Disgusting, but honestly so.
How does a lack of "autonomy" cause a human being to lose their right to life? Does dependence in some way make us less entitled to live? Why do you despise those who are less independent than you?
I am agnostic, and I very much want a part in legislating against the "morality" of elective baby killing. I despise it equally with "born person killing". Obviously, you do not.

reply from: ritechus

Once born, can it "live on it's own?"
Only then can the little ray of sunshine live on its own, until then, the little tyke has no rights. Only its mother does.

reply from: yoda

No newborn can "live on it's own". If fact, very few of us can, in a larger sense we are all dependent upon each other.
But you still have not, and probably will not address my question, so I will rephrase it and hope you don't notice it's been recycled:
How does independence give you more of a right to life than dependence?

reply from: ritechus

Yes you've been a human your entire life. Was that for your own personal reassurance?
DNA or no DNA, I don't care if it is a human being, human, zygote, fetus, etc. All I care about is that the mother of the little bundle of joy IS a human being able to make her own choices with regard to her little bambino regardless of her religion or not. She is in control of her body and the precious life inside of her has no autonomy because the living child is unable to live on its own. If said little munchkin could live on its own, this would not be an issue.
On a emotional level, removing whatever theological convictions you may have (because I am not religious), we probably have the same viewpoint about abortion. But I want no part in legislating the morality and lives of others in this instance.
edit: wow, sattaninon, have some patience I was getting to it. Had I know that you were going to be such a pest about it, I probably would have made you wait longer! lol.
I can discuss abortion without talking about God.
Also, you just accepted that it was indeed a human being and thus, just defended murder. Good job.
No I did not, I only agreed with you that YOU'VE been human all your life. I did not state when your life actually began. And neither did you. Why is it we only count our age from the day that we are born rather than from the day that we are conceived. At birth we should be already considered 9 months old if we are truly alive at conception.
BTW, I only mention god b/c I was comparing my emotion to yours and I didn't want to misrepresent my emotion as having anything to do with god. The Pro-life movement is almost always about your god.

reply from: ritechus

By advocating legal abortion on demand, you do just that....
How so?

reply from: ritechus

That's the most honest thing I've seen a proabort post here lately. Disgusting, but honestly so.
thank you, i guess!
How does a lack of "autonomy" cause a human being to lose their right to life? Does dependence in some way make us less entitled to live? Why do you despise those who are less independent than you?
This isn't about entitlement and it isn't about despise. I am just not oblivious to human nature. Are you aware that abortion numbers have dropped in the last twenty years?
Obviously you realize you cannot end abortion. Why not focus your efforts towards providing education and protection? That is one way that has been PROVEN to work towards reducing abortion. Why fight a lost cause?
I am agnostic, and I very much want a part in legislating against the "morality" of elective baby killing. I despise it equally with "born person killing". Obviously, you do not.
Great where can I find your posts on "born person killing"? If you despise it equally I should be able to find reference to your activism against it, no? If not, then why is it this topic that you speak out so vehemently against?

reply from: ritechus

Once born, can it "live on it's own?"
Only then can the little ray of sunshine live on its own, until then, the little tyke has no rights. Only its mother does.
You assert that a newborn can "live on it's own?" I dispute that claim.
Fine, I'll break it down to a simple human function, breathing! love the nitpicking though, its nice. keep going.

reply from: ritechus

By advocating legal abortion on demand, you do just that....
How so?
If you say others can't kill a class of human being, you are "legislating morality," but not if you say they can? Either way, you are legislating morality....
The same can be said for not allowing a mother the choice. Again, it is their body first and foremost. Just because there is something alive within her,doesn't negate her rights as a human being. Her body, her choice.
Well that is what makes this debate so hard is that morality is different for everyone. From Christian, to non-christian, even from christian to christian.
I also want to clarify that I am not advocating more abortions. I want less. but since so many within christianity will not deal with the situation in a logical manner, abortion has to exist.

