apple0154
MEOW
Of course there would be a need. Something is growing inside a human being (woman) and she wants it removed. Just because something grows inside a woman's body does not mean it's an organism.
Abortion
- Thread starter WoLong
- Start date
Of course there would be a need. Something is growing inside a human being (woman) and she wants it removed. Just because something grows inside a woman's body does not mean it's an organism.
apple0154
MEOW
Fine, IF it's an organism then remove it and let it grow somewhere else.
apple0154
MEOW
Every time someone changes a job isn't there a new company that gathers your information?
How does that work, anyway? Let's say the Acme Company (the one Wile E. Coyote orders from) has a group insrance policy for the employees. If the costs go up too high will the insurance company charge the Acme Company higher premiums? If so, is Acme allowed to see why the costs rose? Was it due to Mrs. Smith in accounting or her husband who builds rockets that eliminate road runners? Do the bosses at the Acme Company get to view the employee's medical records to see why costs increase?
apple0154
MEOW
Ms. Boxer mentioned the baby arriving at home the same way one would explain to a child where babies come from. Obviously, Ms. Boxer realized Mr. Santorum had no idea what he was talking about. Here was a woman who had birthed three children being badgered by a man whose ignorance was glaring. As I mentioned previous Mr. Santorum, when discussing partial birth abortions, asked if it was considered a birth if the entire fetus’ body was outside the woman but a toe was caught. That question is nonsensical when discussing partial birth abortion because the feet are delivered first. Unless the fetus had toes growing out the top of its head there is no way the entire body could be outside the woman while a toe was caught.
What was she supposed to tell the ignorant, arrogant guy? Not only was he an idiot but he continued to make an ass of himself by badgering her about it. Did you notice he looked pissed off when he finally sat down? Maybe something clicked in his thick head and he realized he had just made a complete fool of himself.
When does birth take place? I tried to explain that by using the following analogy. “If anyone ever had an elderly family member die in hospital they know the doctors didn't do an EEG before pronouncing death. The doctor didn't write "breathing stopped at 10:15 pm, the heart stopped at 10:16 pm, the brain showed no activity after..... The time of death is written somewhere between 10:15 and 10:16. Pick a time.
The same applies to a birth. If the baby is completely out of the woman’s body at 10:05 am and the umbilical cord is immediately cut then the doctor will probably look at the clock. If the clock shows 10:06 then 10:06 will be noted as the time of birth. Do you want to say 10:05? No problem.
As for delivering the placenta that is part of the birthing process but not germane to the time of birth as there could be a considerable lapse of time in between. Not usually but it does happen.
Is that clear enough?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You're babbling, STY.....essentially you have NO logical response to the the TRUTH of my statement. Forcing a woman to to complete an unwanted pregnancy is PRECISELY what anti-abortionist are advocating....THAT is in direct contradiction to the neocon/teabagger/libertarian lunkhead credo of voiding the federal gov't mandates as much as possible from their private lives and decisions.
Grow up and deal with it, STY....you guys have once again painted yourselves into a corner.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
The Dixie Dunce rides again!
No gov't order tells you to abandon your health care insurance if you like it.
Getting your employer to provide health insurance is part of the "common good" that gov't is suppose to look out for. If they can't afford it, they can get ASSISTANCE to do so, and the INDIVIDUAL gets a choice. In the long run, COSTS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC GOES DOWN REGARDING HEALTHCARE.
You STILL can't refute my statement regarding abortion. Grow up.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and once again you make yourself look like a total dumbass by lumping in all others not like you as one single group, especially given the fact that I am pro choice. Essentially you have no answer for a very accurate portrayal of your idiocy as it concerns the rights of everyone, so grow up and deal with it. you'd save yourself alot of grief by just coming out and saying that you don't care about the constitutional rights of anyone but yourself.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
What is growing is a human organism which is alive and living. We've established it can't possibly be anything else, unless the laws of the universe stopped working or an alien abduction happened. Since it is a living human organism, in the state of being, (i.e.; a human being) the woman no longer has inherent right to ownership because we don't own people in America anymore.
