Abortion

evince said:
It really doesnt matter wether you understand my reply or not.


What you will face is that women will NOT go back to being your chattle.


aint going to happen.



I know it will be the most difficult task you have ever endevored to achieve but please do go get fucked.
Click to expand...

You sure do harbor a lot of hatred and resentment.

Protecting human life does not make chattel. You are an extremist.

If a woman can't control her sexual urges then she must be protected from herself
 
WoLong said:
Again, feel free to provide any real science suggesting that an unborn is something other than a unique individual human being from the moment of conception.
Click to expand...

How about providing something that does show there is a human being at the moment of conception. 30,000 genes? 20,000 genes? Science doesn't even know how many genes human beings have but they supposedly know a fertilized cell does have them? That's a bit of a stretch. Not to mention knowing the 20,000 or 30,000 genes are all "operational".

Babies born with 6 legs. Some with part of the brain missing. What defects were in the fertilized cells that spontaneously aborted after conception? Science has no idea.

Just because a baby starts out as being a fertilized cell/conception that does not mean all fertilized cells/conceptions are babies and that is the error/assumption anti-abortionists fail to acknowledge. One of the first things we learn in school regarding the process of thinking is every "A" may be a "B" but every "B" is not an "A". Considering the impact on women's lives surely it's reasonable to demand substantial proof.
 
apple0154 said:
How about providing something that does show there is a human being at the moment of conception. 30,000 genes? 20,000 genes? Science doesn't even know how many genes human beings have but they supposedly know a fertilized cell does have them? That's a bit of a stretch. Not to mention knowing the 20,000 or 30,000 genes are all "operational".

Babies born with 6 legs. Some with part of the brain missing. What defects were in the fertilized cells that spontaneously aborted after conception? Science has no idea.

Just because a baby starts out as being a fertilized cell/conception that does not mean all fertilized cells/conceptions are babies and that is the error/assumption anti-abortionists fail to acknowledge. One of the first things we learn in school regarding the process of thinking is every "A" may be a "B" but every "B" is not an "A". Considering the impact on women's lives surely it's reasonable to demand substantial proof.
Click to expand...

It is still murder an I will always oppose it. Until of course they identify the gay gene and parents can self select out those defects from society. Oddly enough the queer lobby will probably become pro life overnight.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously it would.....because the DNA of the child would still be different from EITHER of her DNA samples......what you think everyone won't notice is that no matter how hard you try you cannot disguise her blood or her liver to look anything like a fetus.......since they cannot be fooled by the evidence, they cannot be fooled by your argument....
Click to expand...

It's not the point to disguise anything.The point is DNA can not determine a human being. So, when someone says DNA proves the fetus is a distinct human being that is simply not true.

We can run three tests. One using DNA from a woman's blood. Another running DNA from her liver which has differing DNA and the third test sample from her fetus. We tell the person running the tests which one is the woman's blood and ask him to show which of the other two are a human being. He will not be able to do so.

That's it. As your friends say, "Fair and balanced. No spin." :)
 
Thing1 said:
People on the pro-life side always seem to prefer putting forth a black & white argument - the fetus is a human being, destroying it is murder. Everything is absolutes.


The abortion discussion is much more complicated than that. There are competing rights involved; the pro life argument completely ignores the rights of the woman, which to me, is unacceptable.

Sentience is involved; stages of development are involved; viability is involved. A zygote has human DNA, and is a unique blueprint for a human being - but is it a fully realized individual? It is not. No more than an acorn is a potential tree, but not yet a tree.

The Roe decision is as good a compromise as the country is going to get, and takes into account some of the issues I mentioned above, as well as the complexity of the discussion.
Click to expand...
An acorn belongs to the same species as a tree, even if it does not look like a tree. You've repeatedly suggested that an unborn is something other than a unique individual human being, but you've yet to provide any science reinforcing your position.
 
apple0154 said:
It's not the point to disguise anything.The point is DNA can not determine a human being. So, when someone says DNA proves the fetus is a distinct human being that is simply not true.

We can run three tests. One using DNA from a woman's blood. Another running DNA from her liver which has differing DNA and the third test sample from her fetus. We tell the person running the tests which one is the woman's blood and ask him to show which of the other two are a human being. He will not be able to do so.

That's it. As your friends say, "Fair and balanced. No spin." :)
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that an unborn belongs to another species? If so, please identify which species it belongs to and when it undergoes a metamorphosis into a human being. It's ridiculous to suggest that the offspring of two human beings could be something other than a human being at any point of development.

E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977) "Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."
 
Thing1 said:
Real science? Like the "dictionary definition" you provided?
Click to expand...
Refer to post one. Also the only "dictionary definition" I've provided was a quote to Black's Law Dictionary, the legal dictionary referenced by higher courts.
 
apple0154 said:
Science used to say chimp's DNA was 98% the same as humans. Now the percentage had dropped to 96% all the while science still doesn't know how many genes a human being has!
Click to expand...

that doesn't change the fact that testing the DNA can easily determine that the fetus is NOT a chimp and that the fetus is NOT its mother......the fetus is a distinct human being......

apple0154 said:
The person conducting the tests would not be able to tell if those were samples from two different human beings or the from the same human being meaning DNA can not determine what is and what isn't a human being. It can only determine human material.
Click to expand...