reply from: ritechus

The way I see it, an unborn child only has only the potential to exist. That potential is contingent on the mother. Anything else is murder.
edit: sorry, i used the wrong word here. I meant potential, not ability (it sucks that I have to do this to avoid being blasted for not being able to make up my mind)

reply from: sattainon

By advocating legal abortion on demand, you do just that....
How so?
If you say others can't kill a class of human being, you are "legislating morality," but not if you say they can? Either way, you are legislating morality....
The same can be said for not allowing a mother the choice. Again, it is their body first and foremost. Just because there is something alive within her,doesn't negate her rights as a human being. Her body, her choice.
Well that is what makes this debate so hard is that morality is different for everyone. From Christian, to non-christian, even from christian to christian.
I also want to clarify that I am not advocating more abortions. I want less. but since so many within christianity will not deal with the situation in a logical manner, abortion has to exist.
Darling, we have been over this with the whole DNA thing. It's NOT her body, it's a COMPLETELY NEW PERSON.
So, according to our friend here if I have to be put on a ventilator because I lost the ability to breathe, I can be killed because I am not alive.
Your arguments are weak, you are going back and forth from "its the womans choice!" to kill someone to "it's not a live".

reply from: ritechus

Sweet-cakes,
That is because they are both reasons, you cannot exclude one without the other. The mother's life need not be excluded in this scenario. Nit pick as much as you want, the discussion is so threaded that I cannot keep track of who said what and when. Here is an outline of my belief on this subject:
Conception - mother's choice to have sex, even if mother didn't intend to get pregnant, she has the right to terminate
First, Second trimester - right to terminate
Third trimester - still don't know how I feel about this. Half of me says, you had 6 months to make up your mind, why change this late in the game. at a certain point you have to make a decision and stick with your choice. Still though, the other half says, if the baby cannot be delivered and live, then it should not. But there is a whole legality issue with this one.
Birth - this is the moment from which a person begins to exist in this world. forceful termination beyond this point is murder
Ventilators and life support- I cannot believe that I even have to clarify this, but pro-lifers like to take things to extreme ridiculousness to prove a point. It's called a DNR, you get to choose and if you are unable, someone else close to you gets to choose for you..maybe its unfair, but there is this little facet of life called reality..we all have to deal with it.

reply from: yoda

You have just totally contradicted yourself, but then you're a proabort.
You named an object (unborn child), and then said that object was not real ("only has the potential to exist").
That's totally self contradictory, and rather bizarre.

reply from: yoda

????
That "person" did not exist a moment before birth?
Are you trying to be funny?

reply from: ritechus

yodavater,
nothing is ever so cut and dry. that is part of reality.

reply from: yoda

ritechus,
EXISTENCE is "cut and dry"...... you either exist or you don't.
There is no philosophical dodge that will get around that.

reply from: Teresa18

Throwing crap at the wall and hoping it sticks I see?

reply from: ritechus

You have just totally contradicted yourself, but then you're a proabort.
You named an object (unborn child), and then said that object was not real ("only has the potential to exist").
That's totally self contradictory, and rather bizarre.
I'm not a "proabort". I am pro-choice, there is a difference. open your mind and understand that. you don't want to end abortion, you want to fight...fine...
By your logic, If a woman aborts an unborn child, you consider it murder. If it were illegal, what should be done with the mother at that point?

reply from: yoda

Yes, you are a proabort, but I'll get to that later.
First, please address this:
"You have just totally contradicted yourself, but then you're a proabort.
You named an object (unborn child), and then said that object was not real ("only has the potential to exist").
That's totally self contradictory, and rather bizarre."
Now, here is why you ARE a proabort:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - pro·a·bor·tion - adjective: PROCHOICE http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proabortion&r=66

Proabortion: PROCHOICE http://dictionary.infoplease.com/proabortion
pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a·bor·tion PRONUNCIATION: pr-bôrshn ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting legalized abortion. http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html

Main Entry: pro·abor·tion adjective Date: 1972 : favoring the legalization of abortion http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=proabortion

reply from: sander

This should be interesting....first we have a proabort who doesn't think human beings in the womb are beings, and now we hae one that thinks there's some sort of level of "existence".
What other lengths will these creatures go to to defend something totally indefensible ....wait, don't answer, I couldn't take it.

reply from: ritechus

then by dictionary.com's definition, I am. But the term is derogatory to me. I consider myself prochoice because I support a woman's right to choose. There is a difference. I also wish to reduce the need of legalized abortion through preventative measures. We don't need to debate this any further. You have your definition and I have mine. If you choose to portray me in the worst possible light, than so be it.
As to the part you want me to address:
An unborn child cannot exist without its mother, therefore, it exists only because of its mother. And my viewpoint, however contradictory and bizarre as you may think it is, is irrelevant. It is only the mother's viewpoint that is relevant.
Now please address my question: By your logic, If a woman aborts an unborn child, you consider it murder. If it were illegal, what should be done with the mother at that point?