Again, can't do that, it can't live outside the womb just yet. This doesn't mean it's not a living organism, because you can't survive in extreme environment either. No organism can be expected to live outside the extremes of a suitable environment. The fact that here, you admit, we can continue to 'let it grow', also proves it must be a living organism and you fully comprehend that it is... clumps of tissue can't ever continue to grow outside of the host organism. Again, in your ill-fated attempt to make your point, you have refuted your own argument.
As for "women's rights" I believe fully in a woman's right to choose, but I believe the decision to have sexual intercourse without a condom, is a choice. I have no problem with women making that choice, but they should have to live with the consequences of their choices, shouldn't they? Are we arguing for the woman's unfettered right to make unlimited choices, regardless of the consequence or repercussions or who gets killed? I also believe in the Constitutional right to LIFE! A human being at the earliest stage of development, is no less a person than you or I, they just need time to develop. Are we going to argue that value as a person depends on development? If that is the case, it's quite ironic that your mentally underdeveloped ass is taking the moronic position you're taking.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
LMFAOooo... The question is; Does the cost go down after it has risen 500% or more? Because, what we are seeing right now, is a massive INCREASE in health care insurance premiums, and no reduced cost of health care at all. Yeah... IF you LIKE your health care insurance that is now costing you three or four times more... you can keep it! Whoopie! IF you are lucky enough to have a JOB!
Yes... SOMEBODY needs to GROW UP! Some people need to learn that choices come with responsibility for the consequences, and our government can't provide us all with "free" stuff!
apple0154
MEOW
Talking about mentally undeveloped it is you who has refuted your argument. First, you write, "we don't own people in America" and then claim women shouldn't have the unfettered right to their own body. I don't know what your interpretation of "owning" is but if forcing a human being to grow something inside their body isn't owning them I'd like to hear your definition.
It's strange you don't believe the government has an obligation to provide housing for the homeless, that the homeless can suffer and even die from being exposed to an extreme environment (winter, for example), but have no problem insisting a woman's body be used to shelter a clump of cells that may or may not develop into a human being.
You see, Dix, it's things like that which show your concern is not for any human being, potential or otherwise, because if it was you'd be the first person to support government intervention/laws insisting the homeless have shelter. You'd be championing ObamaCare. You'd be demanding more money for seniors so they could afford food and medication.
You demand the government force a woman to provide an environment for a clump of cells which you believe is a human being, provide an environment to the extent the woman has to literally use her blood and organs to do so, yet rant against giving a few dollars to provide an environment for the homeless. When it's a choice between saving lives and saving a dollar we all know where you stand. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
apple0154
MEOW
We all know the solution. A single payer system. Dozens of countries have one and they ALL save money. No exceptions. AND the majority of the citizens in every country with a one payer system insist on keeping it. What else is there to know? What else is there to consider? It's less expensive. Same or greater longevity. Supported by the vast majority of citizens. What more do you want?
007
New member
No waiting lists.
Paying customers first.
It's wrong to expect a paying customer to get in line behind a scumbag who didnt pay anything.
That's fanatical totalitarianisms main flaw.
It rewards the lazy and punishes the motivated.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Hasn't happened in the history of man.
No, I claimed they shouldn't have unfettered freedom of choice regardless of consequence.
No one 'forced' the woman to grow a human being inside her. She made the choice to do the action which lead to this result, it was fully her choice. Nevertheless, a human being grows inside her, by her own actions and choices. It's important to acknowledge that you are admitting a living organism does exist, and this is a good start for you.
The clump of cells became a human being the point it started creating more cells, it can't be anything else. This is scientifically conclusive, there is no question what it is. The woman's body isn't being used by anything she didn't help create by producing an egg cell and engaging in sexual intercourse without protection.
Shut the fuck up about homeless shelters, you can't divert the conversation from the topic now, it's far too late for such antics. That's the whole problem with stomping liberal ass in debate, they blow up into this emotive fucking rant-o-rama about every goddamn liberal issue under the sun! Never fails!
I'VE NOT MADE ANY FUCKING DEMAND!
I EXPECT my government to protect our Constitutional rights.
That includes the right to live, even if you haven't fully developed.
apple0154
MEOW
Nice try but silly. There are a number of things that can grow inside a woman's body including organs, tumors, etc. none of which are organisms.
Your anger is a result of anxiety caused by your cognitive dissonance (anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like). You believe a clump of cells are a human being and champion their supposed rights while having zero empathy for actual human beings who are suffering. It's understandable such conflicted beliefs would cause stress.