however, it would be able to show that the DNA was not the same......and that is what is significant.....science would be occurring in a controlled environment and the person who withdrew the sample would have documented which sample came from the fetus and which came from the mother......thus your incapacity is overcome....
 
apple0154 said:
But the fetus isn't threatening her life. The fault lies with her defective body. To use your argument is to say should a person require a life-saving drug, say insulin, and the pharmacist refuses to give it to her because she has no money she has the right to kill the pharmacist and take the drug.
Click to expand...

oh look, Thing1.....apples!......
 
apple0154 said:
How about providing something that does show there is a human being at the moment of conception. 30,000 genes? 20,000 genes? Science doesn't even know how many genes human beings have but they supposedly know a fertilized cell does have them?
Click to expand...

it could be done quite simply.....were you not aware of that?.......in the process of in vitrio fertilization the doctors at that point could tell the client what sex the child would be and whether it was prone to any genetic diseases......
 
apple0154 said:
We can run three tests. One using DNA from a woman's blood. Another running DNA from her liver which has differing DNA and the third test sample from her fetus. We tell the person running the tests which one is the woman's blood and ask him to show which of the other two are a human being. He will not be able to do so.
Click to expand...

??....not true, he could tell you that all three are from human beings.....he would also be able to tell you that one is a blood sample, one is from a liver and the third is fetal tissue.....
 
WoLong said:
Are you suggesting that an unborn belongs to another species? If so, please identify which species it belongs to and when it undergoes a metamorphosis into a human being. It's ridiculous to suggest that the offspring of two human beings could be something other than a human being at any point of development.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not suggesting the unborn belong to another species. What I'm saying is we don't know if the fertilized cell/conception has the necessary ingredients to become a human being. A cell from a person's skin usually has the same DNA as the person's heart and lungs and blood and brain and .....in other words the skin cell has the same DNA as a human being but it is not a human being. It is a skin cell.

Neither scientists nor anyone else know if every fertilized cell has the necessary components to be considered offspring just as a skin cell is not considered offspring. That is the point. Scientists went through that when they first started cloning. They "made" what they thought was a fertilized cell or an "offspring" but nothing developed and when we realize 50% of fertilized cells or offspring spontaneously abort it's reasonable to conclude they were not all offspring. They could have been nothing more than two cells which fused similar to how two cells can fuse in the womb resulting in two hypothetical people becoming one. Two unique DNAs fusing to become one. If they were Bob and Bill is the resulting product Bob or Bill or neither but a John? If the fusing results in a John and John continues to divide and grow does that mean John is the offspring of Bill and Bob?

Who decides these things? Who knows enough about conception to decide? With all the brains and technology scientists can not even reproduce guaranteed results. Some age and die prematurely. Others contract strange illnesses and deformities.

This idea that anti-abortionists believe science knows all about conception and human beings when it comes to abortion is the same old re-play from times past when people talked about souls entering male fetuses before female fetuses and how the movement of the fetus, the quickening, was the soul moving in. We can look back now and see the silliness of it but it wasn't silly then. Laws were based on such foolishness even though people didn't have a clue about what was happening and it's the same thing today.

For thousands of years people have played around with woman's rights regarding abortion. Any reason, regardless how absurd, was used to prevent abortion going as far as, "1869 – Pope Pius IX forbids all abortions in exchange for France’s Napoleon III acknowledging papal infallibility. France’s population experienced a sharp decrease over the previous 60 years." Of course France's population declined and women stopped having babies. All they were doing was producing offspring to send to the slaughter of war. Talk about a deal made in hell! Can we honestly condemn women after all the lies and bullshit they were fed?

As for the cells being a human being "at any point of development" do we know what hormones or other "ingredients" are supplied by the mother to produce a baby? As the fetus is developing inside the woman do we have any idea if the natural electrical charge of her body starts certain processes? What the hell do we really know beside the obvious that if a pregnancy does go to completion a woman is going to bear a human being and not a goat. Our ancestors figured that one out a long time ago.

And, finally, "Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."

Yes, it can be something else. It can be a bunch of cells just like liver or kidney or skin cells and they sure as hell are not considered a human life.

I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Lord Kelvin circa 1900, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Of course, a gentleman by the name of A. Einstein threw the proverbial wrench in that.

When scientists really know what happens, when they can determine a fertilized cell/conception has all the necessary components, then I'll consider it a baby/human being. It's long past time for women to have the benefit of the doubt. They've been lied to for centuries and like many things in today's society the truth is coming out. Again, refer to msg. #172. http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2315693&page=1 There is no more tolerance for the lies and assumptions and mistakes that have been made in the past which caused untold grief to women.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
it could be done quite simply.....were you not aware of that?.......in the process of in vitrio fertilization the doctors at that point could tell the client what sex the child would be and whether it was prone to any genetic diseases......
Click to expand...

Posted Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, at 7:15 AM ET
The Seattle test can also reveal unexpected paternity. Should doctors have to disclose this, or should parents be able to opt out of being informed?
Whole-genome fetal sequencing is still years away from being used in the real world. It's a good thing, as we have a lot to sort out before then.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...al_genome_what_is_a_healthy_baby_anyway_.html
 
evince said:
dear fucking dick slurping assminer.

I hear there are lots of guys who want ot fuck you.
Click to expand...

Now-now Desh.
There's no need to get your short hairs in an uproar.

You're comment would speak more of who you're hanging around with, then it would me. :D
I heard the only reason you go to a gynecologist, is to make sure you haven't grown shut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top