reply from: sattainon

We need to cut and dry what I am talking about.
If a woman is in a position where her attending physicians need to make a choice, save her or the baby, they are obligated to SAVE THE PERSON THEY CAN BY LAW. If they can save both, they will, if only one, only one, if none, none. But they try their best.
I am NOT against that, that is NOT what Pro-life is against either, because that's something that is NOT planned and in ALL those situations, the doctors are trying to SAVE who they can.
I am, and prolifers, are against ABORTION ON DEMAND. This includes anything not listed above.
For the subject of rape... I don't care. The woman in question, who would have been raped, has already gone through something traumatic. And you want her to go through something more traumatic, something that has been proven in MANY studies to link to further depression as well as links to breast cancer and other things that could be detrimental to the health of the woman, physically and mentally. Furthermore you are trying to justify the murder of a human being (we are done discussing if it is or is not a human being darnit, it is get over it.) just because someone was raped. That person had no choice to be there, and yet you say its OK to kill them because they were a result of a rape. That's just sick.
You want to talk about hurting women? PP, the leading abortion provider in america has a huge track record of COVERING UP sexual abuse cases in order to get the woman an abortion. In one case the girls step-father got her an abortion after having sexually abused her for years, then continued doing so until the girls mother discovered the abortion information.
Pro Choice is not different then Pro-Abortion. All pro-choice is is a term to soften what you actually support. You support choice for the woman and her "constitutional rights". But apparently her rights go as far as to kill a child if she wants. Her rights are allowing people like those in PP protecting child molesters in order to get the abortion secured for the abused woman to exercise their "constitutional rights" to get an abortion while in the meantime not reporting the abuse.
Do you defend that? Do you favour people getting abortions for no reason whatsoever? Do you support the killing of nearly 4,000 children per day in america alone?
You are a sick sick sick individual. I cannot stress this enough. You are among those who support things even Hitler himself would be jealous of.

reply from: sattainon

"Conception - mother's choice to have sex, even if mother didn't intend to get pregnant, she has the right to terminate"
IF YOU HAVE SEX YOU RUN THE RISK OF GETTING PREGNANT. THAT'S WHAT SEX IS FOR. IT'S NOT PRIMARILY FOR FUN, IT IS FOR REPRODUCTION. HOW DOES SHE HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE IF SHE WAS PREFORMING ACTIONS THAT ARE MEANT TO RESULT IN A CHILD?
For God's sakes, get over yourself.

reply from: CDC700

You have just totally contradicted yourself, but then you're a proabort.
You named an object (unborn child), and then said that object was not real ("only has the potential to exist").
That's totally self contradictory, and rather bizarre.
I'm not a "proabort". I am pro-choice, there is a difference. open your mind and understand that. you don't want to end abortion, you want to fight...fine...
By your logic, If a woman aborts an unborn child, you consider it murder. If it were illegal, what should be done with the mother at that point?
If you are "pro-choice" then you DO, in fact, support abortion. You can wrap it up, and coat it with all the mustard in the world, but the bottom line is, you support the killing of innocent children.

reply from: Faramir

I unequivocally agree.

reply from: Shenanigans

And you guys wonder why Yoda always breaks out the dictionary.
Go look up "potential" and "exist" in the dictionary then try again.

reply from: lukesmom

And you guys wonder why Yoda always breaks out the dictionary.
Go look up "potential" and "exist" in the dictionary then try again.
Don't you know? They mean the "philosophical definition. Don't you have the Webster's Philosophical addition?

reply from: sander

And you guys wonder why Yoda always breaks out the dictionary.
Go look up "potential" and "exist" in the dictionary then try again.
Don't you know? They mean the "philosophical definition. Don't you have the Webster's Philosophical addition?
Wonder how long it took to think up that nonsense?
"Philosophical" definitions....sheesh....they sure are banking on prolifers being as stupid as they look.

reply from: BossMomma

The unborn child does not exist? Surely you jest.....
Yeah, we're just bloated up with nothing after six months of pregnancy..christ they get stupider by the minute. I've been pregnant quite a few times and there is definately a living human being moving and kicking in there.