And a woman has the Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and you want to punish her for doing something from which human beings derive the greatest happiness; namely, boinking. Not only another example of conflicted beliefs but I surmise a good dose of jealousy/envy. That's not very manly of you.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And this would be a lovely point if someone had argued the only way for something to grow inside a woman was to be an organism. Anything that "grows" has to be alive because of some organism, unless the laws of the universe stopped working, we've covered this already. A tumor or cyst "grows" as a result of the human organism it's in, it can't reproduce it's own cells. A liver or kidney "grows" as the result of the organism it is in, it can't reproduce it's own cells. A fetus reproduces it's own cells, and is it's own organism.
Also, the 'argument' has nothing to do with whether it's an organism living in the woman's body, because there is certainly the possibility she could have undesirable organisms growing inside her body at any time, we all can. No one is advocating prohibition on getting rid of organisms. It is human organisms which are the important distinction here. This is because humans have human rights, and parasites don't.
I'm not angry. I know for a scientific fact, what you continue to call a "clump of cells" is a human being, and I've made you look so ridiculous in your arguments to the contrary, you can't do anything but repeat yourself like an idiot. I've never said I had "zero empathy" for anyone or anything, that is your false perception. This argument isn't about how to address and deal with societal problems, it's about killing the unborn at a rate of over a million per year, for vanity and convenience sake.
In America, we spay and neuter our pets, but I bet you, if we allowed procedures like "partial birth" to be performed on any other animal, PETA would be standing on their ear in protest! It would be deemed unethical and inhumane in every regard, but since it's only human fetuses, it's okay.... because we've allowed idiots such as yourself to define fetuses as clumps of cells.
And a woman has the Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and you want to punish her for doing something from which human beings derive the greatest happiness; namely, boinking. Not only another example of conflicted beliefs but I surmise a good dose of jealousy/envy. That's not very manly of you.
Oh, this is rich! So now, people who support right to life are merely jealous of slut women who like to fuck?
As I stated before, I am not trying to prohibit women from having sex, or punish them for it. People should be responsible for their actions, and if a female makes the choice to have sex and become pregnant, that is a choice she should have to face the consequences for. It's not that complicated. In this entire thread, you will not find one place where I have argued that we need to outlaw all abortions. Our argument was centered around when a living organism exists, and you got your ass stomped. Since then, you've set out to keep repeating the points that were refuted, over and over again, and hope to cover up the ass stomping, like a cat trying to cover a turd in the cat box.
apple0154
MEOW
A liver reproduces cells as long as it’s inside a human body and a fetus reproduces cells as long as it’s inside a human body. Remove either and watch what happens. The woman’s body can and does influence the growth of the liver’s cells AND the woman’s body can and does influence the growth of fetus’ cells (epigenetics). The woman’s blood and organs and basic metabolism enable the liver to grow/live just as the woman’s blood and organs and basic metabolism enable a fetus to grow/live.
You talk about Constitutional Rights yet demand the use of a woman’s body. It doesn’t matter if it’s an organ or a clump of cells you think is a human being. No one, absolutely no one, has the obligation to use their organs and blood to support anything. It’s as simple as that.
Fine but no human has the right to use another human being’s organs and blood. What you refer to as a human being, nothing more than a clump of cells, uses a woman’s body in the same way an organ does. Even a parasitic organism does not use a woman’s body to the same extent as that clump of cells do.
Living inside a woman, physically attached to the woman, completely dependent on the woman’s blood and organs and very metabolism, its genes directly influenced by the woman to the extent she can instruct the cells, through the genes (epigenetics), to grow or not grow…. to claim it’s not part of the woman’s body is absurd.
You’re wrong on so many counts. First, I don’t give a damn how science (science: nothing more than human beings determining things, deciding on classifications) determines what is and what isn’t a human being. There is no “universal truth” involved here. It’s simply men and women, mostly men, gathered together and deciding what to classify something. That’s all it is.
Reminds me of Lord Kelvin, Scottish mathematician and physicist, who claimed, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Then along came Einstein and proved him wrong. He, Lord Kelvin, is also credited with saying, “"heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” Yea, right.
Then we have that DNA nonsense from 10 years ago when a woman’s biological children couldn’t possibly be her children.