reply from: sander

You have just totally contradicted yourself, but then you're a proabort.
You named an object (unborn child), and then said that object was not real ("only has the potential to exist").
That's totally self contradictory, and rather bizarre.
I'm not a "proabort". I am pro-choice, there is a difference. open your mind and understand that. you don't want to end abortion, you want to fight...fine...
By your logic, If a woman aborts an unborn child, you consider it murder. If it were illegal, what should be done with the mother at that point?
You are pro-abortion, you are a pro-abort. Are you ashamed?
If it were illegal the courts would decide what happens to the mother at that point, just like they do for every crime committed.
Was that suppose to be a trick question.......
You might be interested to learn you're nothing new and neither are your questions.
We've heard them all, every one.

reply from: sattainon

"I'm not a "proabort". I am pro-choice, there is a difference. open your mind and understand that. you don't want to end abortion, you want to fight...fine... "
Actually, you need to open your mind. I can safely say each and every person here who disagrees with you has a very open mind, simply because we have heard all your talks before. Heck, the FAQ section of Prolifeamerica.com talks about EVERY ONE of them. You say you don't care about DNA proof that it's a human, and you also stated that you didn't care if it was human. To me, that's just selfish and disgusting. You literally admitted you don't care if it's a human, and that you support the murder of it.
DNA evidence is not something you can just shrug off.
Oh, and just for fun, you do know that even identical twins have different DNA, right?

reply from: yoda

I agree, there is no need for further debate, because "your" definition is a made up, fantasy definition, and "mine" is taken directly from a REAL dictionary. Do you not see the difference, really?
You're really stretching here...... an unborn child will still "exist" without it's mother, even if it's dead. Even dead human still "exist". What did you REALLY mean to say?
"Murder" is the illegal killing of a human being. Should abortion be made illegal, then the law should simply take it's course. Does that answer your question?

reply from: yoda

The irony is....... they would reject even that, and instead insist on making up their own....

reply from: yoda

Sad, isn't it? That's how low you must sink to support baby slaughter.

reply from: faithman

And you guys wonder why Yoda always breaks out the dictionary.
Go look up "potential" and "exist" in the dictionary then try again.
Look how this low life baby killing scanc actually let "child" slither out of its fork tounged mouth? Even a blind pro-death sow, can find an acorn of truth every now and again!!! Ultra sound proves the child does have substance, and exists. The fact that mom has gain wieght proves the child has substance, and exists. The fact that public health anoucements tell pregnant women not to drink or drug while pregnant says that a child who can be harmed prebirth exists. The fact that a man can go to jail for double homocide for killing a prenant woman is a fact that a womb child exists. The fact that you made the pro-death mistake of calling the clump of cells a child, is the ultimate proof that a child does indeed exist.

reply from: ProInformed

And if abortionists are supopsedly not killing babies, then why did Tiller 'offer' (sell) memorialization services complete with dressing the BABY in baby clothes and giving them a tedy bear?
http://www.blackgenocide.org/Tiller/tiller.htm

To those who are too cowardly to go to the link, to read the info and look at the photos, your self-protected ignorance is disgustingly cowardly.

reply from: yoda

MMmmm....... to squeeze another buck out of women who are hiring him to kill their babies? Yeah, he called them "babies" too.....

reply from: Rosalie

Hmm, probably for the same reason I get called 'firecracker' now and then. It doesn't mean I'm actually a firecracker, it is just a term that refers to certain characteristics of mine.
People call their pets their babies all the time and it doesn't mean they think that kitty = baby. Please.
You claim to study psychology - does the term "associations" ring a bell? It should. And even if it doesn't, you should be aware of the fact that we all often use words that bear only slight resemblance to the literal meaning of the word.
I don't know about you but I call my baby girl pumpkin sometimes. That totally must mean that I think she's a huge, orange fruit that we carve on Halloween, according to your argument here, right?

reply from: lukesmom

Why don't you just admit it? It is a whole lot easier to wrap your mind and actions around killing a fetus than a "baby" isn't it? "Fetus" doesn't have the same conitations that "baby" has although they can be and are used interchangably for an unborn child.

reply from: sattainon

REFER TO MY POSTS ON DNA DARNIT.
thanks.

reply from: nancyu

Hmm, probably for the same reason I get called 'firecracker' now and then. It doesn't mean I'm actually a firecracker, it is just a term that refers to certain characteristics of mine.
People call their pets their babies all the time and it doesn't mean they think that kitty = baby. Please.
You claim to study psychology - does the term "associations" ring a bell? It should. And even if it doesn't, you should be aware of the fact that we all often use words that bear only slight resemblance to the literal meaning of the word.
I don't know about you but I call my baby girl pumpkin sometimes. That totally must mean that I think she's a huge, orange fruit that we carve on Halloween, according to your argument here, right?
^^dumb bimbo^^
Sorry fari boy, there's just no better way to describe her.

reply from: sattainon

They KNOW.
Apparently not.

reply from: nancyu

They know. NO ONE can be THAT stupid. Can they? I think they think it's funny to play dumb...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOOksTDDNBA&NR=1

reply from: lukesmom

Do you really think they mean to "play dumb"? Or is it because they just won't allow themselves to see the truth of their actions?

reply from: nancyu

Do you really think they mean to "play dumb"? Or is it because they just won't allow themselves to see the truth of their actions?
Six of one, half a dozen of the other?

reply from: sattainon

Have you read any of the responses here?

reply from: BossMomma

Hmm, probably for the same reason I get called 'firecracker' now and then. It doesn't mean I'm actually a firecracker, it is just a term that refers to certain characteristics of mine.
People call their pets their babies all the time and it doesn't mean they think that kitty = baby. Please.
You claim to study psychology - does the term "associations" ring a bell? It should. And even if it doesn't, you should be aware of the fact that we all often use words that bear only slight resemblance to the literal meaning of the word.
I don't know about you but I call my baby girl pumpkin sometimes. That totally must mean that I think she's a huge, orange fruit that we carve on Halloween, according to your argument here, right?
I'm aware of what association means but I find it hilarious and yet an insult to intelligence all at once. That doctor refered to the fetus as both a baby (emotional term) and a child (legal term) all in the same paragraph. Your trying to tell me that the fetus resembles a child but isn't one?

reply from: BossMomma

Hmm, probably for the same reason I get called 'firecracker' now and then. It doesn't mean I'm actually a firecracker, it is just a term that refers to certain characteristics of mine.
People call their pets their babies all the time and it doesn't mean they think that kitty = baby. Please.
You claim to study psychology - does the term "associations" ring a bell? It should. And even if it doesn't, you should be aware of the fact that we all often use words that bear only slight resemblance to the literal meaning of the word.
I don't know about you but I call my baby girl pumpkin sometimes. That totally must mean that I think she's a huge, orange fruit that we carve on Halloween, according to your argument here, right?
^^dumb bimbo^^
Sorry fari boy, there's just no better way to describe her.
No kidding, she strikes me as the type of person who uses the words Like, totally, and anyways frequently in conversation.

reply from: nancyu

I don't understand. I'm not trying to fight with you sattainon. I just don't happen to believe that these people are really so stupid that they don't know that a real living child exists in the womb.
They know, you can't really believe that they don't.

reply from: sattainon

I don't understand. I'm not trying to fight with you sattainon. I just don't happen to believe that these people are really so stupid that they don't know that a real living child exists in the womb.
They know, you can't really believe that they don't.
From some of the responses I've gotten it seems that either they don't, or they are OK with murder... which is still sick.
Just saying.

reply from: nancyu

I don't understand. I'm not trying to fight with you sattainon. I just don't happen to believe that these people are really so stupid that they don't know that a real living child exists in the womb.
They know, you can't really believe that they don't.
From some of the responses I've gotten it seems that either they don't, or they are OK with murder... which is still sick.
Just saying.
Couldn't agree more.

reply from: yoda

And a few of them have actually admitted that they are "okay" with killing innocent (unborn) human beings..... and any others whom it is legal to kill.
Others hide behind euphemisms.......

reply from: Rosalie

Um, no? I never said that. If you think I did, you need to re-read my post.
Oh look yet another immature and stupid attempt to insult me. It's so sad to see you sink so low with this trash. Or maybe you have been this trashy and immature since day one and you were just very good at pretending to be something else. It's sad, really.

reply from: BossMomma

Um, no? I never said that. If you think I did, you need to re-read my post.
Oh look yet another immature and stupid attempt to insult me. It's so sad to see you sink so low with this trash. Or maybe you have been this trashy and immature since day one and you were just very good at pretending to be something else. It's sad, really.
I read your post, understood it and replied, why reread? And Trashy? lol bimbo please, I wasn't the one insulting others and critiquing their fashion sense while claiming to be pro-choice. The crap you post is so blatantly freaking blond it's not even funny. Immature? Again, find that post where you were bashing Scopia's taste in attire before you go spouting anything about maturity. I am who I am, I'm a tough single mom, one of TDCJ's finest and, a medical student well on my way to a better career. You can find that as sad as you like.