When something is living inside another human being and is physically connected to that human being and is fully dependent on that human being’s blood and organs and other bodily functions to survive and grow then it is part of that human being. But, being the nice guy that I am, I can see not everyone agrees and that’s fine. Simply remove what they think is not a part of the woman’s body.
When women go for an abortion they do not say, “Kill that clump of cells that are inside me.” All they ask is that they/it be removed. For those who believe that clump of cells are a human being, fine. Keep them but don’t try to force women to use their body to support your belief.
As far as abortions being for “vanity and convenience sake”, again, it’s obvious you don’t give a damn about human beings. The single Mom ending up in poverty. The child growing up being neglected and it, too, having a much greater chance ending up in poverty if not in prison. Your faux concern fools no one.
I have repeatedly said I feel such fetuses should be euthanized prior to the procedure. Once the fetus is partially out of the woman’s body the umbilical cord is accessible. Clamp the cord and euthanize the fetus. Even regular abortions could be done that way. Access the umbilical cord, clamp it, then euthanize the fetus.
The only turd here is you, Dix.
Yes, I have repeated an organism is supposed to be able to carry on the processes of life independently. To say something that lives inside a human being, is physically attached to that human being, that wholly depends on that human being’s blood and organs and other bodily functions, whose cell growth can be instructed by genes which, in turn, are instructed by the human being in which it lives….to say that “something” is an independent organism, a human being, is preposterous.
As for being jealous we have seen men control women throughout history so don’t even try to defend your position. Why do you think virginity was/is so highly rated? Because each woman is born with a predetermined number of sexual intercourses she's capable of having? Like the mileage on a used car? We don’t want “mileage” on a woman’s vagina. Or is there another reason? Like control, maybe? And regarding taking responsibility that’s exactly what women do who have an abortion. They take responsibility not to end up on welfare. They take responsibility not to bring a human being into the world knowing it will suffer due to the greed and selfishness of others.
You and others like you want to use children as a punishment for women who have sex. Punishment for women who look for companionship and love and willingly give their body to their partner. You’re a sick fuck and the only stomping that’s evident is someone stomped on your brains.
Your perverted, so-called morality is dying. Countries throughout the world are permitting abortions because the truth is coming out. The truth that souls don’t enter male fetuses before female fetuses. The truth that quickening is not the rumblings of the soul entering a fetus. The truth that the Emperor of France made a deal with the Pope in 1869 wherein the Emperor declared the Pope infallible in exchange for the Pope outlawing abortion, at any stage, in order to provide male children for the slaughter of war.
The game is up, Dixie. But like your support of the Repub candidates while we watched them drop like flies until even Rove showed his delusion on live TV you keep on going. It’s not good for you.
I suppose I shouldn’t call you a sick fuck. Even “deluded ass” is a bit harsh because I realize you must live a terrible life always being on the wrong side of issues. I can understand you having a negative outlook on the world but it all has to do with the way you perceive it. Take time to research epigenetics. YouTube has a few good videos if you prefer to listen rather than read. You’ll see the fetus is more “a part of” rather than “apart from” the woman.
Knowledge will set you free.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, the liver doesn't produce cells, it can't, it's not an organism. The host organism which uses the liver, it can reproduce cells because it's the organism.
Chop off your finger and dunk your cat in the bathtub and watch what happens! The finger isn't an organism, it doesn't reproduce its own cells, and detached from an organism, will eventually cease to be viable as an appendage. The kitty in the tub, is a living organism, and when placed in an unsuitable environment, will also cease to remain viable as an organism. The fact that both share commonality in deterioration, has nothing to do with what they are.
The "Mom Organism" will continue to provide "influence" in the growth of the "Child Organism" for the next 18 years or so. Again, this has nothing to do with what the "Child Organism" is. We can often tell a lot about an organism because of this influence, like in your case, your "Mom Organism" was apparently sniffing glue and smoking crack, while drinking homemade absinthe. This would explain your retarded condition and wild imagination.
I've not demanded anything, we've been over this as well. I am merely making statements of fact that you can't refute. If some mystical troll had sneaked into the bedroom while the woman was sleeping and put a living human organism inside her body, you may have a point... If Baptists tied her down and forced a baby inside her womb, you may have a point... but that's not how organisms are created. No one forced the woman to engage in the activity which caused an organism to exist, if she was forced, it's called "rape" and she should have the right to choose abortion in that case.