reply from: Rosalie

Um, no? I never said that. If you think I did, you need to re-read my post.
Oh look yet another immature and stupid attempt to insult me. It's so sad to see you sink so low with this trash. Or maybe you have been this trashy and immature since day one and you were just very good at pretending to be something else. It's sad, really.
I read your post, understood it and replied, why reread? And Trashy? lol bimbo please, I wasn't the one insulting others and critiquing their fashion sense while claiming to be pro-choice. The crap you post is so blatantly freaking blond it's not even funny. Immature? Again, find that post where you were bashing Scopia's taste in attire before you go spouting anything about maturity. I am who I am, I'm a tough single mom, one of TDCJ's finest and, a medical student well on my way to a better career. You can find that as sad as you like.
Unfortunately, this proves what I've just said.
I'm sorry you feel so miserable about yourself that you feel the need to insult others like this.

reply from: BossMomma

Um, no? I never said that. If you think I did, you need to re-read my post.
Oh look yet another immature and stupid attempt to insult me. It's so sad to see you sink so low with this trash. Or maybe you have been this trashy and immature since day one and you were just very good at pretending to be something else. It's sad, really.
I read your post, understood it and replied, why reread? And Trashy? lol bimbo please, I wasn't the one insulting others and critiquing their fashion sense while claiming to be pro-choice. The crap you post is so blatantly freaking blond it's not even funny. Immature? Again, find that post where you were bashing Scopia's taste in attire before you go spouting anything about maturity. I am who I am, I'm a tough single mom, one of TDCJ's finest and, a medical student well on my way to a better career. You can find that as sad as you like.
Unfortunately, this proves what I've just said.
I'm sorry you feel so miserable about yourself that you feel the need to insult others like this.
And I'm sorry you can't come up with a decent argument to support the dehumanization and killing of unborn children.

reply from: Rosalie

I have come up with arguments to support abortion, you just don't like them. And you've proven yourself incapable of having a debate without being a raging, immature ***** with glaring isues so there's really no point in trying to present my opinions to you.
And there's no need to dehumanize fetuses. I don't know anyone who does that. It's all in your head.

reply from: Yuuki

All arguments for elective abortion revolve around a self-centered woman who only cares for herself. Too bad that's not how civilized society works. If you'd like to continue being a barbarian, by all means do so.

reply from: sander

And that's exactly the point. Society has so de-humanized babies in the womb, that entirely too many woman don't reconize the humanity of their own children.
This seems normal to you for the exact same reason.
Even though societies take turns for the worse, it does not make it right, normal, or morally just and of all things, "civilized".

reply from: Rosalie

No, they don't. Or maybe they do, if you consider being responsible and not having children you cannot afford/don't want to be 'selfish' or that putting your health above the health of an (unwanted) fetus is selfish.
It's your opinoin and that's fine and dandy but I don't see it that way and never will - I think the way you see it is repulsive, demeaning and misogynistic. I can never agree with it.

reply from: nancyu

No, they don't. Or maybe they do, if you consider being responsible and not having children you cannot afford/don't want to be 'selfish' or that putting your health above the health of an (unwanted) fetus is selfish.
It's your opinoin and that's fine and dandy but I don't see it that way and never will - I think the way you see it is repulsive, demeaning and misogynistic. I can never agree with it.
Question: Do the words "cannot afford" children, equate to "if we have children now, we will be forced to delay our trip to the South Seas"?
Where exactly do you draw the line between being able to "afford" children and being unable to "afford" children? You are aware that you're discussing human beings, right?

reply from: Yuuki

SOCIETIES preserve their self interests. Not individuals. You just made my point. And contradicted yourself in the process...

reply from: Yuuki

Well said.
When I was pro-choice it was all about me. I didn't want my parents to know. I didn't want to have to drop out of college (a lie, it wouldn't have had to happen). I didn't want to suffer the consequences.
On that note, something else I feel needs to change is the stigma against sex and pregnancy. I was so terrified of my parents knowing because they view unexpected pregnancies as a negative. If this were not the case, then I wouldn't have been afraid. I still would have used protection obviously, but if it had happened I wouldn't have felt like death for my child was the only option I had.
Being pregnant proves you're having sex. Yeah, people talk about it all the time, but pregnancy is a physical result of sex... and the reason pregnancy is feared is because our society still fears sex.

reply from: Yuuki

No, they don't. Or maybe they do, if you consider being responsible and not having children you cannot afford/don't want to be 'selfish' or that putting your health above the health of an (unwanted) fetus is selfish.
It's your opinoin and that's fine and dandy but I don't see it that way and never will - I think the way you see it is repulsive, demeaning and misogynistic. I can never agree with it.
Question: Do the words "cannot afford" children, equate to "if we have children now, we will be forced to delay our trip to the South Seas"?
Where exactly do you draw the line between being able to "afford" children and being unable to "afford" children? You are aware that you're discussing human beings, right?
Human life is priceless :3

reply from: Yuuki

You said "society functions". You did not say "an individual functions". The selfish and self-interested desires of a single human are much different than the self-interested desires of a society. The purpose of a society's existence is different than the purpose of an isolated human's existence.

reply from: yoda

Yes, but only if you do not consider yourself a "society unto itself", as some seem to.

reply from: sander

You're a bundle of contradictions. You have to be, else you'd have to confront your own twisted beliefs.
I can't believe you're this daft, but stranger things have occured.
Selfishness has a diffinitive meaning, no matter how you'd like to twist it to suit your baby killing mindset.
selfish:
- adjective 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself:

reply from: yoda

Let me guess..... now you're going to pretend that someone who acts 100% of the time in their own interests ONLY is no different from someone who simply do so much of the time, right?
You really see selfishness as a virtue, don't you?

reply from: yoda

So, when a healthy woman who has a healthy baby electively chooses abortion, you don't see anything "selfish" about that?
I mean, you don't really think that an elective abortion has anything to do with "self-preservation", do you?
Or are you just trying to confuse us?

reply from: Yuuki

Yes, but only if you do not consider yourself a "society unto itself", as some seem to.
We are naturally social creatures; we yearn for social contact (in general) and wither when we live without it. Our very well-being is dependent on caring for each other and keeping each other around. Otherwise, we would feel no love, and no pain when a loved one dies.

reply from: Rosalie

Then you were very uneducated and very scared.
Don't assume that every pro-choice person is like you.
Pregnancy is a possible outcome of sex. There's a difference.
No, they don't. Or maybe they do, if you consider being responsible and not having children you cannot afford/don't want to be 'selfish' or that putting your health above the health of an (unwanted) fetus is selfish.
It's your opinoin and that's fine and dandy but I don't see it that way and never will - I think the way you see it is repulsive, demeaning and misogynistic. I can never agree with it.
Question: Do the words "cannot afford" children, equate to "if we have children now, we will be forced to delay our trip to the South Seas"?
Where exactly do you draw the line between being able to "afford" children and being unable to "afford" children? You are aware that you're discussing human beings, right?
I don't draw the line because the body of other women is none of my business. It all happens in the woman's body, she has the right to decide. None of my business.
I don't believe ANY human being, born or unborn, has the right to live inside of a body of another unwilling human being.

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: sk1bianca

i'm still waiting for a pro-abort definition of the fetus.
if it's not a human being, then please do enlighten us and tell us WHAT IS IT?

reply from: Rosalie

I'm still waiting for someone to say that fetus is not human and that it is, I don't know, canine or feline.
I for one have never said fetus wasn't a human. Fetus is an unborn human residing inside of the woman's uterus. The fetal stage begins at 8 or 9 weeks into the pregnancy (before then it was called an embryo and before THEN it was a zygote). Is this specific enough for you?

reply from: Yuuki

You approve of killing innocent human beings for convenience. That is specific enough.

reply from: Rosalie

Nope, that is not true. I only approve of women killing human beings for whatever reason as long as these humans are inside of them, using their bodies and resources and therefore primarily affecting and putting at risk their health and lives because women have the ultimate right to make decisions about their bodies, health and lives.
I know that you are trying to ignore the fact that women are involved in this entire pregnancy thing but for the rest of us who are not blinded by the propaganda you have become so good at reciting it is quite an important thing.

reply from: Yuuki

Yes it is. It's not convenient. There are their CHILDREN. You have misplaced compassion if you think it's ok to kill children just because they are dependent.


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