Now you can get appalled and act all incredulous about it, flail your hands and rant on and on... the fact remains, the fetus is a living human organism in the state of being. You can not change that fact. It's not a clump of tissue, it's a male or female organism, a he or she. And YES, we most certainly DO have the right to obligate guardians to take care of their children. Sorry if that inconveniences you, it's how civilized people behave.
What I refer to as a "living human organism" is exactly that, because you haven't refuted this fact. I'm going to save us the agony of reading anymore of your stupidity and not re-post the remainder of your manifesto. It's essentially all a repeat of what you've said the past 10 pages and for the past two years. You can write volumes of stupidity on this, Apple, it's not going to change facts.
apple0154
MEOW
I don't understand why you continue on with your ignorance when I have offered information that will educate you. The woman, being an organism, can and does instruct her liver's cells to grow or not grow. Also, the woman can instruct her fetus's cells to grow or not grow. Bring up Google and type in "E-P-I-G-E-N-E-T-I-C-S". I know you're a cheap individual so pour yourself an inexpensive blended scotch, light up a moderately priced stogie, sit in your faux-leather chair and LEARN!
You do insist on showcasing your ignorance. I'm not sure why. Once the fetus has left the body the mother does not interact with the fetus's cells/genes as it is disconnected from the mother. Disconnected....like you are from facts.
Kill an innocent human being because of the way it was created? As I said before you suffer from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. First you claim a clump of cells are a human being and then claim a woman should have the right to kill that human being depending on how it was created. Are you or are you not concerned about those imaginary human beings?
I guess this is just one more thing we can add to the pro-life philosophy along with the death penalty and war and ......well, a fellow poster here has a signature that explains the pro-life hypocrisy. I'm sure you've seen it.
This is the third time, in one post, you have displayed your ignorance. You really are trying for that gold, aren't you? You wrote, "It's not a clump of tissue, it's a male or female organism, a he or she." Wrong! All conceptions start out with female characteristics and some might become a she or might become a he or might become a combination of both or might end up being neither.
Please, Dix, LEARN. It's not that difficult. You keep talking about high school biology but we have learned things since then. We have learned things in the last 10 years regarding DNA. We are learning things about epigenetics as we type. Over the course of history there have been people much like yourself who were anti-abortionists and put forward the craziest of reasons. Absurd reasons. Wacky reasons. Reasons that could have only come out their ass.
You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the head. Let's recap. The woman can and does interface with the fetus' cells by instructing the genes what to do. I'm not talking about what a mother serves her child for dinner and how it may affect him/her. I'm talking about direct manipulation on a cellular level which immediately ceases once the fetus is physically detached from the woman. A mother can not manipulate the cells/genes of her one year old child in any way similar to what she could do when the fetus was inside her.
The second fact you were either unaware of or refused to acknowledge is there is no he or she at the time of conception. As I posted in the "We were all female" thread the video explains there was no Dixie until 5 or 6 weeks after conception. You could have been a Daisy, as in Daisy Duke.
Who knows? Maybe you're a shemale. Maybe you look good in Daisy Duke shorts.
Anyway, the point is at the time of conception there isn't a John or Mary or anyone else in particular. It all depends on what genes are activated and the "Y" gene isn't activated until the 5th or 6th week. Of course, there are numerous other genes out of the 20,000 or so genes that have to be activated in order to make a human being and that's assuming none are missing. The fact is science doesn't even know how many genes we have let alone what they do so this idea there is a human being at the moment of conception is blatant nonsense.
Please, Dix, do try to learn. Discussing this with you is like discussing smart phones with a telegraph operator 150 years ago.
This is as far as I got before the laughter overcame me....
"the woman instructs her liver cells to grow or not grow" and....
"the woman can instruct her fetus's cells to grow or not grow"......
Maybe she can grow another liver or regenerate another toe if she needs one......and
I guess thats the end of abortion as we know it....the women needs only to instruct her fetus NOT to grow and that will be the end of it....how simple.
Could she instruct her eggs to reject fertilization in the first place and stop the process before it starts ? Damn, biology is so simple for Apple
How utterly stupid.